A press contact at the American Humanist Association, the atheist group at the center of the legal battle, confirmed to TheBlaze on Monday that its legal arm will not be appealing the case.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a conservative legal firm, also put out a press release earlier in the day claiming victory and announcing that the atheist group had “thrown in the towel” on the case.
“The decision to give up the case marks the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty’s fifth victory in a row defending the words ‘one nation under God,’” read the press release.
The conclusion of the case means that the legal firm successfully represented New Jersey high school student Samantha Jones in her quest to defend the Pledge after atheists sued in state court in an effort to strip “God” from the traditional wording.
“I’m so grateful to know that I will be able to continue reciting the pledge in peace,” Jones said in a statement. “Ever since I was little, I’ve recited the Pledge of Allegiance because it sums up the values that make our country great.”
The American Humanist Association’s decision not to appeal the ruling comes two months after a New Jersey judge threw out the group’s lawsuit that argued that “under God” is a violation of the state’s constitution.
More
Here is yet another lawsuit by some splinter minority that actually made it to court. Yet another burden on an already crowded docket by some pitiful liberal minority group that wants to change a majority view. How in the hell does a radical minority even deserve the right to challenge the overwhelming majority? In a true democratic republic that crap should never even happen.
ReplyDeleteThe judicial system should never have allowed this case, nor any like it, to even come before a judge.
The people who are being bullied by these frivolous lawsuits need to turn it around on them.. go after them for attorney fees, costs, etc.
ReplyDelete"Samantha Jones in her quest to defend the Pledge after atheists sued in state court in an effort to strip “God” from the traditional wording."
ReplyDeleteUnder God is not the traditional wording of the pledge. The original author, a minister,did not want God in the pledge. Under God went into the pledge in 1954 partly to make us stand out from the "Godless" communists. Imagine we won WWI and WWII without under God in the pledge. The longer we allow this to continue the longer know nothing Americans will think under God was always in the pledge. I am amused today because our biggest enemy is not Godless Russians or Chinese but God fearing Muslims. Many people are not very intelligent or simply don't have a clue as to their history.
1:10 PM "...How in the hell does a radical minority even deserve the right to challenge the overwhelming majority..."
ReplyDeleteOur Constitution protects the rights of the individual (the smallest possible minority), NOT the rights of the majority.
Very well then 3:42PM,
ReplyDeleteYou're correct, these minorities do have a Constitutional right to challenge the majority.., just not the right to direct it. As this judge just declared.