Analysis Of The Pledge Of Allegiance
The legal side of the pledge of allegiance, it has been brought up to the supreme court more then one separate occasion. “The state’s Supreme Judicial Court is currently weighing an atheist couple’s argument that the words “under God” be struck from the Pledge of Allegiance, because they claim the phrase is exclusionary to atheist children like theirs” (Let’s End the Pledge of Allegiance in Schools). Again, going back to the history, the original version of the pledge of allegiance had no stating of religion. When Francis Bellamy added “under God” into the pledge, what he didn't realize is that it was violating peoples freedom of religion and was to be used in public school systems across the country. It sparked a world wide debate that is
…show more content…
Goodwin, a 79-year-old Nixon Court appointee, wrote in the decision: "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god.' " The addition of "under God" in the pledge forces schoolchildren to swear allegiance to "monotheism," Goodwin wrote, impermissibly taking a position on the "existence and identity of God." The court decision unleashed a fury of religious protests, including by many in Congress, to their lasting shame”Newdow’s case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme court, which in a cop-out in 2004, ruled that Newdow as the noncustodial parent did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. A new case by Newdow is once again before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Freedom From Religion Foundation is also challenging the recitation of the pledge in New Hampshire schools, in a case brought with Dr. Newdow and plaintiff-members (Freedom from Religion Foundation). The issue is one of a serious level of consideration. Another case that has been largely viewed is Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). U.S. Constitution provide: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Goodwin, a 79-year-old Nixon Court appointee, wrote in the decision: "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god.' " The addition of "under God" in the pledge forces schoolchildren to swear allegiance to "monotheism," Goodwin wrote, impermissibly taking a position on the "existence and identity of God." The court decision unleashed a fury of religious protests, including by many in Congress, to their lasting shame”Newdow’s case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme court, which in a cop-out in 2004, ruled that Newdow as the noncustodial parent did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. A new case by Newdow is once again before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Freedom From Religion Foundation is also challenging the recitation of the pledge in New Hampshire schools, in a case brought with Dr. Newdow and plaintiff-members (Freedom from Religion Foundation). The issue is one of a serious level of consideration. Another case that has been largely viewed is Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). U.S. Constitution provide: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”