The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is identical to saying "under Zeus" or "under Vishnu" ... and thereby establishes religion and cannot be recited as such in public schools.

Read more here ... now it's time to redesign and remint our coins and get rid of that darn "In God We Trust" -- Madalyn Murray O'Hair must be estatic -- wherever her soul is now (did she believe she had one??)

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

About bloody time.

In the next few days and weeks, many people who are otherwise seemingly intelligent will put forth a huge outcry against this ruling. I know it will be a long hard struggle for this ruling to stand, and it will be a bitter pill for much of the country to swallow, but it's the right thing. I was raised in a sort-of religious family, but ever since I was in second grade I questioned the "Under God" in the pledge, and the "In God We Trust" on our money. My parents, teachers, and pastors could never explain to me why they were acceptable.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

While the Federalist Papers and other contemporary documents can offer valuable insight into what the framers were thinking and are often used as resource material when trying to apply the constitution, they are not the end all of constitutional analysis and scholarship.

How is acknowledging the sovreignty of G-d over the United States (One nation, under G-d seems to imply that the ultimate sovreing of the US is G-d. If there is another way to read this, please illuminate us) not establishing a religion? I can imagine some might say it is because "G-d" as a word is generic not exclusive to Allah or Krishna or Buddah, ah but there's a problem. Buddah isn't a g-d as many Americans mistakenly believe. Buddists are non-theists. What of the pagans who believe in multiple g-ds? Should there recitation of the pledge read."One nation, under g-ds?" And of course there's everyone's favorites, the g-dless atheists. It's hard to be under something that doesn't exist.

[quote] Right thing my ass. This is one of the dumbest, least constitutionally sound decisions the 9th Circuit has ever handed down.

---

I happen to disagree with Ump25 on this, but I don't want to debate the merits with him (I have considerable academic training and practical experience in Constitutional litigation, so it wouldn't be a fair fight, any more than if I were to argue with him on the rules of baseball...which I wouldn't do: I appreciate his sage teaching on that great sport).

I MUST, however, take issue with the tone of Ump25's post here, and on legal/political issues in general. The insulting, peremptory tone of his posts on such topics is unfortunate to say the least. It only inflames emotions, rather than engendering reasoned discussion. Perhaps this is exactly what Ump25 wants, because his wording implies that that there is no intellectually credible view different from his own.

Ump25, and everyone else, though, should remember the words of Judge Learned Hand, one of the great jurists of the 20th century:

"The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right . . . and it is in that spirit of liberty and of America that the faith in the glorious destiny of our beloved country rests."

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

Maybe it's time to amend the pledge and return it to its original form. For the first 50 years the pledge had no reference to a deity.
The words "under God" were added in 1954 to show the godless Commies that we were a nation who believed in a Creator. Times change and maybe the pledge needs to change,too.

If I may babble a little more...

I haven't read the details of this court ruling, but I understand they were declaring unconstitutional a requirement that school children recite or listen to the teacher recite the Pledge of Allegience. The U.S. Supreme Court HAS supported similar rulings, for example, by not allowing prayers at graduations, etc. They have stated that students must not be forced to choose between participation (having to listen constitutes participation)in a religious prayer and protesting it. By walking out of the room during the prayer or pledge, they would be publicly distinguishing themselves from those who believe in "God", thus constituting a protest. This is from the Supreme Court, not from a leftist wacko. I know that the pledge is not considered a "prayer", but it is a government-sponsored declaration that we are all "Under God", tatamount to a prayer, and any law in support of the Pledge of Allegience in its current form is unconstitutional.

