Thinking as a Hobby 3477638 Curiosities served |
2004-03-25 9:16 AM Pledge Case Wrap-Up...For Now Previous Entry :: Next Entry Read/Post Comments (3) Slate provides the best overview of the proceedings yesterday, at least from ones I've read.
It seems evident that the Justices grilled Newdow pretty hard, and equally evident that he gave as good as he got. First there was a lot of wrangling about whether or not Newdow even had standing to bring the case. Thankfully, the Justices brushed aside that issue...they really did want to hash out the merits of the central issue itself. Ted Olson made what sounds like a fairly anemic case for the school district, but the case really didn't get going until Newdow stood up:
Justice Kennedy goes after him first:
"Harm" still seems like a strange legal standard for bringing a case. A violation of civil liberties isn't always directly harmful...but whatever. The point is that the government is compelling a child to recite a religious acknowledgement which contradicts her father's beliefs. Then O'Conner chimes in:
Yeah...when you humbly seek the wisdom and blessing of Divine Providence, that does sound pretty much like prayer. Pretty dumb thing for Bush to say, actually. But I don't think most people would consider it a prayer. It definitely is an affirmation of the existence of god, though. If the Pledge read, "We are one nation, full of unicorns..." it would be recognizing that: a) Unicorns exist b) America is full of them Would you want to take a daily oath that stated such a thing? Would you want your children to? Same deal with the phrase "under god". When you say, "One nation, under god," that factually acknowledges that: a) There is a god b) America is under it/him/her It's pretty absurd to argue otherwise. Next, Justice Stephen Breyer:
I'd even heard the absurd argument that "god" could be referring to atheist parents. Yeah...that makes a lot of sense. My parents are god, and America is under them...? Most of the Justices objections so far seem pretty weak. You can tell from their tenor that they really do want to overturn the 9th Circuit decision, but see, the problem is, Newdow is right. Souter is next: Souter agrees that the pledge is an "affirmation," but wonders whether it's "so tepid, so diluted ... that it should be under the constitutional radar." He uses that wonderful phrase "ceremonial deism," a legal term of art for the "God of the Hallmark cards"—utterly devoid of spiritual significance. He says that whatever religious significance there is to "under God" in the pledge is lost, or "close to disappearing." Exactly. If the tables were turned, and the Pledge explicitly denied the existence of god, it would be patently offensive to true believers. Why doesn't that standard apply to non-believers? The author concludes:
I think it would be very sad if the court split on this. I think the liklihood is that the decision will be to overturn. As much as the impartiality of the bench is proclaimed, there is enormous pressure from not only the public, but from the other two major branches of government to overturn the 9th Circuit Court's ruling, even though it was correct. I think what's at stake here is the legitimacy of non-belief in American life. There's obviously a devaluing of atheism and agnosticism that is a direct outgrowth of the Cold War and America's very strong religious traditions. It seems to me that at the core of this is a disturbing sentiment that people who choose not to believe in the supernatural are somehow devoid of morals and in many ways less American than their fellow citizens who do believe. For decades, the non-believing legal agenda was almost single-handedly represented by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who came across as a bitter, divisive zealot. Newdow has his problems, but it sounds as if he handled himself extremely well in court yesterday, hopefully paving the way for more legitimacy for advocates of secular governance combined with religious freedom. Let's hope so. Read/Post Comments (3) Previous Entry :: Next Entry Back to Top |
||||||
© 2001-2010 JournalScape.com. All rights reserved. All content rights reserved by the author. custsupport@journalscape.com |