| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Larry Mundinger" |
| Date: |
15 Jun 2004 05:41:39 PM |
| Object: |
Atheists Vow to Continue Pledge Fight |
Atheists Vow to Continue Pledge Fight
Posted: June 15, 2004 at 11:50 a.m.
SAN FRANCISCO (BCN) -- A small band of about 20 atheists carrying a flag
gathered outside a federal appeals court in San Francisco this morning
to protest Monday's U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Pledge of
Allegiance.
The high court overruled a decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals and left the words "one nation under God" in
the pledge for at least the time being.
Read the story at:
http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=1943498&nav=5D7lNvzu
--
Larry Mundinger (aa#451)
American Atheists Internet Representative <irep @ atheists.org>
<http://www.atheists.org/> <http://www.americanatheist.org/>
<http://www.atheistviewpoint.tv/>
.
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists Vow to Continue Pledge Fight |
16 Jun 2004 01:52:24 AM |
|
|
"Larry Mundinger" <see.below@signature.org> wrote in message
news:ZRKzc.8736$aG5.6621@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Atheists Vow to Continue Pledge Fight
We lost on 'standing', but
I question the efficacy of a repeated attempt based
only on improved 'standing'.
It has been mentioned many times in this news group
that there must be countless others with perfect standing
who would continue the challenge to this adulterated pledge .
I don't think so.
Newdow is unique in his circumstances, talent, motivation,
and courage.
Even if there are others with those qualities plus
standing I don't think the same tack would be effective.
It is widely recognized that the court hedged in
its decision. The court ruled against Newdow's
'first friend' standing. But Newdow also effectively
argued personal damage, i.e. that agents of the US
government were telling his daughter (who is his daughter
regardless of custody) that her father's views
on religion are wrong.
Newdow, and we all, have grounds to complain.
Yes, the court punted.
This evidences their religious bias.
It might appear that this decision was calculated
to have the effect of preserving a religious
endorsement/establishment while deflecting criticism.
Furthermore, statements made by the majority of the
court in the decision indicate their basic bias in favor of
this religious insinuation.
It appears that the majority of the court has indicated
that in all cases it would still rule for the religious
insinuation even if it didn't have some other excuse, such
as 'standing'.
They might be averse to subsequent criticism but
on the whole they are immune.
I question the efficacy of a repeated attempt based
only on improved 'standing'.
Perhaps an 'equal time' or 'political correctness'
case should be made.
Perhaps some group should request that pledge be
'under Brahma' or 'under Allah' some share of the time.
Most people - agreed, not all - consider 'Allah' a synonym
for 'God'. I'd like to see on what basis people would complain
if their children were lead in a pledge containing
'under Allah'.
Perhaps it needs to be a free-minded teacher who has the courage
to lead a pledge 'under Allah' or 'under Brahma' and
get fired in order to lead to the next court test.
--
RB
AA#2187
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
