On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:10:44 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:

In article <11doadhokvqkb2e@corp.supernews.com>,
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:

Given the attitude of the supreme court, this is probably
a good development, and I like the judge's comment.
Plus, given that the pledge is almost exclusively used
in public schools, a ruling against doing so would help
efforts to restore it to the pre-1954 version, which
presumably could still be used. But I certainly wouldn't
mind if the pledge died of obscurity, either:

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/politics/12162642.htm

Judge narrows Pledge of Allegiance case to focus on schools
DAVID KRAVETS
Associated Press

SACRAMENTO - A federal judge said Monday he is inclined to dismiss part
of a lawsuit brought by a Sacramento atheist who claims the Pledge of
Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton said he would allow Michael Newdow,
a doctor and lawyer, to sue four Sacramento-area school districts where
children he is representing attend and recite the pledge. The judge said
Newdow could not challenge the pledge itself and the words "under God,"
which Congress inserted in 1954.

"What I'm doing is cutting out a whole lot of your case and making it
narrow," Karlton said during the first hearing on the lawsuit, which is
the second over the pledge brought by Newdow.
...
If the judge stands by his comments Monday, Newdow's latest lawsuit
would focus strictly on whether reciting the pledge in public schools is
an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Even if Newdow were to win
on that point, the pledge itself would remain intact.

I think that the judge is right. the words were put in by an act of
Congress so they can only be removed by another act of Congress. The
judge's choices are either ban it entirely as a promoting or religion,
or permit it to be recited as is.

That's not what it appears he did. He said he would limit the lawsuit
to only pertain to reciting it in school, not ban it entirely.

And if an act of congress is unconstitutional, then a legal ruling on
a lawsuit should be able to remove it.

The judge said Newdow may have a valid point.

"There is nothing whatsoever that requires acknowledging God to love
this country," Karlton said.

Terence Cassidy, a lawyer for the Elk Grove Unified School District,
urged Karlton to dismiss the case. He said reciting the pledge in school
was not about religion, but rather is designed "to teach children about
patriotism."

I agree with the judge. Gods have nothing to do with patriotism.

...
Eight co-plaintiffs have joined the latest lawsuit, all of whom are
children or custodial parents who have filed the suit on behalf of their
children, Newdow said. The plaintiffs' names have been withheld from the
suit for fear of physical harm.

"We're a despised minority," Newdow told the judge.
...

---
Merlyn LeRoy