A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

 

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

 

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

 

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

 

Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.

 

Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts, where the plaintiffs' children attend.

 

The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux.

 

Wednesday's ruling comes as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts faces day three of his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice.

 

Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down unexpectedly from the Supreme Court in July.

 

The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.

 

"It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made," said fund attorney Jared Leland.

 

Newdow, reached at his home, was not immediately prepared to comment.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/14/D8CK77685.html

some people need to be kicked in the groin hard.

that man that is sueing for that and wasting mine and other tax payers dollars needs one.

Not that I agree with it at all but I can see why theyd say that. Again, not my views, im very pro-under God and anti-flag burning myself.

Couldn't this kid just not stand? Sure, they might get a few hard glances in class, but it's better than wasting tax money and having people hating you all over the country. This is retarded. Another case of stupid-ass parents taking zero accountability.

I stand for freedom and I do see the problem that it causes with people, but can't they just elect to not say the pledge? It is a part of our nation's heritage (though it has changed a few times).

 

If I remember correctly, the "under God" wasn't in the original pledge... I think it was added in the 50s.

I stand for freedom and I do see the problem that it causes with people, but can't they just elect to not say the pledge? It is a part of our nation's heritage (though it has changed a few times).

 

If I remember correctly, the "under God" wasn't in the original pledge... I think it was added in the 50s.

945103[/snapback]

 

Yeah, it was added in the 50's to seperate us from "the commies" or something like that.

People actually take that s*** seriously? I've been doing it for God knows how many years and it's really not a big deal. Nobody even says it, we just stand up for 10 seconds using it as an opportunity to stretch. I mean, I don't necessarily think it was a good idea to put God's name in it but this is still riduculous. People will cook up anything these days to find a reason to sue. I believe there are far more significant cases to settle than this.

People actually take that s*** seriously? I've been doing it for God knows how many years and it's really not a big deal. Nobody even says it, we just stand up for 10 seconds using it as an opporunity to stretch. I mean, I don't necessarily think it was a good idea to put God's name in it but this is still riduculous. People will cook up anything these days to find a reason to sue. I believe there are far more significant cases to settle than this.

945135[/snapback]

 

yeah, pretty much, it's really not a huge urgent issue.

This guy is a media attention whore.

 

Just go away already.

We also used to salute Hitler style instead over our hands over our hearts pre-1939 Hitler era.

I also agree that its a silly battle on his part and that there are much much bigger fish to fry if you care about govt and religion. I think this guy hurts his political views more than he helps his principled views.

 

 

However I would like to hear the arguments of why we should keep under God in the pledge. What is the benefit? If its no big deal, then whats the harm in removing it? Certainly its initial placement in the pledge comes under extremely dubious conditions(basic McCarthyism) and its not like its a long time vestage of our nation's history(like the reference to God in the Decl. of Independence).

 

I can address one possible argument. That erasing God here will lead to a slippery slppe of erasing God from all places. But I think it would only erase the reference to God in govt institutions. And I dont think govt would fall apart without being able to reference God.

 

lets also avoid using the words liberal, leftist, left leaning, democrat, etc in order to destroy the discussion.

I think this is all a big waste of time, but it's not like taking the words "Under God" out of the Pledge is going to hurt or help any religion or anybody, so whatever.

You can't claim to have seperate church and state and then shove God down childrens throats in public schools. Should take "In God we trust" off the money to. I for one don't trust in no God.