New twist to pledge case. Little girl wanted to say 'under God'. Dad used her.

[- Groucho -]

Like I said - there is no point in continuing. For me at least, case closed.

[Chris 62]

More and more it becomes apparent this whole nonsense was just a nut with an axe to grind.

His own words in the article Ned posted show he cares nothing about the girl's desires, only HE knows what's best.

Just another person usuing a child to further an agenda.

[Jack the Bodiless]

His own words in that article consist of just two sentences:

"I have a right to send my child to a public school without the government inculcating any religious beliefs"

"The main thrust of this case is not my daughter, it's me"

The first is hardly controversial.

As for the second: it sounds like he wants to draw attention away from his daughter. He may also be referring to the recent attempt to accuse him of perjury: the false allegation that the case is based on his daughter's alleged atheism, rather than his own.

It's Newdow himself, not his daughter, who is upset by the school forcing or encouraging his daughter to say a pledge which directly slanders HIM.

So he's right: "The main thrust of this case is not my daughter, it's me".

Newdow is a lawyer himself, I think he knows what he's doing.

[Lincoln]

The federal courts can't address anything unless it's a case of controversy," Little said. "You have to have injury."

Well this poor guy was injured. His poor little mind was hurt at the thought that maybe somewhere, somehow someone might be uttering the 'G' word. Poor baby...

[Jack the Bodiless]

If your own kid was being taught to recite a pledge in which he/she was part of "one nation without Christians": you wouldn't be offended?

[mactbone]

Lincoln - If you lived in the African Jungle and practiced Animism, would it ever occur to you that there is one all-powerful being until someone introduced the idea to you? I would say no. That is the way with me and agnosticism - I had no idea that I didn' have to believe in God. I learned what agnosticism was and now understand that to be what I believe. I was never really a Christian - I was never given a choice to be anything else.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Of course, some Christians are strongly opposed to "under God".

It makes little sense to imply that America is special because it's "under" an omnipresent God of all mankind.

The "us and them" intent is clear: "we are God's people and the others aren't".

Newdow, despite living in America, is one of "the others".

[Lincoln]

I have no problem with agnostics. It is a perfectly logical position without further evidence. Anyone who makes the definitive statement that "there is no God" however is either a fanatic or not using logic to come to that conclusion.

[Lincoln]

The foundation of America is based upon the reasoning of theists. Get used to the idea or make your own revolution that is based upon atheism. Maybe you can get some ideas from Stalin.

[Jack the Bodiless]

"There is no God" is intended to annoy theists. It's our riposte to the equally baseless "You're going to Hell".

[DinoDoc]

Re: Mother to Intervene

Originally posted by Ned
Courts can only hear cases in which there is an injured party, and if there is no injury there is no grounds for a case, said Rory Little, a Hastings College of the Law professor who follows the 9th Circuit.

Wasn't this obvious from the start given the fathers repeated statements that the girl never complained about the pledge? Why wasn't that an issue at trial or was it the reason that the case was thrown back in Newdow's face originally?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The foundation of America is based upon the reasoning of theists. Get used to the idea or make your own revolution that is based upon atheism. Maybe you can get some ideas from Stalin.

The foundation of America is based upon the reasoning (by theists, mostly) that religion is a disastrous ingredient in governments, and institutional secularism is the way to go.

[Jac de Molay]

You guys just keep going in circles.

If your own kid was being taught to recite a pledge in which he/she was part of "one nation without Christians": you wouldn't be offended?

Offended or not, the bigger question is whether it's up to the courts to decide. The gold standard is the First Amendment in this case, which says Congress "shall make no law" regarding the establishment of religion. Please keep in mind that the pledge was adopted but not mandated, or forced upon schools to use as a daily mantra, by congress in either versions. Schools ultimately have the say in whether it should be recited or used.

[Jack the Bodiless]

It's a side issue, yes.

But, as I said earlier, the law in question (as I understand it) is the 1954 law that changed the wording of the pledge, not the new pledge itself.

[Lincoln]

That's why there is no state religion. The key phrase is 'establishment of religion'. The mention of God does not establish a religion, nor is one established by stating the fact that the nation was founded under the precept that the Creator endowed all men with certain rights. What rights does your version of existence guarantee to all men -- the strong survive while they devour the weak?