An atheist’s attempt to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance failed on Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court avoided the constitutional question and ruled he could not bring the challenge on behalf of his daughter…. The ruling came on Flag Day and on the 50th anniversary of the addition of the words “under God” to the pledge. The U.S. Congress adopted the June 14, 1954, law in an effort to distinguish America’s religious values and heritage from those of communism, which is atheistic. —Top Court Rejects Atheist’s Challenge to Pledge (Reuters|MyWay)
The choreographer daughter is doing a thing.
No interior yet. Getting there. Gotta start somewhere. Low-poly background detail for a medieval theater…
This is manageable. Far better than some semesters.
Creating textures for background buildings in a medieval theater simulation project. I can always improve…
Nothing in this stack is pressing, but they do include rough drafts of final papers,…
View Comments
I thought the title of the Reuters story and the passage I excerpted was clear enough, but yes, Anonymous, the issue will probably come up again.
The girl's mother has full legal custody of the girl, and has gone on record as saying that she and the girl are both Christians who have no problem with the phrase.
I remember being a little surprised, when watching an old movie with Bing Crosby playing a Catholic priest, by a scene showing Catholic schoolchildren reciting the pledge. The scene didn't add anything to the plot, but it was probably intended to show Catholics as Americans. But the movie was made before "under God" was added to the pledge, so for a moment I thought something really weird was happening when the kids didn't say it. I soon learned that the phrase was added after lobbying by the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic men's organization, of which I am a member).
Anyway, I'm personally in favor of keeping the phrase, but thanks for your comment, Anonymous -- it led me to Google up this short history of the Pledge of Allegience, which was written by a Christian socialst who was also a baptist minister, and whose brother wrote "Looking Backward" (an interesting social commentary in the form of a novel... I taught it in the year 2000, the same year in which it is set).
it's important to note that they did not rule on the constitutionality of the phrase "under god"...they only said that he couldn't bring the lawsuit. There is some question of custody in the family, and he was filing the lawsuit on behalf of his daughter. No custody, no right to file the suit. This will come before the court again...they simply chose to dodge the case this time around.
I must admit, I'm in favor of returning the pledge to it's original format.