I'm far from a leftist wacko. I do lean towards atheism, but I am very respectful of those with religious beliefs (more so than they are of me). Even when I was religious (well, trying to be religious, like I was trying to be straight) I didn't believe that our government has the power to declare our country's "Trust" in a god, or to declare that our country is "Under" a god. At the same time, I respect the fact that most of my country does believe in "God", and does support these declarations. I accept the fact that the majority of our citizens want "God" in the pledge and on our money. That doesn't make it right; it just makes it something I have to live with - for now.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

I agree with the leftist side on this one and agree that it should be taken back to the original form which DID NOT include "under God" in it but then again i refused to stand during the GOD BLESS AMERICA crap that was sang endless amounts of time during sporting events/ political forums, etc. after sept. 11th! so i probably considered a wacko leftist even though i have never voted for a democrat in any government election!

Maybe if people new the actual history of it they wouldn't be so quick to lash out at the people who do not want "under God" included in it.

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: sparty on ]

I think ump25 is right on this one re: his opinion that the Supreme Court will take this and overturn it, knowing what I know about this Supreme Court.

Speaking and writing as someone else who has "academic training and practical experience in Constitutional litigation," this decision is illustrative as to why the Ninth Circuit is the laughingstock of the federal judiciary.

Separation of church and state ... yes. The U.S. Constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion. But this is getting ridiculous in trying to rid the state of even a vestige of religion. The Constitution does not require govenment hostility of religion. What next? Rename the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles because of the religious implications of the place names? How must a Spanish-speaking atheist feel when he has to tell people he lives in a City and County belonging to SAINT FRANCIS! Oh the humanity! Or "The Angels," God's agents on earth? It gets even worse. Even the very planets in the "heavens" are named for GODS of Roman mythology ... state sponsorship of Roman polytheism?

Bottom line: if someone is "offended" at "under God" in a voluntary pledge, or "In God We Trust," on a coin, there's no limit to the pettiness. Look next for attacks on the "God" references in oaths of office.

Special aside to the atheists posting here: do you get equally offended at government sponsorship of non-Christian religions? For example, on several occasions I've heard U.S. government officials and bureaucrats make reference to the fact that certain land should be protected because it's "sacred" to native indigenous peoples. Sacred??? Isn't protecting land solely because it is sacred (as religiously-loaded a word as there is) to someone somewhere nothing more than state sposnsorship of religion?

"Speaking and writing as someone else who has 'academic training and practical experience in Constitutional litigation,' this decision is illustrative as to why the Ninth Circuit is the laughingstock of the federal judiciary."

Exactly! A perfect example of what we used to call "too much college!" The Founders would recoil in horror. In fact, it's opinions like this that invite theories like "original intent" out of the woodwork - if not necessarily out of the past.

It's bad enough that this opinion ever issued in the first place, but especially so when you consider how many meritorious writs and other discretionary matters are routinely rejected by the Seers of Seventh Street - the 9th Circuit's digs in SF - so it can amuse itself with junk like this. And then there's the costs involved. The majority on this panel certainly are making the most of their judicial immunity!

Sorry for a momentary sidetracking of the thread:

gmg - Your reference to Seventh Street I assume is to the post office/courthouse building between Market and Mission. When I moved from the Bay Area the building was abandoned and behind a chain link fence as a result of Loma Preita quake damage and I thought it was going to be razed as repairs would be too costly. I assume by your reference this was not the case?

Second - can anyone state in a succinct way how "blue laws" pass constitutional muster??

Thanks - returning the thread to God-talk.....


Edited for typos

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Wurm ]

[quote] I suppose Jefferson's--one of the most ardent proponents of church/state separation--references to a religious deity in, say, the Declaration of Independence, is also inappropriate.

---

Just for clarification, Ump25, Jefferson did not include these words originally; they were added by other puritanical delegates to the Second Continental Congress.

From my personal perspective, I don't believe including the words is unconstitutional. I believe forcing students or others to say it, however, is impermissible. Personally, I remember an instant 8 years ago where our class (showing my LACK of age here!) said the Pledge and two students refused. Our teacher ridiculed them until one explained that he was a Jehovah's Witness, and not allowed to say the pledge. He then forced the other student, an atheist, to recite it, "under God" and all. Afterwards, they were both ridiculed by most in the class.

