Monday, June 14, 2004
The Pledge Ruling
Today the Supreme Court ruled that they could not sustain the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to forbid formal recitations or other things that contain "God" in them, including the Pledge of Allegiance, with its "under God". The reason is dissatisfying because it goes off on a side issue. They could not support the decision or Michael Newdow's suit on behalf of his daughter because he does not have custody of his daughter and so could not speak on her behalf. That leaves unanswered the main question, namely whether the word "God" is permitted to be a part of ceremonies at a school. Apparently Dr. Newdow broke up with his wife and lost the daughter before he could drum up a suit. That makes the suit defective.
We need a better case. The word "God" does not belong in any ceremony or any program at a public school, because not all people believe in a God, and the Constitution forbids an establishment of religion in the public arena, and the words "under God" constitute an establishment of religion, in my opinion. We need someone to sue a school system over use of "God" in the pledge. This someone needs to have custody of children who go to this school system; it would be best if both members of a couple filed the suit - this shows unity on the issue. Further, this suit must be capable of going to the highest court in the land. Therefore this couple needs to be from the San Francisco area so that the 9th Circuit Court will get the case. I can't do it. I do not have school children, or even grandchildren, and I am not from San Francisco. Someone from that metropolitan area needs to step up to the plate in this Ballgame of the Pledge and hit a home run for the First Amendment. Fortunately, I heard that there are more cases coming up.
We need a better case. The word "God" does not belong in any ceremony or any program at a public school, because not all people believe in a God, and the Constitution forbids an establishment of religion in the public arena, and the words "under God" constitute an establishment of religion, in my opinion. We need someone to sue a school system over use of "God" in the pledge. This someone needs to have custody of children who go to this school system; it would be best if both members of a couple filed the suit - this shows unity on the issue. Further, this suit must be capable of going to the highest court in the land. Therefore this couple needs to be from the San Francisco area so that the 9th Circuit Court will get the case. I can't do it. I do not have school children, or even grandchildren, and I am not from San Francisco. Someone from that metropolitan area needs to step up to the plate in this Ballgame of the Pledge and hit a home run for the First Amendment. Fortunately, I heard that there are more cases coming up.
