Inside TVC
Stay Connected
Must Read
- Our Battle Plan
to take back the courts from the ACLU and the anti-God Left
Worth Reading
Search TVC
|
Executive Director Andrea Lafferty and Founder Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
The Traditional Values Coalition is an inter-denominational public policy organization speaking on behalf of over 43,000 churches. |
|
Printer Friendly Page |
Email To A Friend |
Get Our Newsletter! |
Want to take action about what you have just read?
Then write a letter to your local newspapers, television stations and radio stations. Click on your state below.
Please note, the article will NOT be automatically inserted or referenced in your letter. You must copy and paste it or give them the web page URL yourself. (The easiest way is to copy and paste the entire Printer Friendly Page in to your letter, right below your comments.)
|
Atheist Continues Battle Against Pledge Of Allegiance
The Supreme Court ruled on a technical issue that "under God" could remain in the Pledge of Allegiance on June 14, 2004, but the issue is yet to be resolved once and for all.
The court ruled that atheist Michael Newdow, who brought the original lawsuit
against the Pledge of Allegiance, had no legal standing to bring the suit in the
first place. The court refused to decide whether or not the words "under God"
were actually unconstitutional.
Newdow vows to keep fighting against the Pledge and says he already has several
people who are willing to file another lawsuit against "under God" in the Pledge.
WorldNetDaily
has more details on this story.
TVC issued an action alert on this issue on June 15. We are reprinting this alert
below:
Supreme Court Allows ‘Under God’ To Stay In Pledge
But the battle isn’t over. Atheist Michael Newdow plans
on filing new lawsuits to get God removed from Pledge.
June 15, 2004 -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 on June 14 to allow "under
God" to stay in the Pledge of Allegiance. The court did not rule on the constitutionality
of the words but ruled that atheist Michael Newdow had no legal standing to bring
the lawsuit in the first place.
Newdow had filed his lawsuit in California on behalf of his daughter and in 2002
the radical leftist 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco ruled that he was correct
in claiming the words "under God" were unconstitutional. His daughter and her
mother Sandra Banning (both committed Christians) had no problem with the Pledge
and Newdow did not have full custody rights. In fact, an Associated
Press report from 2002 indicated that Newdow had never married Miss Banning.
The American Center for Law
and Justice had filed a friend of the court brief against Newdow’s lawsuit
and the Supreme Court agreed with the ACLJ’s position that Newdow was not the
custodial parent and had no right to direct her education or interfere with the
policies of public schools.
Jay Sekulow, head of the ACLJ is pleased with the court’s decision. In a press
release, he noted: "It really doesn’t matter that the Supreme Court did
not address the merits of the case. The fact is the legally flawed decision of
the appeals court is removed and students across America can begin the new school
year in the fall by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance including the phrase ‘under
God.’"
The Washington
Times has reported (6-15-04) that Sandra Banning has formed a One Nation
Under God Foundation to fight further attempts by Newdow or other atheists to
file lawsuits to remove "under God" from the Pledge.
Newdow’s loss is only temporary. He vowed on Scarborough Country (6-14-2004) that
he was going to file new lawsuits on behalf of other individuals who do have legal
standing to make a complaint.
What Can We Do About This?
First, there are two key pieces of legislation under consideration in Congress
that will deal with renegade federal courts such as the 9th Circuit. One is the
Ninth Circuit Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2004 sponsored by Senators
John Ensign (R-NV) and Larry Craig (R-ID). This will split up the 9th Circuit
Court by adding two new federal circuit court districts. This legislation, if
passed, will reduce the power of the leftist judges on this court and send a clear
message to judges that they must issue rulings based upon the law, not upon their
political ideologies.
Second, Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) introduced the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act of 2003 last year. This legislation is designed
to restrict the power of renegade judges to violate the religious freedom of Americans.
It restricts the ability of federal judges to rule on the Ten Commandments, Pledge
of Allegiance, or other topics involving religion.
Both of these bills should be passed as a way of controlling activist liberal
judges who are intent on using their powers to strip our nation of its religious
heritage!
Read TVC’s reports, "Judges:
Our Robed Masters" and "The
9th Circuit Must Be Split!"
TAKE ACTION: Send a CapWiz email letter to your two U.S. Senators and U.S.
Representative and ask that they support passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act and the Ninth Circuit Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2004. Click here
to access CapWiz: http://capwiz.com/traditional/issues/alert/?alertid=6007841&type=ML
http://capwiz.com/traditional/issues/alert/?alertid=5997716&type=CO
|
|
|
|
|