Among the arguments that the pro-“Under God” crowd are using in the Supreme Court case over the Pledge of Allegiance (whew — wasn’t that an awkward sentence?) is this:
Newdow’s opponents and others also give the court another option: Forget about “under God” and throw the case out on the ground that Newdow, who never married his daughter’s mother and has no legal custody over her, lacks standing to sue in the first place.
“In these circumstances,” says a brief submitted by former California Supreme Court justice Joseph R. Grodin, in support of neither party, “the Court should vacate the Ninth Circuit’s judgment” and send the case back to the California Supreme Court for it to settle the question of Newdow’s standing — a process that could take months or years.
It’s also interesting to note that an amicus curae brief was filed by the NEA in opposition to Newdow — this is a surprising step from the association that was called “a terrorist organization” by the Secretary of Education… Perhaps, like CBS and other companies, they decided to back down from their principles after a few choice threats from the Bush administration?
This morning on Morning Edition, they touched on the possibility that Newdow has no standing, and quoted the mother, who doesn’t want the suit to proceed. Surprise, surprise! She said, “My relationship with him was before I was walking in faith.” After that line, it was unnecessary to point out that she is a born-again Christian. In other words, she believes that children should be required to recite the words “under God.”
You know, every time a born-again fundamentalist steps into the game, it really just proves the case for me. If religious people have a stake in any issue before the government, then you know the government shouldn’t adopt it because it promotes religion.
And why, oh why, do born-agains use such dreamy, brainwashed language like “walking in faith” all the time? As soon as I hear those ridiculous phrases, I immediately discount anything else they have to say.
