SCOTUS tells Newdow to piss off

[Drake Tungsten]

[sweet sauce mode]
Though technically this is copy-paste crap posting, unless you somehow managed to delete the article from the CNN website...
[/sweet sauce mode]

True enough.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What actual, concrete injury does any parent suffer from this? Maybe a say in the society in which their progeny are reared, just for ****s and giggles.

That's nice, but that isn't standing.

Btw, most of the stories don't tell you this (a NY Times one does), but the final decision was 8-0 against Newdow. 5 Justices said he had no standing and 3 (Rehnquest, O'Conner, and Thomas) said that the pledge wasn't unconstitutional. Scalia recused himself from the case. So it wasn't like this was a really close vote, Newdow was done either way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/politics/15pledge.html?hp

Justice Stevens said that "the interests of this parent and this child are not parallel and, indeed, are potentially in conflict." He said that while Dr. Newdow was free to "instruct his daughter in his religious views," California law did not give him "a right to dictate to others what they may and may not say to his child respecting religion."

Now if a kid was suing and backed by his parent's money (for attorney costs) then you could get standing.

stop taxing these people to pay for public schools

Fine with me.

in 1943 it was one of the Christian sects that objected to the then compulsory pledge and the SCOTUS ruled in their favor. So what's the difference? It's "voluntary" now? Hardly!

So you can't simply refuse to say the pledge? I'm sorry, but that's false, because I know there were people who did refuse in my schools. They didn't feel coerced by having to listen to others recite it.

[Straybow]

whiners

Originally posted by MrFun
I did not know we have the right to be free from being offended.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So if it supports your beliefs, it doesn't matter whether or not it is a violation of the Constitution?

The state has no place affirming the existence of a diety.

Yes, it does matter whether it is in the Constitution. Indirectly, that is the question here: Is a trivial affirmation of a general public belief in a Deity truly prohited by the text of the 1st Amendment? Is drawing the line where the atheists want just as much an affirmation of their religion?

And yes IIRC, an appellate court ruled that atheism is a de facto religion, hence Justice Stevens' comment that Dr. Newdow was free to "instruct his daughter in his religious views." It is not the only religion that doesn't believe in a personal God (eg, Buddhism). It is the only religion with adherents so insecure that they can't hack hearing other people say "under God" in the Pledge. Sounds like a person problem, not a policy issue. GET OVER IT.

As for telling people to just go to another school, unless you live in a big city, that requires moving or other unreasonable expenses. People should not have to be forced to withdraw from public activities in order to have their rights not violated by the state.

As for expenses if social pressures at one school made not reciting the Pledge unpleasant for the child (not demonstrated in this case), dissent is a right that has consequences. If you can't hack the consequences it isn't up to the state or society to fund something more convenient to you, or to shelter your pansy arse from criticism. If some tangible crime of harassment is involved press charges.

Originally posted by notyoueither
What actual, concrete injury does any parent suffer from this? Maybe a say in the society in which their progeny are reared, just for ****s and giggles.

If your notion of religion is incapable of persuading a majority of your peers, you've had your say now put up and shut up.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I am sure Christians will be offended if the kids are to recite something with "...there is no God..." in it.

And no one has the right to be free from being offended.



NEXT

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


So if it supports your beliefs, it doesn't matter whether or not it is a violation of the Constitution?

The state has no place affirming the existence of a diety.

As for telling people to just go to another school, unless you live in a big city, that requires moving or other unreasonable expenses. People should not have to be forced to withdraw from public activities in order to have their rights not violated by the state.

I would not see any problem with a school that does not compel a student to say the pledge, yet has other students say the pledge in that student's presence.

[MrFun]

And Che -- allowing someone the choice of whether or not to say the pledge -- even with the words "under God" does not violation the Constitution since the person is left with a free choice.

[Berzerker]

John T -

Perhaps the child doesn't feel like being a pawn in her dad's fight against his ideological boogy-man?

He is a parent and has a right to see to his daughter's religious or non-religious upbringing just as Christian parents who objected to the state coercing their kids to affirm a belief in no god or satan have the right. The reason his daughter was dragged into this, and Newdow never named her, the media or his opponents named her, was because the state is wishy washy on parental rights when custody is shared. Do you, John, have a right to raise your child as a Christian if that is your religion? Does the state have the "right" to "invite" your child into a state school paid for with your money and "ask" her to affirm a belief in Satan?

Given that he didn't even see fit to stay around to watch her grow up, this man is just a whiny bastard who uses his kids, as he pleases, for his own ends, with their wishes not counting in the slightest. If he actually gave a **** about her well-being, he wouldn't have left her.

