Tweet
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
As the Supreme Court today considers whether to censor the phrase "under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, the American people have taken a firm stand that should surprise no one.
A new poll by the Associated Press shows that nearly 90 percent of Americans want to keep the reference. Apparently they don’t believe the First Amendment’s requirement that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” means the feds should declare war on all religious expression.
The court is hearing arguments today from California atheist Michael Newdow, who initially claimed "protection” of his 9-year-old daughter as his motive for opposing recitation of the pledge in government schools. After the girl and her mother revealed they supported the pledge, he admitted exploiting the child as an excuse to sue away.
The notorious 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in (naturally) San Francisco, by far the most overturned in the nation, gave Newdow his initial judicial victory.
The girl’s mother, Sandra Banning, a born-again Christian, said today on ABC’s "Good Morning America,” "I object to his inclusion of our daughter” in the case. She worries that her daughter will be "the child who is remembered as the little girl who changed the Pledge of Allegiance.”
Written in 1892 and adopted by Congress as a patriotic tribute in 1942, the pledge did not originally include "under God.” Congress inserted the phrase in 1954 during the Cold War.
Newdow has admitted he also wants to censor the national motto, "In God We Trust,” from U.S. currency. "It’s a cool thing to do. Everyone should try it,” he said in June 2002.
As the Supreme Court today considers whether to censor the phrase "under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, the American people have taken a firm stand that should surprise no one.
A new poll by the Associated Press shows that nearly 90 percent of Americans want to keep the reference. Apparently they don’t believe the First Amendment’s requirement that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” means the feds should declare war on all religious expression.
The court is hearing arguments today from California atheist Michael Newdow, who initially claimed "protection” of his 9-year-old daughter as his motive for opposing recitation of the pledge in government schools. After the girl and her mother revealed they supported the pledge, he admitted exploiting the child as an excuse to sue away.
The notorious 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in (naturally) San Francisco, by far the most overturned in the nation, gave Newdow his initial judicial victory.
The girl’s mother, Sandra Banning, a born-again Christian, said today on ABC’s "Good Morning America,” "I object to his inclusion of our daughter” in the case. She worries that her daughter will be "the child who is remembered as the little girl who changed the Pledge of Allegiance.”
Written in 1892 and adopted by Congress as a patriotic tribute in 1942, the pledge did not originally include "under God.” Congress inserted the phrase in 1954 during the Cold War.
Newdow has admitted he also wants to censor the national motto, "In God We Trust,” from U.S. currency. "It’s a cool thing to do. Everyone should try it,” he said in June 2002.
Comment