I saw Newdow do the “moot court” thing on CSpan.  It was interesting.  In the main, he did focus on legal issues.  It was his opponent, Vikram Amar, who kept bringing up how Newdow “felt” and saying things along the lines of how he, VA, knew plenty of atheists who didn’t feel that way (implying that Newdow is just a fanatic, or oversensitive, or something.) VA also frequently commented upon how “all” rights spring from God.  Newdow would just shake his head, and respond by saying “do you realize how insane it sounds, to someone like me, to say that all of my rights come from something I don’t even believe in the existence of?” VA would also hammer away at the “your daughter doesn’t mind saying the pledge, and her mother is an avowed Christian” etc, etc.

I doubt that VA’s argument is the one that will actually be made when Newdow is before the Supreme Court, as the majority of VAs argument is predicated on the existence of God-- ie: it’s OK for the govt to encourage religious belief -because- God really does exist.  And VA wasn’t just defending the pledge as basically inoffensive, he was actually arguing that the government should actively support Christian religious faith.  Again, I very much doubt that VA’s argument will be the one that Newdow faces in front of the Supreme Court.

I’d expect the issue to boil down to Ceremonial Deism, as it has in the past.

Newdow does have some nervous tics that could hurt him.  The audience wasn’t too bad, but his opponents’ supporters were vocal, and clapped when they thought that VA had made some sort of telling point.  You could see Newdow sort of physically “drawing in” on himself.  His shoulders would come up near his ears-- he looked like he expected someone to throw something at him at any moment.  Those are also the moments when he tends to become somewhat defensive, and his tone of voice sounds less rational, and more argumentative.  Newdow really seems to feel persecuted, and it’s in those moments where it shows. 

On the bright side, Newdow seems to know his shit about the cases that deal with Ceremonial Deism.  He’s got the names of justices, the dates, and their stated positions on the tip of his tongue, as well as having memorized select bits of the speeches that were given when the Congress passed the act to insert “under God” into the pledge. 

I thought the crowd was predisposed toward sympathy with VA, but of course I’m predisposed to sympathize with Newdow, so. . .  Anyway, I thought Newdow did fine, but I really don’t think that the moot court will have much bearing on what he will confront when arguing before the Supreme Court.  In fact, I spent most of the time watching these guys debate thinking, “these guys have law degrees?  I should’a gone to law school!” and “when is VA going to stop discussing philosophy and theology and start talking about the law?”

So those are my first impressions of the moot court thing.  I’m sure Cspan will show it again at some point, probably late at night like the first time.

Ooops.  I didn’t see the moot court deal.  There were no substitute justices, and the debaters were not standing behind podiums, addressing a mock bench.

Apparently, what I saw was an informal debate, with a moderator.  I’m not sure exactly who Newdow was debating, but I think it might have been William Lane Craig.  Dude was wearing a bow-tie if that helps.

Hope I get a chance to see the moot-court sparring though.  It’s interesting stuff.

It really would be a shame if the Supreme Court of the United States ignored their actual job to judge the constitutionality of certain actions.  Regardless of the case he makes emotionally, Newdow is making a perfectly legitimate legal case against this clause in the pledge, as well as the LAW that concerns putting “God” on money (which is COMPLETELY unconstitutional, even when the first ammendment is read directly from its original text).

What’s disgusting to me is that the people who are making the case to keep “under God” are the ones who are resorting to emotional arguements.  And unfortunately, most everybody seems to sympathize with that.  Newdow, however, reminds me a little bit of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead.  What he needs to do is forget about the emotional grounding of this case and think strictly about the legal groundings, and stick to his case without being affected by his opposition.

But hell, if I were to go through all this, I wouldn’t have as much patience as HE does.

There’s a fine line between patience and obstinance, Josh.

Given the man-hating bias in the courts it’s pretty amazing Newdow got as far as he did!

The question is, of course, whether Madalyn Murray O’Hair would have done a better job ...

Bottom line is allowing “Under God” to remain in the pledge of Allegiance is clearly against the constitution & Separation of Church & State and never should have been allowed in the first place.

Once again we are faced with one side having mountains of evidence to support their claim while the other has nothing but dogma, the 9th circuit court already ruled that “under god” IS UNconstitutional and should be removed.

Some “facts” about the so called Pledge of Allegiance it was written in 1892 by a “Christian Socialist”

Great point, nunyabiz.  What I find really scary about that article is the fact that the Legislature doesn’t or shouldn’t have any decision in what the Supreme Court decides.  I just hope that they don’t get swayed by such a disgusting display of idealistic, theocratic thought.

