Michael Newdow, is a “minister” of an atheist church. He is also a man on a mission.
He filed a petition all the way up to the Supreme Court to have “under God” removed from the pledge of allegiance. The liberal moonbats in the 9th circuit upheld the district court’s ruling that having those words in the pledge of allegiance served to “create a religion”
Thus it is unconstitutional. Or so went the judicial reasoning.
The Supremes wouldn’t hear his case because he did not have custody of his child and was considered not to have a horse in this race.
So the obsessed Newdow found a couple of other parents willing to fight the horror of mentioning God in the country’s Pledge and he took up the cause again.
Yet another liberal moonbat in a black Darth Vader robe ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional due to the profanity of those two words within the pledge.
This case might make it back up to the Supreme Court and this is where the new Chief Justice John Roberts might make his debut.
I have no idea how the new Chief Justice will rule
Neither does any other Senator in the august United States’ Senate know either.
Because with not one note in front of him, nominee for the Chief Justice slot, John Roberts, fended two grueling days of questioning from, well from Senators who couldn’t hold a candle to the man’s class.
They desperately want to know if Roberts will overturn Roe vs. Wade.
That’s about it.
For all of the posturing and stupidity of blowhards such as Biden and Kennedy, none of them made a dent in Roberts’ calm and classy demeanor. Including a charge of “filibustering”, smirk, smirk, by mine own Senator Biden.
As if a nominee required to answer questions could possibly filibuster the ten minute long questions posed by so many of the camera-smitten Senators.
Roberts, in comparison to the Senatorial inquisition committee, disagreed when required with a fine recitation of just the facts, ma’am.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Anthony, ONE NATION UNDER GOD!!!, Grande
This is something would expect in the Soviet Union not the United States of America.
Thank you liberals for trying to ruin my country.
2 - alethinos59
Oh... the grounds are there in Roberts mind for turning over Roe-v-Wade. His view of a right to privacy in the Constitution - specifically Griswald -v - State of Connecticut. His "interpretation" of that Court's "interpretation" is rather technical and hinges primarily on the fact that it wasn't or shouldn't have been in the SC pervue to deal with this - the State legislature should have. Technically that is certainly one approach and would have been the best...
However, if that is the attitude the Court should have taken, then there is a WHOLE lot of Court decisions that SHOULDN'T have occurred, not the least of which was Brown...
Of course he'd argue that the Court was "kind of" heading toward Brown in the Sweatt -v- Painter (1950)...
Anyway... The problem - as was pointed out on NPR today is that the Dems are trying, if nothing else, to see if there is a beating heart under that lawyer's lawyer surface... Every single answer is SO safe... SO gray...
alethinos
3 - alethinos59
Yes Anthony, it is JUST "your country" thanks for letting the REST of us 285 million hang out here...
PS. I DID chip in for the rent...
4 - steve
Roberts will be a great Chief Justice.
5 - alethinos59
That remains to be seen... Let's hope he is. Otherwise we've got decades of putting up with him.
6 - Michael J. West
As for the Pledge of Allegiance, the constitution requires that the government does NOT establish a religion.
Period.
Not quite. It also requires that the government does NOT establish a religious test for any public trust in the United States. I.e., the government cannot require that any of its citizens take an oath affirming their belief in God.
Having “Under God” in our pledge, or “In God We Trust” on our money, does not in any way establish any sort of religion.
But does it establish a religious test? I don't think it does. But there are frequently bills up before Congress and the several states that would REQUIRE schoolchildren or public servants to recite the pledge of allegiance. If this becomes the case, there's a good chance that it makes the pledge a religious test--unless atheists or agnostics, or people with religions that have no concept of God per se, are exempted from having to recite the "under God" part.
7 - ClubhouseCancer
...the constitution requires that the government does NOT establish a religion.
Period.
No. The Constitution says "the Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."
The verb in that sentence is "make," not "establish." This indicates a wider proscription against state religion than merely the prohibition of "establishing a religion."