An enviornment where people come together and recite the pledge because they want to is perfectly fine. But what is seen in classrooms around the nation, where students feel ashamed or are ridiculed for not "following the norm," must be stopped.

[quote]Originally posted by Wurm:

Second - can anyone state in a succinct way how "blue laws" pass constitutional muster??

---

I can.

It's the same reasoning that allows Christmas to be a federal holiday. The Courts have found that there is a secular purpose, and incidentally aiding religion while having a discernible secular purpose does not run afoul of the First Amendment's establishment clause and free exercise clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause (implicated because this is a state statute).

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, writing in one of a trilogy of 1960 cases upholding the "blue laws" of various states: "In general, Sunday laws protect the public by guaranteeing one day in seven to provide a period of rest and quiet. Health, peace and good order of society are thereby promoted. Such provision is essentially civil in character and the statutes are not regarded as religious ordinances." Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Mass., Inc., 366 U.S. 617, 627-28 (1961) (quoting a Massachusetts state legislative report). Furthermore, according to the Court, "because the State wishes to protect those who do worship on Sunday does not mean that the State means to impose religious worship on all." Id. at 627.

Lesson over. Back to the regular thread.

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

[quote]Originally posted by sparty on:
I agree with the leftist side on this one and agree that it should be taken back to the original form which DID NOT include "under God" in it but then again i refused to stand during the GOD BLESS AMERICA crap that was sang endless amounts of time during sporting events/ political forums, etc. after sept. 11th! so i probably considered a wacko leftist even though i have never voted for a democrat in any government election!

Maybe if people new the actual history of it they wouldn't be so quick to lash out at the people who do not want "under God" included in it.

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: sparty on ]

---

Return the Pledge to its original form since Communism is all but dead, return all the southern state flags to their original, pre-confederate forms since those flags were the original intent of the states' founders, and let's be done with this. (Daschle, by the way, ought to be slapped, but he's still thinking about the presidency. Wake up, Tom [and Al Bore], it's John Edwards and John Kerry's turn.)

BTW, I don't think it's unconstitutional to have "under God" as part of the "Pledge of Allegiance." Also, one can express patriotism without being a jingo or worshiping a flag. I personally loved the "Pledge" when I was little, just as I loved singing the "Magnificat" and the "Paternoster" in Latin. But I really do wonder what people here would say if children, pressed by their parents to remove the ambiguity, started substituting "under Allah" (this is less far-fetched than some of you would believe), "under the God of the Christians and no others," "under Yemayá and Obatalá and Shangó," "under Ganesh and the linggam of Orissa," "under the thousand spirits that live in the forest behind my house...."

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

I have never enjoyed reciting this pledge. Personally, I consider it to be utterly hypocritical. I have always resented the fact that I was forced to say "under God." Go ahead and say the damn pledge if you want to, but why make everyone else? I do not have a God. And the pledge totally implies ONE God, too. It's a blatant violation of separation of church and state. It's totally obvious to me.

AND, is this country "one nation"? Is there really "justice for all" in this country?

And let me say, too, that the pledge of allegiance is almost a form of brainwashing! Is it really that outrageous to say that this pledge isn't something kids are required to recite in public schooling????

Wurm, The courthouse was damaged structurally in the '89 quake but extensively rebuilt and restored to its Beaux Arts glory. It is the seat of the Ninth Circuit, but no longer a functioning post office. Oral arguments are a real treat in that fine old building, but what comes out of it isn't always the greatest.

The Ninth's criticism of the Seventh is certainly cheeky, especially in quoting the line about circuit courts' inability to ignore Supreme Ct. precedent. The Ninth Circuit does it all the time - directly or indirectly in order to advance its unclear agenda - and that's why it's consistently the most reversed court of appeals in the country.

BTW, my fellow Republicans and I are attending a rally on its steps today at 1:30 to recite the Pledge - "under God" and all. C'mon down and see free speech in action!

I'm not saying our rally made him do it, but just after we finished reciting the Pledge on the steps of the Ninth Circuit courthouse minutes ago, Judge Goodwin, who authored the opinion, stayed its operation until the full court decided whether or not to rehear it en banc.