And you’re right Les, there is a fine line between patience and obsinancy.  However, with a temper like mine, it’s harder to tell the difference between the two.  I had a debate in my Civics class today on the same subject (with a mediator and everything, due to the decision that’s happening today), and I couldn’t stop shaking from the idiotic arguements the opposite side kept making.  They repeated themselves, constantly, and only spoke of religion and “traditional history” when the arguement was about law.  If the Supreme Court decides against the abolition of this clause, I’m gonna lose all hope for this country.

I feel sorry for all of you that are backing this Idiot.
One of the things this country was founded on was the right to chose your religion, not.

We wonder what is happening to the US of A. I have no doubt it is the fact that people are rejecting the idea that there is a God. Taking this away from children is going to be the end of us. I will admit that I’m Thankful I will be in Heaven (or elsewhere), before this happens. I feel scared for my grandkids though....

Slate’s dispatches from the Supreme Court reveal a fascinating set of arguments today.  Sounds like Newdow did better than we’d hoped.  I particularly loved this bit:

But [Newdow] adds that the idea that if adding in “under God” is not divisive, why did the country go “berserk” when the 9th Circuit opinion came down? Rehnquist asks what the vote was in 1954, when it was amended. Newdow says it was unanimous. Rehnquist queries how that reveals divisiveness.

Newdow: “It doesn’t sound divisive? That’s only because no atheist can get elected to Congress.” Here is where people actually applaud like it’s a ball game. And here is where Rehnquist, who may be feeling the sting of Newdow’s comeback, threatens to clear the court.

And then Dahlia Lithwick ends with this very weird statement:

The case is a mess because, whatever you may think about God or the pledge, if you really apply the case law and really think “God” means “God,” then Newdow is right. But Newdow can’t be right. Can he?

Let’s see now.  If “God” doesn’t mean “God,” then what is He?  Chopped liver?

People only think references to “God” aren’t religious if they themselves ARE religious. They’re confusing their belief with universal law, as usual. It’s just like people who think Christmas is a secular holiday.  That’s only the case if you’re a current or former Christian!  Try asking a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, or atheist if they think Christmas is THEIR holiday too.  Sheesh.  As Madge said, “You’re soaking in it.”

If religious self-determination is a right, it follows that everybody has the right not to subscribe to any religious belief at all. Further, it follows the state cannot ram even an abstract notion of “a god” an atheists throat.

In Germany, by the way, the Catholic states in the south (sound familiar?) rack up losses in the Surpreme Court for this very reason. They lost their cherished crucifixes in public classrooms that way.

Well, taking god away from children (if such a thing is possible) would be the end of Christianity. The end of ‘us’? Nah.

If a teacher wants to put a crucifix on their desk or something, that’s fine with me.  It’s a teacher - teachers are people, and they have every right to decide what they want to do with their respective classrooms.  So long as they don’t force religion in some habitual manner (like the Pledge), I don’t have a problem with it.

If you take away the right for a teacher to do that, I think you’re going a bit too far.  What does a crucifix say?  Star of David?  It doesn’t really say anything, except “this is my religion, this is what I believe”.  Hell, children’s shows treat religions the same way during the holiday season.  Is it damaging to children?  I wouldn’t think so, unless their really looking for something to get pissed off about.  Is it coercive?  No!  I see crucifixes all the time.  They’re like cave paintings to me.  If we start to micromanage our schools like THAT, then we’re really screwing up the freedom of religion.

The Pledge, however, is a federally recognized, habitually repeated oath that kids from KINDERGARTEN… that’s a different story.  Even the Ten Commandments - those could be interpreted as rules, and those are most CERTAINLY considered coercive (Hell, it’s the only reason they were even created in the first place).  Putting a cross up, without bragging about it, or forcing religion on the kids, is not a problem - THAT is freedom of speech.  Rights would not be equivalent otherwise.  That’s what I think, anyway.

What does a crucifix say? Star of David? It doesn’t really say anything, except “this is my religion, this is what I believe”. Hell, children’s shows treat religions the same way during the holiday season. Is it damaging to children? I wouldn’t think so, unless their really looking for something to get pissed off about. Is it coercive? No!

