Michael Newdon at it again

[Pah]

Short, complete article here

SACRAMENTO, Calif. Atheist Michael Newdow has filed a federal lawsuit to bar the saying of a prayer at President Bush's upcoming inauguration.

Michael Newdow also has refiled his lawsuit over the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance -- this time with co-plaintiffs whose standing won't be an issue. Newdow's case was rejected by the Supreme Court last year because he lacks custody of his daughter.

 

[Pah]

Complete article here

Michael Newdow, the Sacramento atheist who wants "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, relaunched his constitutional case Tuesday without the glitch that got it thrown out at the U.S. Supreme Court last year.

The high court obliterated Newdow's first case - and his victory in a federal appeals court - by ruling in June that he lacked "standing" to sue. He doesn't have primary custody of his daughter, whose daily exposure to the pledge in an Elk Grove public schoolroom was at the heart of the case. Therefore, said the justices, he had no right to sue on her behalf. The justices did not rule on the merits of Newdow's arguments.

This time around, Newdow is joined by eight co-plaintiffs - all custodial parents of children who are students in Northern California public school districts or the children themselves.

 

[t3gah]

Restore our Pledge of Allegiance
(http://www.restorethepledge.com/)

New challenge to "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Click here to read the Complaint filed on January 3, 2005 (PDF File type [Get Acrobat])

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Above is the version of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America first approved by the Congress in 1942. It evokes feelings of patriotism and unity, and brings together the vastly different cultures, ethnicities, languages and backgrounds that form the common experience called America. It reaffirms our commitment to the freedoms...

 

[Jaymes]

Since we're no longer fighting the dirty Commies , I don't see why we need 'under God' in there anymore. I hope he wins.

 

[linwood]

Michael Newdow also has refiled his lawsuit over the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance -- this time with co-plaintiffs whose standing won't be an issue. Newdow's case was rejected by the Supreme Court last year because he lacks custody of his daughter.

I was hoping Newdow would personally give this another shot.

He was truly excellent last time around.

I really don`t see how he could lose.

 

[Sunstone]

If he wins, the Religious Right will scream bloody murder.

 

[linwood]

If he wins, the Religious Right will scream bloody murder.

I know, and I`ll be on my couch with a big bowl of popcorn watching the 700 club just eating it up.

:jam::jam:

 

[Sunstone]

Pass the popcorn, Linwood, pass the popcorn!

 

[Pah]

Depends on how small on a global scale you see that "One Nation".

Wait until it becomes nessecary to rephrase it to: "The only nation under God."

Then, it would seem to me, there would be small chance that America could hold out after the Holy See goes secular. That also seems to me to be a marketing "turn of phrase" that lacks any reasoning.

Bob

 

[Scott1]

Then, it would seem to me, there would be small chance that America could hold out after the Holy See goes secular.

HUH? What does this mean?

 

[Pah]

Then, it would seem to me, there would be small chance that America could hold out after the Holy See goes secular. That also seems to me to be a marketing "turn of phrase" that lacks any reasoning.

Bob

Is in response to " Wait until it becomes nessecary to rephrase it to: "The only nation under God." I was thinking that (the Holy See) was one nation that would not become secular - my "small chance" was an exaggeration for effect.

Not only does it lose it's punch when an explanation is necessary but it shows I blew the chance for a great "zinger" (at least it was great in my mind when I wrote it). Ah, the agony of defeat by honest critics!

But hopefully I conveyed the thought that this was but another "catchy" phrase, a la Madison Ave, much like the scoffing "Adam and Steve".

Bob

 

[Anti-Manicheist]

I think this needs to be approached more carefully this time. Removal of "under God" must reflect how the pledge was meant to be a statement of political, not monotheistic, solidarity and not part of a "separation of Church/State" purge of all aspects of the US's religious heritage.

dlw