Pledge II: This time, there’s standing
14 September 2005 by RonThe pledge. It’s back. A little more on what Sean mentioned earlier: Judge Backs Case Seeking End of School Pledge.
A federal judge in California declared today, in a ruling that virtually guarantees another long and emotional battle in the courts, that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional. Judge Lawrence S. Karlton of the United States District Court for Northern California ruled in Sacramento that he was bound by a 2002 ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, covering nine Western states, that the pledge’s reference to God violated the constitutional separation of church and state…. Judge Karlton’s ruling reinstates, albeit in a different way, a lawsuit filed by Dr. Michael A. Newdow, a physician and lawyer who describes himself as an atheist… The judge said he would grant an order restraining the local school districts from having the pledge recited…
Get ready for another wild ride. As the article indicates, the theocrats are already screaming.
14 September 2005, on 11:42 pm
What pisses me off is that we have so many larger issues in this country, like the Iraq war, employment and the deficit, but this argument could overshadow those discussions well into the 2006 election season — just like gay marriage did in ‘04. It’s not that I don’t believe we should have this debate, but church-and-state separatists, and equal rights proponents, are being used to simplify and polarize the arguments so the right can win again and again on these so-called values issues. It sucks. I don’t want the next election to be overshadowed by this issue or any other simplified, polarizing issue. I want it to be about what is actually happening to this country. Eegads.
14 September 2005, on 11:55 pm
P.S.: Here’s one for the bumper sticker crowd. Enjoy.
15 September 2005, on 8:46 am
I think they’re taking the wrong approach. Being forced to say the pledge at all, with or without those words, is coerced patriotism and a violation of the First Amendment. They usually say “but students don’t have to say the pledge”, but everyone knows that’s bunk-what kid wants to be singled out, mocked, pointed to, etc. because they have the backbone to refuse to say it?
15 September 2005, on 9:53 am
I agree wholeheartedly with Matt. The pledge (written by a socialist) was designed to foster a blind obedience to the state. It is not patriotic at all but, rather, nationalistic.