I do not entirely disagree with your statement, however…

Why must a teacher display his or her religion publicly in a government funded building? If it is a matter of faith does NOT displaying a cross suddenly make that teacher not a Christian? Isn’t faith a personal matter and if it is truly faith does it require the constant reminder of visual symbols? I do not require any sort of symbol on display to remind myself that I am an atheist and if I were to display one I would no doubt be doing it to endorse my beliefs or draw attention to them. The teacher’s room is not a church and their desk is not a pulpit so the display of religious iconography, unless used in the context of comparative religious studies (without endorsement of one over another), is pointless. If you wear a crucifix or satr of David on a necklace or charm bracelet, that I have no problem with - unless the crucifix is absurdly large with the intent of drawing attention to itself.

I do not believe it is coercive but it is meant to be an endorsement and as such is improper.

Joshman, I think you’re missing one important piece, and that is that teachers are authority figures.  They direct most of what goes on in the classroom, and by corollary, everything they say is supposed to be accepted and followed by the students.  So displaying an item of personal belief is a little more than just saying “this is my own, you do what you want.” The teacher is in the position of speaking for the whole class; you can’t just turn that on and off at will.

The teacher’s job is to teach the school-established curriculum (which in the case of a public school is set by the state).  Other material not directly prescribed by the state has no place being taught there.  This applies to expressions of religion, political preferences, personal sexual orientation, or preference for paper versus plastic grocery bags.  Teachers can practice free speech outside of the classroom, where what they say is clearly understood to be personal opinion, NOT state-mandated education.  They do not have the right to add to or subtract from the curriculum in their classroom to suit themselves.

If a teacher wore a pentagram to class, you can bet there would be a LOT of objections to it even if s/he never drew attention to it.  A crucifix is not a cave painting.  People haven’t been killed over cave paintings.

Joshman, thank you for exposing that particular blind spot.

In at least some public, mandatory, and non-confessional Bavarian schools, the school administration and/or state mounted a crucifix on the wall. And remember, we are discussing this in the context of the German constitution. Article 4, Paragraph 1 states:

Freedom of faith and of conscience, and freedom of creed religious or ideological, are inviolable.

The German Surpreme Court ruled that the placement of a crucifix by the state in the classroom of a non-confessional school that is mandatory to attend infringed on the student’s right of religious self-determination.

And no, a teacher over there does not have the right to display a crucifix on his desk. Same principle.

Touche, Geekmom.  In all this debate on the separation clause, perhaps I was just taking a part as the devil’s advocate (har har) for a means of debate.  I actually share your opinion about teachers to an extent - I agree, the teacher is an authoritative position.  But first I want to get something straight.

Elwedriddsche: I am completely against the GOVERNMENT funding of crucifixes for classrooms and such.  That’s definitely wrong.  But I wasn’t so sure if a teacher should or should not have the right to simply put one on his desk without being persecuted by the government.

Looking back at it, I can definitely see how I was wrong.  Hell, people in most workplaces are required to wear uniforms - ones that don’t offend the customer.  In theory, the children (or more importantly, the taxpayers) are the ones that count in this case.

I suppose I was thinking like a highschooler - there are teachers in my school who also post political cartoons on the doors of their classrooms and wear their beliefs on their sleeves.  Do I, as a student, think that’s appropriate, and that they have the right to?  Absolutely.  Then again, I’m 17, not 10.  I have very personal friendships and discussions with some of my teachers.  If I were in elementary school, it’d be an entirely different story.  And to be more specific, political cartoons are more open to opinionated debate than religion, which normally hinges on the afterlife and eternal consequence.  But there’s another side to my wierd reasoning of the time.

Simply putting a Cross or a Pentagram or a Star of David on your desk is not coercive like a group incantation, such as the Pledge.  I just thought that it’s less harmful, and is more personal to the teacher.

So really what it comes down to is: what is the position of a teacher??  It seems to me today that education gets more and more generalized, and teaching gets more and more stagnant and depressing and standardized - I really hate going to school, mostly because of the restrictions they put on us and the teachers.  I, personally, wouldn’t be affected by a crucifix on the desk, but when it comes to younger kids… I’d have to agree with you.  Teachers ARE more authoritative earlier on in the educational system.

And as far as later on, even - it ISN’T a teacher’s position to display that, or to communicate that.  They can hold their beliefs without symbols, and everybody should really be indifferent to religion in school - it’s not a subject that should be debated in an educational environment like a public school (especially in the lower grades).  You’re right Geekmom; and you, Elwedriddsche; and you, Eric, as well.  And I was wrong! WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!

Political beliefs notwithstanding, teachers should not be publicly displaying stuff that they consider as “unquestionable”, like religion.  Something as discreet at jewelry is perfectly fine; a crucifix on the desk, or in the classroom, however, is simply inappropriate.  You guys were right, I was wrong.

