Newdow's Crusade

It's ironic that atheist Michael Newdow is fighting the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by school children as if he were engaged in a holy war.

This anti-religious zealot won a battle in his secularist jihad yesterday.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday, a decision that could put the divisive issue on track for another round of Supreme Court arguments.

The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected last year by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.

This Judge Karlton is no Judge Roberts. He doesn't seem to have a very bright legal mind.

I'm not certain, but I don't believe that any student is required to recite the Pledge. Being in a classroom while other students pledge allegiance to the flag is not a violation of a right.

What right would that be? The right not to hear others say "God"? Where in the Constitution is that one found?

Calling the classroom ritual of saying the pledge to be a "coercive requirement to affirm God" is a real stretch.

Where's the coercion if children do not have to participate in the recitation?

It's truly ridiculous and a waste of tax-payers' money to use the courts to argue such a silly case.

I would love to see Newdow testify in court. "Put your hand on the Bible and raise your right hand."

Would Newdow then sue the court for being "coercive"?