|
Post by bluebutterfly on Jun 14, 2004 5:34:42 GMT -5
Supreme Court Decides Pledge Case on a Technicality The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that California atheist Michael Newdow lacked the right to bring a constitutional challenge to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, avoiding a decision on the key church-state issue... The ruling by the justices was based on the technicality that Newdow could not bring the case before the court because he did not have legal control over his daughter, on whose behalf he was arguing... story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040614/ts_nm/court_pledge_dc
|
|
|
Post by earthmother on Jun 14, 2004 11:59:53 GMT -5
A member on another site informed us all that the "under God" phrase was put in the Pledge during the Red Scare of the '50s. Since it does violate the principle of separation of church and state, and also doesn't allow for those people who don't believe in God at all, I believe the phrase should be taken out.
Also, what wimps those Supreme Court justices are, to avoid the issue altogether by refusing to hear the case based on a technicality. I hope Newdow pursues this. It's time someone put those justices in their place.
|
|
|
Post by GSC Admin on Jun 14, 2004 20:42:16 GMT -5
This is one of those issues I dislike. I don't think religon should dictate anything in government or public arenas. I also hate when politicans wear their faith on their sleeves and use it for political gain. Faith, to me, is a deep personal issue. It is private, and should not be forced on anyone, in anyway. If this is the best way to prevent it from happening, so be it.
|
|