In conclusion, I think I just need more sleep...I think I’ll remedy that now…

Joshman, we’ll have to revoke your Stupid Evil license now.  You can’t admit you’re wrong so openly and freely!  Get a grip, man!! 

In high school and college, it’s true, a teacher (not to mention parent) has less authority in the eye of the student.  But the peer group has correspondingly more.  (Ever noticed that even when you’re being proud of rebelling against the “mainstream” cliques, you really need to have friends to rebel right along with you? ) This is where religion/politics/whatnot in the schools is still dangerous.  Students don’t feel free to rebel against their social peers unless they have a large enough group backing them up.  And anyone who’s grown up in the Bible Belt knows that there aren’t large roving packs of atheists ready to take on the faculty AND 90% of the fellow students.

Of course, even if the parents are brave enough to try to step in and help buck the system, the teenagers aren’t about to thank them for it.  The whole thing’s a mess.

I agree with some of the points JoshMan made originally, before he apoligized for his own opinion.  har har…

I think that schools need to give the teachers the right to...oh...i dunno...TEACH?  Faith has its place, but not nessicarily in school.  In response to GeekMom’s comment: 
The teacher’s job is to teach the school-established curriculum (which in the case of a public school is set by the state). Other material not directly prescribed by the state has no place being taught there. This applies to expressions of religion, political preferences, personal sexual orientation, or preference for paper versus plastic grocery bags

This, from my perspective anyway, will inhinder the free thought of the students themselves.  Teaching the strict “state regulated” cirriculum to the letter, without the added flare of the individual teacher, will lead to students loosing complete intrest in anything remotly political.  Its already happening…

I am a 17 year old High school senior and ive personally been witness to teachers who follow the cirriculum strictly and drone on like some Borg from a bad Star Trek episode. The class becomes uninteresting to not only myself, but my sourrounding peers. This uninterested attitude to a subject leads to students not giving a good god damn about anything relating to the subject.  and in some cases, has added to the delinquency of some students and the general “white trash” persona of many High School student. 

There is a line, but individual opinions of teachers that lead to discussions enchance not only the students intrest in the subject but the overall understanding of the issue.  Eveyone has opinions, why not the teachers?  Some of my favoirte teachers have always been controvertial and outspoken.  I didnt nessicarily agree with them all the time, but my conversations with them, in class and in private, helped me learn about more political issues than I can count and helped make me the open minded person I am today.  So Im all for opinion in school, but like stated in another post...as long as we show BOTH sides of the issue...for balance.

OfW0lfandMan (by the way, I’m a 17 year old senior as well), I sympathize with your reasoning, but you, as well as I was before, are wrong.  And in addition, nowhere did I ever APOLOGIZE for my opinion - I just ADMITTED being wrong because they made a counterpoint that made sense.  There’s quite a difference between the two.

I completely agree that teachers need the ability to express their opinions when they teach - but religion, in most cases, isn’t even considered a matter of opinion.  I tried to establish that in my own letter, saying that POLITICAL beliefs are one thing (which are openly based on opinion, and are open to other opinions) - but most religions have the “opinion” (more of a notion, really) that their “god” is infallible.  Without question, their religion is the answer.  Hell, that’s part of why I don’t believe in religion anyway, and it’s not a topic that could really be discussed, such as political or social knowledge.

And when you get into the spectrum of elementary education, it isn’t even a question.  Kids are not there to learn opinions quite yet - that’s an issue that comes far later in life.  They are there to learn concrete information, with which they can apply to issues later on.

The reason religion is not allowed in state affairs, or the schools, is because we don’t want the government to take an authoritative position and add something infallible like religious theory.  It’s more explainalbe through an analogy:

Say a girl, such as Newdow’s, goes to class to be greeted in a classroom with a teacher (cross on desk) and a bunch of students who share the same religious beliefs as the teacher.  Now, it’s one thing for the students to have that kind of influence; but the teacher has absolutely no right to impose that kind of an opinion on a girl.  THAT will hinder (not inhinder, which is not even a word) the free thought of the students.  As I said before, religion really isn’t a thing to be talking about in school until one comes to the rationale that autoritative figures can be flat-out wrong about things - that’s part of maturity; not something you’re naturally born with.

So my question to you (before you criticized my “apology”, har har) is this: do you think “under God” is acceptable too?  Or do you think that authority has no influence on children?