While I still disagree with his opinion, I commend him for doing the collegial - and cost-effective - thing. The rule of law survives.

Ok, Say The Supreme Court upholds the 9th circuits ruling. Does anyone really think that congress will make a constitutional amendment? Then there would be a pretty clear violation of the separation between church and state, wouldn't it? I'm glad someone finally had the balls to start making sure that there still is a seperation between church and state. It was starting to feel a lot like Iran. That's why I love this country. People have a right to believe or disbelieve. The Constitution makes sure that those ideologies don't interfere with the decisions that the goverment makes as a country. Unfortunately, It seems that a lot of people think that religion will be the saviour of this country and that the bible should take precedent over The Constitution. Funny thing is, we've gotten ourselves involved in a religious war. We've been involved for about 50 years. Seeing the jews and the muslims go at it all these years, if thats religion, I don't want religion in my life. Besides, I think it's comical that all these politicians run to the flag pole and start spouting the pledge for the cameras. Hell, if wasn't an election year I think they would have went to Mcdonalds instead.

[quote]Originally posted by budge:
Besides, I think it's comical that all these politicians run to the flag pole and start spouting the pledge for the cameras. Hell, if wasn't an election year I think they would have went to McDonalds instead.

---

Not this one. I'll spring for White Castles any day!

I'm with the 9th Circuit on this one and wish the judge hadn't stayed the ruling - it looks like cowardice (although I agree that an en banc review is not such a bad idea with a high-profile decision like this). All you Ninth Circuit haters in San Francisco should move to my hometown, Richmond, where you can watch the 9th's ideological opposites in the 4th Circuit in action, marching firmly towards the 18th century (to the applause of Justice Scalia).

Charlie ITT - A decision like this doesn't reflect hostility to religion, just hostility to government sponsorship of one religion over all the others. When the government protects land that's sacred to Native Americans (a sign in itself that it's not hostile to religion), it's not forcing the rest of us to take part in sacred ceremonies on that land.

It's a simple tenet: why should anyone be compelled to take part in a religion to which they don't adhere?

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

In my morning paper/editorial page it had a pretty good cartoon, that pretty much summed it all up. It had two kids in the picture and one was looking at the other saying, "its alright to burn the flag, but not to say Under God?"

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
We have bent over backward to protect the rights of the minority (nonreligious) in this country that we have now surpressed the rights of the majority (religious).

---

And we should keep doing so. Where would all of us be if the religious majority were allowed to decide our fate? Probably in jail or dead.

i think we have taken the concept of "separation of church and state" a little too far. I agree with an earlier poster in that it is meant for the state not to impose ONE religion upon it's citizens (as was with the Church of England at the time the pilgrims left). I don't think it meant to remove God from the state.

If you don't want to say "under God", omit it when saying the pledge. I think many people, for the sake of, as my Grandmother would say, "just to be contrary", pull these stunts for attention. If you don't want to say the pledge, then, I'm sorry, I don't understand you.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

I believe Tim H. was just trying to make the point that the Bill of Rights was included to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. When the two conflict, it becomes a matter of balancing the interests. I don't see how removing the phrase "under God" from the Pledge suppresses any religious person's rights. It's not as if anyone is suggesting changing it to say "one nation, under no God at all..."

It reminds me of conservatives who say that prayer is not allowed in public schools. Blatantly untrue. I can't remember who said it, but I love the quote "As long as there are pop tests, there will be prayer in schools."

That's what I meant, but, in my haste to post a response, my view was not presented very clearly. You said it much more eloquently than I ever could have, Lots-of-us.

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
So here comes Tim H. saying it's OK to surpress the rights of the religious, and that "we should keep doing so," but not OK to surpress the rights of the nonreligious.

This is frightening. Neither is acceptable.

God, the hypocrisy here is truly amazing.