Isn't establishing a "pledge of allegiance" that requires people to say they believe in god "making a law RESPECTING the establishment of religion"?
Of course.
8 - Red State
Well isn't atheism/secularism itself kind of a religion? It's the religion of anti-religion.
It's the flip side of the coin. The government can't and shouldn't endorse any particular religion, including atheism/secularism. This is what the ACLU is trying to do with the courts.
The fact is under god has been in the pledge for a long time and no one has had a problem with it until recently with the arrival of the anti-traditional, morally relevant, leftist, radical agenda in this nation.
Also, god, as it used today in America has come to be sort of a generic term that can be used to represent the supreme being or beings in any religion. Ergo, the word itself while implying belief in a supreme being, does not endorse a specific religion.
I say leave it in the pledge and if anyone has a problem with it they don't have to recite it.
When are the American people going to wake up and tell the ACLU and thier far left cronies that thier assault on traditional, decent American values and morals will not be tolerated.
9 - Blue State
No atheism is not a kind of religion. There is no organized practice of whorship or adherence to dogma. There is nothing about the word "GOD" that makes it a generally accepted concept by all Americans. "God" is used to make a specific reference to Monotheistic Religions in general, and Judeo-Christian beliefs in particular. Why not say, "on Nation under the Gods," afterall? Because some Monotheistic Judeo-Christian peoples in this country are trying to make a law respecting the establishment of their religion(s). Also lets not play semantics here, making a law that respects an establishment of one religion or 52 is still expressly forbidden under the first amendment!
Remember, just 50 years before the Constitution was penned Catholics, Quakers, and Jews were being killed and disenfranchised for their religious beliefs. Madison and Jefferson hated the idea of Religion and Politics being mixed.
10 - Anthony Grande
If you do not want to say Under God in the pledge then simply do not say it. If you want to give the pledge and don't want to say Under God then say the pledge without it.
Why must you [edited] take that away from the rest of us (the far majority) who are proud to say the our nation is "One Nation Under God"???
11 - Red State
Actually god is not used exclusively to refer to montheistic religions as many polythestic religions such as ancient egyptians and native americans had different dieities that they referred to with words roughly translating to "god."
There were different "gods" for different aspects of thier culture.
Secondly god does not specifically refer to christianity or judaism. Jesus or lord is the specific term in chrstianity and I believe it is Jaweh in Judaism.
Most Americans do in fact refer to the supreme beings with the generic term god.
For example many Americans would say that Allah is the "god" of islam or vishnu is a "god" of hinduism.
Finally blue state, our founding fathers were christians, not muslims, not hindus, nor any other religion and they used their judeo-christian beliefs and traditions to guide them in establishing this country in the way that they did. Ever since then it has been these judeo-christian basis that has had more
influence on this nations sociopolitical makeup than any other factor. We are a nation founded by christians and our population has always been more christian than secularist or any other religion.
I know those on the left and the ACLU would like to deny this but it is true.
The radical left such as the ACLU does not truly represent civil liberties, they represent "selective" civil liberties. There have been so many cases of the ACLU attacking expressions of Christianity such as the pledge of allegance in schools, creationism and prayer but I have yet to hear of a single case in which the ACLU objected to the discussion and/or promotion of Islam in the public schools and believe me this does occur.
Seems kind of hypocritical to me.
Oh well I have faith that in the end the ACLU and thier leftist cohorts will fail to succeed in establishing their secularist, perverse degenerate agenda in this nation.
12 - billy
so We are a nation founded by christians
so f-ing what
this is false, we were founded by deists and atheists, but even if it was true it doesnt mean shit. the law is the law, relision is banished, period, get it through your [edited] right wing extremist head.
13 - Mr. O
"Why must you pigs take that away from the rest of us (the far majority) who are proud to say the our nation is "One Nation Under God"???"
This is the exact kind of religious intolerance that Jefferson (a Deist and Unitarian sypathizer) was affraid of when he wrote the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom. Back then you had to be an Anglican to hold political office in Virginia.