By the way, Geekmom:

I really can’t say that any of my opinions are meant in rebellion against any “mainstream” group.  My opinions are my opinions because I’ve rationalized my values individually.  I’m not an atheist because I don’t like Christians - I don’t believe in God because I think it’s a rediculous and impossible notion by all measures of common sense.  They reflect my reasoning, not a group mentality (though some people do share them).

I’ve argued with rooms full of people.  I’ll also admit that I probably wouldn’t hold my opinions on religion were my own mother not agnostic (but that’s really more of parental influence).  I suppose it could be easier to agree with a group of people - that’s natural.  But I’d never be proud of it.

Heh heh, And don’t interpret this as a measure of rebellion against someone who’s older and has more life experience than myself.  I just wanted to clarify.

As I said before, religion really isn’t a thing to be talking about in school until one comes to the rationale that autoritative figures can be flat-out wrong about things - that’s part of maturity; not something you’re naturally born with.

I just found this so wonderful that I had to emphasize it again.  Joshman, this is exactly the problem; some people just won’t give up the infallibility of that last authority figure.  Sign of immaturity? you make the call.

Oh, and OfW0lfandMan:  I agree that a teacher needs to be able to spice up the material, make it interesting, and so on.  But the teacher needs to avoid injecting opinion in proportion to the difficulty students would have in refuting that opinion.  The teacher is not there to teach opinion as fact (which is too often how religion is framed), and there is a slew of other issues which parents don’t want “taught as fact” that conflict with their own takes on it (see for example sex education, gay rights, evolution, etc.).  You may feel that by high school you’re old enough to think for yourself, and you are, but the lowdown is that parents often object strongly to having their kids “steered the wrong way” (in their eyes) before they’re ready to let them go entirely (as in off to college). 

Joshman, rebel or don’t, as you wish.  Make up your mind about what you think.  One man’s conformity is always another’s nonconformity, and vice versa; it all depends on the surroundings.  But let me just ask you one question, just to tease you a little:  what are you wearing right now? 

Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, and don’t kid yourselves. - F. Zappa

Funny you should ask, Geekmom!

I’m wearing a black sweatshirt, black jeans, black socks and black shoes.  They’re all plain, ordinary, and black - no chains or extra buttons or all that bullshit.  Oh, and my boxers vary in color, if you really wanted to know.

Frank Zappa is absolutely right - I just use mine so that I can be ready for school five minutes after I wake up.  At least I don’t have to worry about not matching!

Ooooh, the aggressively plain all-black look.  Very chic.  Says, “I’m a DEEP-THINKING NONCONFORMIST!” I knew guys who dressed like that so that they could get dressed in the morning without having to turn on a light.

My undies vary in color too, depending on how successful I am at separating the brights from the whites at laundry time.

Thing is, “Evolution” is FACT, can be taught as fact because ALL of the Sciences agree & corroborate each other.
Evolution is falsifiable and yet in 150 years has withstood every single test thrown at it, each test done by 1000s of different scientist have ALL failed in their efforts to prove Evolution wrong, therefore each of these 1000s upon 1000s of scientist have succeeded in actually proving Evolution beyond any reasonable doubt to be FACT.

Religion on the other hand is NOT falsifiable therefore can never be either proven nor disproved entirely, BUT so many so called “Truths” or “Absolutes” in the Bible have been proven by empirical evidence to be FALSE that just what part of this so called “Word of God” do you or can you believe? How can you “teach” something as fact, when its scientifically known to be false?

Now as a teacher in a “Public” school you have no right at all to talk, display, teach, discuss ANY of your religious propaganda with students, period.

Displaying a cross is nothing but a subversive “this is the ignorance I believe” icon acting as an insurgent against government/state authority & law.
Be the same as slapping a Jewish Menorah on your desk or what about a Voodoo Chicken Foot Fetish hanging around your teachers neck, yeah right guarantee the good ol Christian parents would have him/her fired or crucified immediately.

Religion in ANY FORM has no business whatsoever in a public school system, its nothing but divisive & serves no purpose but to point out whom is most ignorant & gullible amongst faculty/student population.
Isn’t school hard enough for the fat kid, the quite kid, the ethnic kid, the smart kid, the dumb kid, etc. without introducing into social dynamics of a school of diverse students THE MOST DIVISIVE behavior in all of human history, *Religion*?

If allowed at all it ALWAYS ends up in a my god is the one and only true god war between various religious factions while the Atheist just sit back in utter disbelief of the sheer lunacy of it all.