He has custody 10 days out of each month, the mother got the bulk of the time when their common law marriage was nullified. So accusing him of running out on his daughter is false...

Imran -

So you can't simply refuse to say the pledge? I'm sorry, but that's false, because I know there were people who did refuse in my schools. They didn't feel coerced by having to listen to others recite it.

People can resist coercion, that doesn't mean the coercion doesn't exist. Some people will refuse to hand over their money to a mugger, that doesn't mean the mugger is not trying to coerce money from them. And how do you know if they felt coerced? All it takes for coercion to exist is an expectation of retaliation if the "voluntary" pledge is not recited. C'mon Imran, conservatives often complain about the coercive atmosphere on college campuses created by liberal students and teachers who may retaliate against conservative students for expressing their views and you expect us to believe there is no coercion to recite the pledge?

Hell, tonight O'Reilly insinuated atheists are cockroaches when he said there will be more of them coming out of the woodwork to challenge the pledge. That's how many "Christians" react to atheists, with disdain. Children can see this... The pledge was enacted as a political ploy against the godless commies...the hated godless commies... A child who refuses to recite the pledge is "associating" with these hated people...

Mr Fun -

And Che -- allowing someone the choice of whether or not to say the pledge -- even with the words "under God" does not violation the Constitution since the person is left with a free choice.

Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

How can you freely exercise your religion when the state "asks" you to stand up in front of your classmates and affirm their religious belief? That's why religious tests were prohibited in the Constitution, so that people would not be asked to compromise their religious beliefs in order to hold office. Second, schools aren't even mentioned in the Constitution so how on earth did Congress obtain a constitutional power to direct what children say in school?
Third, NO LAW means just that! So, what does it mean to "establish" religion? Well, asking children to stand up and publicly affirm a belief in someone else's god does "establish" religion.

The pledge violates the Constitution in 3 ways...

Compare this to other issues:

Judge Moore's 10 Commandments monument down in Alabama and "In God We Trust" on money.

Both these do not violate the Constitution because no law was passed by Moore and no one was required or "asked" to observe much less affirm a belief in the 10 Commandments. Now, if Moore "asked" people with cases pending before him in court if they were Christians, that would be coercive. And no one is "asked" to affirm the words on coins... The difference between these 2 issues and the pledge is the latter does put children in the position of making a public affirmation of someone else's religious belief.

"I pledge allegiance to your god". How? By pledging allegiance to the flag which represents "one nation, under God".

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That means he lacks the right to use his daughter as a fig leaf to give him standing to sue over something he otherwise couldn't.

In case you missed it, I'm arguing that he should have a seat at that table. He is a parent, and society has evolved so that there are many such parents who are not custodial.

I'm not going to argue SCOTUS is wrong on American law. I'm not an idiot. But what should be the law is sometimes different from what is the law. That is my point.

[JohnT]

Oooh, he's got custody 10 days a month! Wow, that makes him a loving, caring father

... who can't be bothered with the other 20 days a month.

I'm not concerned with the "standing" - he has it and I'm not arguing that point. The issue here (to me) is motivation: if this guy was so concerned about his kids well-being, he'd be there for them. Period. Now we're presented with a "man" who doesn't think well enough of his own kids to stick around, but thinks well enough of them to lob lawsuits in their name?

Please.

[notyoueither]

Isn't he busy arguing for more access? I could have it wrong, but isn't he?

[JohnT]

He could've gotten it by not ditching her in the first place.

[notyoueither]

... and besides, WTF would it matter? If he and the mother agreed they were better off apart, and the kids were better off with her 100% of the time, he would still be their father. Most people only get two parents, no matter how perfect or flawed those parents may be.

Only two people in the world have that big a stake in a young life, usually, that they should argue passionately for the future of that child. That is what it is all about, isn't it? What is best for that child and how might the state be adversely affecting that?

Maybe a parent can't be there all the time, or maybe the other parent is better at it and the absent one recognises that fact. WTF should cutody have to do with being able to argue for what is good for your child?

[JohnT]

Again, I'm not debating standing, I'm discussing motivation. He didn't care enough to be there for his little girl but he "cares" enough to throw lawsuits around on her behalf.

Unless he's a drunken, abusive lout, what's best for his family is that he be there. Period.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by JohnT
He could've gotten it by not ditching her in the first place.

How about the ones that don't ditch them? What about the ones that are left or kicked out and the children are left to or taken by the other with the stamp of approval of, get this, other courts.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by JohnT
Again, I'm not debating standing, I'm discussing motivation. He didn't care enough to be there for his little girl but he "cares" enough to throw lawsuits around on her behalf.

Unless he's a drunken, abusive lout, what's best for his family is that he be there. Period.

What do you know about him that I do not?