AcrobatMan
Rock n' Roll Doggie
there are many things i like about america and if these words are removed, that would add up the list of things i like about america.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3564101.stm
as said by someone down in the article "religion has no place in the pledge". i am not sure if many interferencers would agree with that
Acrobatman
"
The US Supreme Court is to consider whether the words "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance when it is recited in public schools. Atheist Michael Newdow, a California doctor with a law degree, will argue religion has no place in the pledge.
Millions of schoolchildren recite the pledge each morning before classes.
The case has sparked controversy across the country, with observers saying it will be a crucial battle over church-state separation.
Under the current wording teachers and students say they "pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
New addition
The words "under God" were added to the original 1892 pledge in 1954 as part of an effort to distinguish the US way of life from the Soviet Union's atheistic communism.
The court will examine whether the classroom oath crosses America's division of church and state, and thereby amounts to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.
Like singing the National Anthem or memorising the Gettysburg Address, reciting the pledge is a patriotic, not a religious exercise
Solicitor General Theodore Olson
Dr Newdow filed the lawsuit because he was unhappy that his nine-year-old daughter had to recite the pledge at her school at Elk Grove in northern California.
He sued her school and won, setting up the landmark appeal before a court that has repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.
Dr Newdow will argue the case himself and expressed disappointment that his daughter will not be able to attend.
"Of course I wanted to bring her," he said. "You don't believe it would be an opportunity to see your father argue before the Supreme Court of the United States in an historic case that will last forever?"
Majority opposed
Opposing lawyer, Solicitor General Theodore Olson, says that reciting the pledge - even in its current form - is simply an act of patriotism.
"Like singing the National Anthem or memorising the Gettysburg Address, reciting the pledge is a patriotic, not a religious exercise," he said in written comments submitted before the case began.
A new poll carried out by the Associated Press on the issue indicates that nine out of 10 Americans are in favour of the reference to God remaining in the pledge, the news agency reported.
Protesters gathered outside the Supreme Court in Washington on Tuesday to demonstrate against the hearing.
Even Dr Newdow's ex-wife, with whom he shares custody of his daughter, opposes its removal.
However, Dr Newdow does have the backing of school officials in Elk Grove:
"If something is wrong, it should be corrected. No matter how many people support it,'' school superintendent Dave Gordon said.
"The argument that 'under God' in the pledge is pushing religion on children is wrong on the law. It's also wrong from a commonsense perspective," he said.
"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3564101.stm
as said by someone down in the article "religion has no place in the pledge". i am not sure if many interferencers would agree with that
Acrobatman
"
The US Supreme Court is to consider whether the words "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance when it is recited in public schools. Atheist Michael Newdow, a California doctor with a law degree, will argue religion has no place in the pledge.
Millions of schoolchildren recite the pledge each morning before classes.
The case has sparked controversy across the country, with observers saying it will be a crucial battle over church-state separation.
Under the current wording teachers and students say they "pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
New addition
The words "under God" were added to the original 1892 pledge in 1954 as part of an effort to distinguish the US way of life from the Soviet Union's atheistic communism.
The court will examine whether the classroom oath crosses America's division of church and state, and thereby amounts to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.
Like singing the National Anthem or memorising the Gettysburg Address, reciting the pledge is a patriotic, not a religious exercise
Solicitor General Theodore Olson
Dr Newdow filed the lawsuit because he was unhappy that his nine-year-old daughter had to recite the pledge at her school at Elk Grove in northern California.
He sued her school and won, setting up the landmark appeal before a court that has repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.
Dr Newdow will argue the case himself and expressed disappointment that his daughter will not be able to attend.
"Of course I wanted to bring her," he said. "You don't believe it would be an opportunity to see your father argue before the Supreme Court of the United States in an historic case that will last forever?"
Majority opposed
Opposing lawyer, Solicitor General Theodore Olson, says that reciting the pledge - even in its current form - is simply an act of patriotism.
"Like singing the National Anthem or memorising the Gettysburg Address, reciting the pledge is a patriotic, not a religious exercise," he said in written comments submitted before the case began.
A new poll carried out by the Associated Press on the issue indicates that nine out of 10 Americans are in favour of the reference to God remaining in the pledge, the news agency reported.
Protesters gathered outside the Supreme Court in Washington on Tuesday to demonstrate against the hearing.
Even Dr Newdow's ex-wife, with whom he shares custody of his daughter, opposes its removal.
However, Dr Newdow does have the backing of school officials in Elk Grove:
"If something is wrong, it should be corrected. No matter how many people support it,'' school superintendent Dave Gordon said.
"The argument that 'under God' in the pledge is pushing religion on children is wrong on the law. It's also wrong from a commonsense perspective," he said.
"