Post by Maverick on Mar 24, 2004 10:40:33 GMT -5
Phrase 'one nation under God' under fire
The U.S. Senate rose as a group to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in June 2002, after a lower court ruled against "one nation under God."
Last Updated Wed, 24 Mar 2004 8:57:58
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a landmark case Wednesday from religious libertarians trying to remove the phrase "one nation under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance recited by public school students each morning.
They say it violates the U.S. Constitution, which bans religious exercises in publicly funded institutions.
California doctor and atheist Michael Newdow filed the challenge against the pledge on behalf of his nine-year-old daughter, a student in the Elk Grove Unified School District.
In 2002, a federal appeals court agreed with his contention that the four-word phrase violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.
FROM JUNE 27, 2002: U.S. politicians outraged over ruling that bans Pledge of Allegiance
The Supreme Court is hearing an appeal of that ruling, with Newdow and more than a dozen church-state-separation activist groups and atheist organizations on one side, and traditionalists, religious organizations and state and federal governments on the other.
Doug Laycock, a Texas law professor who supports the separation of church and state, said the pledge as it is written now has no place in public schools.
"We have linked religion and politics, patriotism and religion," he said. "The only way to avoid that is to drop out mid-sentence and come back in."
The words "under God" are not part of the original Pledge of Allegiance, written in 1892. They were added in 1954, during the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
By law, public school students can't be forced to recite the pledge, but Laycock said it's unfair to create a "coercive environment" where other students utter the contentious words all around the objectors.
Supporters of including "under God" say that is nonsense.
"Look, it's part of the American experience," said Jay Sekulow, one of the lawyers asking the court to keep the pledge intact. "We'd be denying reality if we said religion and patriotism are not our experience."
Sekulow, who is chief counsel to the American Center for Law and Justice, a non-profit law firm devoted to religious and civil liberties, said a court ruling against the phrase could call into question many other traditions, including the national motto "In God We Trust" and the singing of God Bless America.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the matter in June, just five months before the presidential election where other religious and cultural issues such as gay marriage are sure to be topics of heated debate.
However, the court has a way of avoiding a contentious ruling if it chooses.
The man who launched the challenge, Michael Newdow, never married his daughter's mother and may not have the right to bring the case on her behalf because he has not always had joint custody of the child.
In another twist, the girl's mother, Sandra Banning, is a born-again Christian who does not want her daughter to be part of the court proceedings in Washington.
The U.S. Senate rose as a group to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in June 2002, after a lower court ruled against "one nation under God."
Last Updated Wed, 24 Mar 2004 8:57:58
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a landmark case Wednesday from religious libertarians trying to remove the phrase "one nation under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance recited by public school students each morning.
They say it violates the U.S. Constitution, which bans religious exercises in publicly funded institutions.
California doctor and atheist Michael Newdow filed the challenge against the pledge on behalf of his nine-year-old daughter, a student in the Elk Grove Unified School District.
In 2002, a federal appeals court agreed with his contention that the four-word phrase violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.
FROM JUNE 27, 2002: U.S. politicians outraged over ruling that bans Pledge of Allegiance
The Supreme Court is hearing an appeal of that ruling, with Newdow and more than a dozen church-state-separation activist groups and atheist organizations on one side, and traditionalists, religious organizations and state and federal governments on the other.
Doug Laycock, a Texas law professor who supports the separation of church and state, said the pledge as it is written now has no place in public schools.
"We have linked religion and politics, patriotism and religion," he said. "The only way to avoid that is to drop out mid-sentence and come back in."
The words "under God" are not part of the original Pledge of Allegiance, written in 1892. They were added in 1954, during the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
By law, public school students can't be forced to recite the pledge, but Laycock said it's unfair to create a "coercive environment" where other students utter the contentious words all around the objectors.
Supporters of including "under God" say that is nonsense.
"Look, it's part of the American experience," said Jay Sekulow, one of the lawyers asking the court to keep the pledge intact. "We'd be denying reality if we said religion and patriotism are not our experience."
Sekulow, who is chief counsel to the American Center for Law and Justice, a non-profit law firm devoted to religious and civil liberties, said a court ruling against the phrase could call into question many other traditions, including the national motto "In God We Trust" and the singing of God Bless America.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the matter in June, just five months before the presidential election where other religious and cultural issues such as gay marriage are sure to be topics of heated debate.
However, the court has a way of avoiding a contentious ruling if it chooses.
The man who launched the challenge, Michael Newdow, never married his daughter's mother and may not have the right to bring the case on her behalf because he has not always had joint custody of the child.
In another twist, the girl's mother, Sandra Banning, is a born-again Christian who does not want her daughter to be part of the court proceedings in Washington.