---

Neither is acceptable??? So what exactly are you saying here Ump? That it is ok to supress the rights of the minority in favor of the majority?? Talk about frightening. I think Germany had that problem in the late 30's and early 40's.

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Tim H. ]

And because a little humor is often called for in these situations, we get this from satirewire.com:

San Francisco (SatireWire.com) - A U.S. federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional because it contains the phrase "under God," a decision blasted by Democrats, Republicans, and brand managers who say the United States is making a grave mistake in dropping its principal sponsor.

"Over the years, the U.S. under God has been a great draw for the major players - Einstein, Solzhenitsyn, John Lennon," said government marketing analyst Gil Treacle. "Without God's brand recognition and infinite marketing powers, you risk losing the marquee names to competitors. Then the networks don't renew, the money dries up, the fans revolt, and the next thing you know, you're Argentina."

The U.S. Justice Department, assigned the difficult task of finding a replacement, said it has already been in contact with several entities ("One nation, but 24,000 Starbucks") interested in having their brands associated with America.

Until an agreement is reached, however, the U.S. will advertise the position by replacing the phrase "One nation, under God," with "One nation, (sponsorship opportunities available)."

While the words "under God" were only added to the Pledge by Congress in 1954, God has been the title patron of the United States since its founding in 1776, and the God name adorns everything from U.S. currency to the phrase "So help me God" used to swear in the President.

The three-judge panel who voted to sever that 226-year relationship has come under heavy fire, but many have defended the decision, saying it is wrong to force religion on anyone.

"The phrase 'under God' clearly violates the First Amendment's separation of church and state," said McDonald's CEO Jack Greenberg. "However, there is nothing in the Constitution that separates chicken and state, which is why we're proposing, 'One nation, six chicken McNuggets and a medium Coke, all for $1.99.'"

A handful of Americans, however, has insisted the United States can get along just fine without a primary sponsor.

Their suggestion that the Pledge phrase be regularly updated to reflect the national condition, however, has so far attracted little interest, as a CNN/Gallup poll found only 10 percent of respondents would feel comfortable reciting "One nation, under indictment."

Europeans, meanwhile, seemed to be confused by the entire episode. "I don't understand. I always thought it was 'One nation, we are God,'" said British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "Oh my, I've been worshipping them for nothing."

God, in various forms, currently supports most nations, with the exception of officially atheist China and Vietnam, and the Netherlands, which hasn't been told yet but is in for a nasty shock tomorrow.

Here's what the other Bush had to say about atheists several years ago.

http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/aa011.htm

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
Actually, it does. We have bent over backward to protect the rights of the minority (nonreligious) in this country that we have now surpressed the rights of the majority (religious).

---

Please specify which laws forbid you from going to church or from getting on your knees to pray. Then we'll discuss how your rights have been suppressed.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

That's a different situation than ACTUAL suppressing of your right to go to church and pray. And you know that. But you don't care.

Jesse Ventura was right about religion. He is therefore my new God, and we shall ALL worship him from now on because I SAY SO!

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

Which religion, exactly, is explicitly endorsed by the words "under God?"

Judaism and/or Christianity--which were probably, in fact, the only religions the founders were thinking of when they granted religious freedom. It's not under Allah, or Ahura Mazda. Buddhism isn't necessarily deist. Many religions (e.g. Hinduism) have multiple gods.

Some buddies and I were talking Saturday night about just how lucky we are to have been born in America, land of Budweiser and my favorite, Dixie Beer, as opposed to, say, France, or any country ending with the letters "ia".

Then, at some point, I heard an interesting solution to the whole pledge question: Concede defeat. Take the words "under God" out of the Pledge. The Pledge would still be pretty powerful without them, and it would be better for God's PR, so to speak: The fact that the words don't really mean anything anymore and do not, in fact, have the power to endorse and religion, actually cheapens the whole idea of God. He's not something you just say, through force or voluntarily.

So let's just say, "Okay, you're right, the words 'Under God' are unconstitutional and should be removed from the pledge, so schoolchildren can be required to say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning before classes start without any fear of violating their right to freedom of religion."

