** Milis Nasional Indonesia ppi-india ** Supreme Court to weigh meaning of 'under God' Linda Greenhouse/NYT NYT Monday, March 22, 2004
WASHINGTON It has taken 50 years since Congress added "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance for the validity of that cold war amendment to reach the Supreme Court, with arguments scheduled for Wednesday. But before the justices can decide whether those two words rendered the pledge unconstitutional, they have to answer a factual question that is entwined inextricably with the legal one: What exactly does it mean to pledge allegiance to "one nation under God"? . According to Michael Newdow, the California atheist who sued to stop the recitation of the pledge in his daughter's elementary school classroom, to recite the pledge with "under God" is to take "one side in the quintessential religious question, 'Does God exist?'" - a statement of "sectarian religious dogma" that the government may not sponsor in a public school setting. . The Bush administration, which is defending the pledge, says its recitation is no more a religious act than pocketing a coin imprinted with "In God We Trust." Both are simply patriotic acknowledgments of "the nation's religious history" and of the "undeniable historical fact that the nation was founded by individuals who believed in God," an empirical statement that poses no threat to the separation of church and state. . The Christian Legal Society, a group of Christian lawyers, judges and professors who are on the same side, say the pledge has a distinctly religious cast, and properly so. Their brief says the words "under God" support the concept of limited government, serving as a reminder that "government is not the highest authority in human affairs" because "inalienable rights come from God." . According to a different group of religious individuals, 32 Christian and Jewish clergy members who take the opposite side of the case, reciting the pledge with "under God" invites a troubling kind of civic blasphemy. If children are supposed to utter the phrase without meaning it as an affirmation of personal faith, their brief asserts, "then every day, government asks millions of schoolchildren to take the name of the Lord in vain." . A form letter signed by President George W. Bush and sent in reply to those who wrote the White House to comment on the June 2002 federal appeals court decision that declared the pledge unconstitutional said that reciting the pledge was a way of proclaiming "our reliance on God" and of "humbly seeking the wisdom and blessing of Divine Providence." . This letter, clearly in some tension with the administration's current official view, concluded by expressing the wish that "the Almighty continue to watch over the United States of America." Americans United for Separation of Church and State and other organizations that oppose the administration's position included the letter in an appendix to their joint brief. . The striking range of views on just what "under God" signifies is only the beginning, not the end, of the justices' task as they take up this case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. . For example, if reciting the pledge is a religious act, is it a voluntary or coerced one, and is that distinction even relevant? . In 1992, the Supreme Court prohibited clergy-led prayer at public high school graduations on the ground that the graduating seniors were effectively coerced into participating. But a landmark Supreme Court decision from 1943 held that schoolchildren could not be required to recite the pledge. One of Newdow's points is that even if the pledge is nominally voluntary, daily classroom recitation nonetheless inevitably labels nonparticipating children as outsiders. . If reciting the pledge is seen as a patriotic statement of historical homage to the founding fathers, does that make it less problematic or more? Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Texas Law School said that seen in that light, the message of the pledge is that "if you're doubtful about the existence of God, you are of doubtful loyalty to the nation." Laycock represents the 32 clergy members who oppose the pledge. . Justice Antonin Scalia has recused himself from the case, raising the prospect of a 4-to-4 tie. His recusal, announced in October when the court accepted the case, resulted from a speech he gave early last year that pointedly criticized the lower court's reasoning. . The New York Times ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/BRUplB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> *************************************************************************** Berdikusi dg Santun & Elegan, dg Semangat Persahabatan. Menuju Indonesia yg Lebih Baik, in Commonality & Shared Destiny. www.arsip.da.ru *************************************************************************** __________________________________________________________________________ Mohon Perhatian: 1. Harap tdk. memposting/reply yg menyinggung SARA (kecuali sbg otokritik) 2. Pesan yg akan direply harap dihapus, kecuali yg akan dikomentari. 3. Lihat arsip sebelumnya, www.ppi-india.da.ru; 4. Posting: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5. Satu email perhari: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6. No-email/web only: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7. kembali menerima email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
