Jolie Rouge
11-05-2007, 09:47 PM
Another California battle over “In God We Trust”
There’s a showdown tonight in Bakersfield, Calif., over whether the public schools can display posters of the national motto, the Bill of Rights, and the US Constitution in every classroom: http://www.eyeoutforyou.com/home/11027951.html
Full house expected for "In God We Trust Vote"
Nov 5, 2007
The Kern High School District is expecting a big turnout at its meeting tonight when trustees are expected to vote on whether posters carrying the phrase: "In God We Trust" should be posted in classrooms along with the constitution and the bill of rights.
The idea was presented by trustee Chad Vegas who claims the plan promotes patriotism at schools, but some say, the phrase pushes religion into public schools.
Two members, on the five person board, have said they do not support the proposal. Board member Bryan Batey says his "no" vote would defeat trustee Chad Vegas' effort to post the national motto, along with the bill of rights and the constitution in all classrooms.
:rolleyes:
You’ll recall that the last big battle over “In God We Trust” in California was waged by atheist publicity hound Michael Newdow:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199211,00.html
Federal Judge Nixes 'In God We Trust' Lawsuit
Monday, June 12, 2006
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A federal judge on Monday rejected a lawsuit from an atheist who said having the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and dollar bills violated his First Amendment rights.
U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. said the minted words amounted to a secular national slogan that did not trample on Michael Newdow's avowed religious views.
Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, also is engaged in an ongoing effort to have the Pledge of Allegiance banned from public schools because it contains the words "under God."
Two years ago, the pledge fight reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which said Newdow lacked standing to bring the case because he didn't have custody of the daughter on whose behalf he brought the case. But a Sacramento federal judge sided with Newdow in September after he filed an identical lawsuit on behalf of parents with children in three Sacramento-area school districts. The case is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Newdow's "In God We Trust" lawsuit targeted Congress and several federal officials, claiming that by making money with the phrase on it the government was establishing a religion in violation of the First Amendment clause requiring separation of church and state.
The phrase "excludes people who don't believe in God," he claimed.
Damrell disagreed, citing a 9th Circuit decision from 1970 that concluded the four words were a national motto that had "nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion."
Newdow said Monday he would appeal.
Congress first authorized a reference to God on a two-cent piece in 1864. In 1955, the year after lawmakers had the words "under God" put into the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress passed a law requiring all U.S. currency to carry the motto "In God We Trust."
Newdow filed the lawsuit five days after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected, without comment, a challenge to an inscription of "In God We Trust" on a North Carolina county government building.
---
Newdow’s fellow travelers in the California public schools are really something else. The mere display of historical documents and the national motto has them in a state of apoplexy, yet these same zealots have no objection to lesson plans forcing students to adopt Muslim names and recite Islamic prayers.
Remember? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/12/MNGBN3L90R10.DTL
A federal judge says a Contra Costa County school was merely teaching seventh-graders about Islam, not indoctrinating them, in role-playing sessions of a history class that called for students to adopt Muslim names and recite language from prayers.
In a ruling announced Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton dismissed a suit by two Christian students and their parents who claimed the use of role-playing at Excelsior School in Byron during the 2001-02 school year amounted to an unconstitutional endorsement of Islam.
During the course at the middle school, teacher Brooke Carlin, using an instructional guide, told her students that they would adopt roles as Muslims for three weeks. She said she stressed that the exercise was only a role- playing game to teach them what Muslims believe.
She encouraged them to use Muslim names, recited prayers in class, required students to recite a line from a prayer and made them give up something for a day, such as television or candy, to simulate fasting during Ramadan. On the final exam, students were asked for a critique of elements of Muslim culture.
That was all within constitutional bounds, Hamilton said, because the purpose was educational, not religious, and students engaged in no actual religious exercises or demonstrated “any devotional or religious intent.”
There’s a showdown tonight in Bakersfield, Calif., over whether the public schools can display posters of the national motto, the Bill of Rights, and the US Constitution in every classroom: http://www.eyeoutforyou.com/home/11027951.html
Full house expected for "In God We Trust Vote"
Nov 5, 2007
The Kern High School District is expecting a big turnout at its meeting tonight when trustees are expected to vote on whether posters carrying the phrase: "In God We Trust" should be posted in classrooms along with the constitution and the bill of rights.
The idea was presented by trustee Chad Vegas who claims the plan promotes patriotism at schools, but some say, the phrase pushes religion into public schools.
Two members, on the five person board, have said they do not support the proposal. Board member Bryan Batey says his "no" vote would defeat trustee Chad Vegas' effort to post the national motto, along with the bill of rights and the constitution in all classrooms.
:rolleyes:
You’ll recall that the last big battle over “In God We Trust” in California was waged by atheist publicity hound Michael Newdow:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199211,00.html
Federal Judge Nixes 'In God We Trust' Lawsuit
Monday, June 12, 2006
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A federal judge on Monday rejected a lawsuit from an atheist who said having the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and dollar bills violated his First Amendment rights.
U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. said the minted words amounted to a secular national slogan that did not trample on Michael Newdow's avowed religious views.
Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, also is engaged in an ongoing effort to have the Pledge of Allegiance banned from public schools because it contains the words "under God."
Two years ago, the pledge fight reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which said Newdow lacked standing to bring the case because he didn't have custody of the daughter on whose behalf he brought the case. But a Sacramento federal judge sided with Newdow in September after he filed an identical lawsuit on behalf of parents with children in three Sacramento-area school districts. The case is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Newdow's "In God We Trust" lawsuit targeted Congress and several federal officials, claiming that by making money with the phrase on it the government was establishing a religion in violation of the First Amendment clause requiring separation of church and state.
The phrase "excludes people who don't believe in God," he claimed.
Damrell disagreed, citing a 9th Circuit decision from 1970 that concluded the four words were a national motto that had "nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion."
Newdow said Monday he would appeal.
Congress first authorized a reference to God on a two-cent piece in 1864. In 1955, the year after lawmakers had the words "under God" put into the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress passed a law requiring all U.S. currency to carry the motto "In God We Trust."
Newdow filed the lawsuit five days after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected, without comment, a challenge to an inscription of "In God We Trust" on a North Carolina county government building.
---
Newdow’s fellow travelers in the California public schools are really something else. The mere display of historical documents and the national motto has them in a state of apoplexy, yet these same zealots have no objection to lesson plans forcing students to adopt Muslim names and recite Islamic prayers.
Remember? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/12/MNGBN3L90R10.DTL
A federal judge says a Contra Costa County school was merely teaching seventh-graders about Islam, not indoctrinating them, in role-playing sessions of a history class that called for students to adopt Muslim names and recite language from prayers.
In a ruling announced Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton dismissed a suit by two Christian students and their parents who claimed the use of role-playing at Excelsior School in Byron during the 2001-02 school year amounted to an unconstitutional endorsement of Islam.
During the course at the middle school, teacher Brooke Carlin, using an instructional guide, told her students that they would adopt roles as Muslims for three weeks. She said she stressed that the exercise was only a role- playing game to teach them what Muslims believe.
She encouraged them to use Muslim names, recited prayers in class, required students to recite a line from a prayer and made them give up something for a day, such as television or candy, to simulate fasting during Ramadan. On the final exam, students were asked for a critique of elements of Muslim culture.
That was all within constitutional bounds, Hamilton said, because the purpose was educational, not religious, and students engaged in no actual religious exercises or demonstrated “any devotional or religious intent.”