Listen, if the founders had been so concerned with Christianity being supported by the Government than why are all referances to religion in the Constitution negative. And I don't mean to say that they were ant-religion. I am a leftie for sure, but I want you (everyone) to be able to pray or not pray however they see fit. The Constitution says no religious tests and no state recognition of religion. Period. And yes, Jefferson, in his letters to Madison, did say that he wanted religios freedom for "Mohamidians and Hindoos," so get over all this "We are a Judeo-Christian Nation" stuff. We also were founded on slavery so let us not pretend that the moral fiber of the Fathers was in-line with divinity.
14 - Anthony Grande
"if the founders had been so concerned with Christianity being supported"
Woh, Woh who said anything about Christianity??? I sure didn't
Tell me, what religion doesn't believe there is a God.
15 - Blue State
Nothing is being taken away from the "majority" who like to say the pledge. Just now schools do not have the right to force a child to affirm the existance of a "God."
16 - Anthony Grande
They don't have to believe that. No one makes them believe that. If they don't believe it then they don't have to say it. No one forces them to stand.
The far far far far far majority of us believe there is a God, so that is what we will continue to say.
This judgement will be overruled anyway.
17 - Mr. O
"Tell me, what religion doesn't believe there is a God."
Buddhism. Hinduism has a whole bunch.
And the point is the Founders did not want ANY religion supported by the state. Christianity or otherwise. So which is it, do we need to keep the pledge because we are a nation founded on Christian principles or because saying the pledge is not about upholding the Christian principles of the Founders, its about religious inclusion for anyone who believes in a God?
18 - Mr. O
The phrase "wall of seperation" goes bcak to 1802 when the Danbury Baptist Association asked then President Thomas Jeferson for a National prayer of Thanksgiving. Now the overwhelming majority of Americans would have seen nothing wrong with this, but Jefferson saw this as an erosion of the principles of Religious Freedom he had laid out in the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom and that were echoed in the First Amendment. People were very upset. Jefferson was attack for being an Athiest. Before the age of Reason he would have been hanged for such blashemy. The Supreme Court may over turn this decision, but that doesn't make it right. Consider, Jefferson thought that by the time of his death most American men would be Unitrians. Imagine if the ultra-Liberal Unitarian Church held the majority in this country and they demanded that school children say a prayer each morning asking God to forgive all the people in this Country who call Homosexuality a sin. Would you just tell your kids to keep their mouths shut and deel with it?
19 - Anthony Grande
Bhuddists and Hindus do believe in God.
None of those reasons are why we need to keep it. The reason why we need to keep it is because the far far far far far majority is proud to say it. The atheists aren't forced to say it. So why should something I say with my hand over my heart hurt the feeliings of someone else???
20 - gonzo marx
once again, Ant G displays how much he does not know
Hindu's have many "gods"
and Buddhists quest for personal "Enlightenment" with a Teacher in Buddha, who achieved said state...but no "deity" as such
Excelsior!
21 - Mr. O
There are plenty of Buddhists sects that do not believe in God. And this ruling did not say you can't say the pledge, a school cannot lead children in a pledge that affirms the existence of God.
22 - Anthony Grande
When you say Under God you can mean plural Gods.
Buddhists do not get offended by any reference to another religion.
Many Buddhists believe in the Hindu gods.
23 - gonzo marx
no..singular and plural are no the same thing...
for all man, or for all men
are those the same?
nice try Ant, and how the fuck do you know what a Buddhist is offended by? please explain
spinning will not help
Excelsior!
24 - Anthony Grande
You can say For All Man. I would surely know what you are talking about.
Buddhists are spiritual people, they respect anything that walks. They will celebrate any holiday of any religion as long as there is no hate involved. Where is the hate in saying UNder God???
There is a Buddhist freind of mine who sits next to me and her and I are the only ones of the several who stand up that actually recite the Pledge of Allegience.
25 - gonzo marx
not anything that walks, Ant..but anything that lives
there IS a difference
spend more time with your friend, perhaps some tolerance will seep into you via osmosis
Excelsior!