Post by MO on Jun 17, 2004 17:24:19 GMT -5
Atheists Contend Supreme Court “Ducked Issue”<br>Thursday, June 17, 2004
By Anthony Urti
Following the Supreme Court’s rejection of Michael Newdow’s challenge to the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, a group of atheists accused the court of “ducking the issue.”
According to American Atheists, “The court ducked the issue, which means that a legal conflict still exists. Like it or not, the Supreme Court is probably going to have to take up this question again at some point in the future.” Ironically, American Atheists vowed to file another lawsuit on the basis of the same issues raised in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow.
The court ruled on Monday that Newdow, who does not have custody of his daughter, lacked legal standing to challenge the pledge. That is significant, because Newdow allegedly filed the lawsuit on behalf of his daughter, who has, incidentally, said repeatedly that she has no objection to the words “Under God.”<br>
Americans United Injects Two Cents
Not to be outdone by the American Atheists, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU) made their disappointment with the ruling public. “Students should not feel compelled by school officials to subscribe to a particular religious belief in order to show love of country. America is increasingly diverse in matters of religion, and our public schools should reflect that diversity,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of the group.
The more interesting statement Lynn made, however, was one in which he asserted that “students outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition should not be pressured by their teachers to put aside their beliefs in order to show love of country.” That statement assumes that children are pressured by teachers to recite the words “under God,” but furthermore, Lynn doesn’t seem concerned that Christian students would be forced to set aside their beliefs if the pledge were altered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/News/newspage.asp?story=1833
What say you? I think the court came to the right decision. If the USSC heard the merits of a case in which the plaintiff did not have a constitutional right to bring, it would have been judicial activism, regardless of their findings.
By Anthony Urti
Following the Supreme Court’s rejection of Michael Newdow’s challenge to the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, a group of atheists accused the court of “ducking the issue.”
According to American Atheists, “The court ducked the issue, which means that a legal conflict still exists. Like it or not, the Supreme Court is probably going to have to take up this question again at some point in the future.” Ironically, American Atheists vowed to file another lawsuit on the basis of the same issues raised in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow.
The court ruled on Monday that Newdow, who does not have custody of his daughter, lacked legal standing to challenge the pledge. That is significant, because Newdow allegedly filed the lawsuit on behalf of his daughter, who has, incidentally, said repeatedly that she has no objection to the words “Under God.”<br>
Americans United Injects Two Cents
Not to be outdone by the American Atheists, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU) made their disappointment with the ruling public. “Students should not feel compelled by school officials to subscribe to a particular religious belief in order to show love of country. America is increasingly diverse in matters of religion, and our public schools should reflect that diversity,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of the group.
The more interesting statement Lynn made, however, was one in which he asserted that “students outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition should not be pressured by their teachers to put aside their beliefs in order to show love of country.” That statement assumes that children are pressured by teachers to recite the words “under God,” but furthermore, Lynn doesn’t seem concerned that Christian students would be forced to set aside their beliefs if the pledge were altered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/News/newspage.asp?story=1833
What say you? I think the court came to the right decision. If the USSC heard the merits of a case in which the plaintiff did not have a constitutional right to bring, it would have been judicial activism, regardless of their findings.