Then let the lefties and the fringe right make an even tougher argument: That we as American citizens, and schoolchildren in particular, should not be required to pledge any sort of allegiance to the United States of America.

We must not forget, these people hate not just God, but country, too. (Think about the words to "Imagine.") It would be the mark of a truly compassionate nation to allow these guys to focus their energies on just one of their enemies.

William, I was always under the impression the fringe right loved god and country. There's a lot of guys on the fringe left who feel the same. What does John Lennon have to do with it? He was singing about utopia which makes that song all the more unreal.

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: budge ]

But many people embrace the song "Imagine" as a realistic goal for society - hence it's (to me, highly inappropriate) frequent appearance at post-Sept. 11 events. ("Hey, you, the person who just lost your spouse or child in a vicious terrorist attack . . . Hey, just imagine there's no heaven!") And the fringe-militia right thinks America is just as evil, crooked, out-to-get-them, etc. as the fringe left. Some people, of course, think anyone to the left of Al Gore is fringe, so I guess it's all relative.

Maybe I'm way off base, but I don't think "Christianity" is a religion, per se. Lots of religions fall under that heading.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Maybe I'm way off base, but I don't think "Christianity" is a religion, per se. Lots of religions fall under that heading.

---

You're way off base and you're out!

Christianity--The religion founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ (Webster's Dictionary)

Lots of sects (various Protestants & Catholics)fall under Christianity, not lots of religions.

As pundits & politicians wax indignant about whether the pledge of allegiance should make reference to god, over a court decision that was withdrawn, a case much more relevant, and potentially far-reaching, was meanwhile unfolding in Alabama, with little comment in the mainstream media. It touches on issues of authority, compulsion, repressive codes of decorum, and the question of whether minors even have any rights at all.

My guess is that the court would have to rule in favor of the plaintiff. I'm assuming that the precedent established in 1943 by the U.S. Supreme Court in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, in which the court ruled that a student could not be disciplined for refusing to recite the pledge and salute, still stands.

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- A federal appeals court heard arguments Friday on whether an Alabama school system had the right to discipline a student who stood silently with his fist raised rather than recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

The student, Michael Holloman, a high school senior who has since graduated, was spanked three times with a wooden paddle and given a written reprimand.

The case was argued before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta only days after another federal appeals court ruled that the pledge is unconstitutional because of the words "under God."

The attorney for the school board in Walker County, Alabama, told the judges that Holloman was punished two years ago for disrupting class, not for refusing to say the pledge.

"He acted out, and he has attempted to cloak his behavior in the First Amendment," attorney Russell Robertson said.

Holloman's lawyer, Charles Tatum, said his client did not disrupt the class and raising a fist was a form of speech.

"You've got a right to disagree with things that are seen as morally and politically correct in this country," Tatum said.

A federal judge dismissed Holloman's lawsuit last year.

[quote]Originally posted by BballDC:


You're way off base and you're out!

Christianity--The religion founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ (Webster's Dictionary)

Lots of sects (various Protestants & Catholics)fall under Christianity, not lots of religions.

---

BballDC, all you talk about is sects, sects, sects. Jeez.

[quote]Originally posted by Tim H.:
Where would all of us be if the religious majority were allowed to decide our fate?

---

Under a wall that had been pushed over on us.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
But many people embrace the song "Imagine" as a realistic goal for society

---

They're called socialists. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Seriously, I think a lot of people don't really listen to music, they just use it as audio wallpaper. John Lennon? oh he was a musical genius, a guru of a generation, his stuff must be good and good for you. Personally, I happen to have socialist leanings and have a certain respect for the lyrics of that particular song, but I don't think most people have ever really listened. They kind of turn off their minds after "Imagine."

[quote]Originally posted by BballDC:
Lots of sects (various Protestants & Catholics)fall under Christianity, not lots of religions.

---

Hey, if I recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" included, will I have lots of sects? Maybe they ought to keep the words in.