(Federal appeals) Court: 'Under God' in Pledge is constitutional

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

The words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an appeal to patriotism, not religion, and do not violate the separation of church and state, a federal appeals court ruled today - the same court that declared the pledge unconstitutional in 2002.

In a separate ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in San Francisco upheld the placement of the national motto, "In God We Trust," on coins and currency. The language is patriotic and ceremonial, not religious, the court said.

Both suits were filed by Michael Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who has filed numerous challenges to government-sponsored religious invocations.

... Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a member of the three-judge panel that ruled the same language unconstitutional in 2002, dissented from today's ruling.

The 1954 law adding "under God" to the pledge was "designed to promote religion and to indoctrinate schoolchildren with a religious belief," Reinhardt said.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/11/BAS71CEC9F.DTL&tsp=1

[DebbieCDC]

1. WTF does "god" have to do with "patriotism"?

[old guy]

2. Exactly my question.

How can the reference to God not be religious? Makes no sense.

[wellst0nev0ter]

8. What Are You? A Filthy Commie?

well, obviously I have to put the :sarcasm: tag for those who forget that that phrase was added during the height of the McCarthy era.

[Jkid]

9. I was wondering the same thing.

[salguine]

14. God is MURKIN, y'damn commie pinko lib'rul sosh'list pinko commie pinko!

[SoapBox]

25. Ditto!

I'm very confused (but I always am when it comes to our courts
saying that there is no conflict between "church and state."

How much more conflicted could you get with this?

...I'll add that I too, just mumble during that part of the pledge...

[damyank913]

26. You can't spell America w/o G_O_D...

no wait-that was dog-you can't spell dog w/o g-o-d. But you can't have a conversation over a campfire bout bear, god, and man w/o g-o-d.

[Roland99]

58. Uhh...yeah. No shit! WTF????

[Festivito]

59. It appears to be advertising for our system of government.

IOW, we mention god and it pulls people to our side, they are drawn to patronize, thusly, it's patriotic.

You asked.

[iandhr]

3. I thoughts the Supreme court already answered this question

[MisterP]

4. if it's solely "an appeal to patriotism," that makes it downright sacrilegious! nt

[madmax]

17. self delete

[DrDan]

5. well, if the phrase was "over God" then I could agree it was an appeal to patiotism

but when God is place above the nation, then I don't understand the ruling.

[Ian David]

6. That's okay. Skipping the "Under god" part of the pledge gives me an easy way to protest something.

[HillWilliam]

21. I've never said it

As a child I was told it was the same thing as taking the Lord's name in vain (a seeyin!!). Having nicely recovered from from the grips of the Misery Sinner Lutherans, I still won't say it. G'd doesn't really give a shit what the governments of humankind do. Clearly our government doesn't give a shit what G'd thinks else it wouldn't be nips-deep in the business of maiming, killing, and starving millions of people for loot and plunder.

And just under WHOSE god, anyway? Damned if I'll dignify that murderous, crazyass devil-trickster the whackogelicals love to kiss the ass of.

On the whole, it seems a dumbass debate for the courts to take up. And I still won't say "under god".

[xocet]

33. Alternative....

That sounds like a good idea for a protest, but how about the alternative "one nation under NO god"? Maybe it would catch on.

[Demeter]

35. Truth in Pledging!

If this is God's work, then we are screwed. and I wouldn't want to belong to it.

[AlphaCentauri]

52. Replace it with "Under ELOAH, ELOHIM, EL SHADDAI, ADONAI, YHWH / YAHWEH / JEHOVAH, EL ROI

[thereismore]

7. So we can preach God in schools too? As long as it is "our" God, i.e., patriotic God? nt

[SomeGuyInEagan]

50. And as long as that God looks surprisingly similar to John Wayne, yes.

Not that Jerry Garcia looking God from the short-lived "God, the Devil and Bob" television series. Nope. God, of course, is an American .... that's why he sent Jesus to write the Constitution.

[rambler_american]

10. The picture at the top of this page

shows another interpretation of "One nation under god". http://www.ep.tc/realist/48/26.html

[Nye Bevan]

11. Doesn't this Newdow guy have anything better to do with his time?

None of my kids have ever been driven to religion by saying "under God" in the pledge every day. Now if they were forced to say the Our Father every day that would be another matter, but this is a non-issue.

[Bill McBlueState]

19. Why do you care how some stranger spends his time?

:shrug:

[Nye Bevan]

29. Because it plays into the repukes' hands

Like it or not, this is not a vote-winning issue for us. What's this guy going to do next? Sue to try to prevent schools from closing on Good Friday and Christmas Day?

[xocet]

31. Damn...

It's another Democrat subscribing to the craven, put-up-no-resistance-and-maybe-they'll-just-go-away-because-I-can't-be-bothered-to-actually-stand-for-anything philosophy.

You aren't presently advising Obama, are you?

[Nye Bevan]

36. So I guess that's what you think about every Democratic politician in Washington

Because I don't think any Democratic congressman or senator has come out in support of Newdow.

[DavidDvorkin]

23. Protecting the separation of church and state is an outstanding way for him to use his time.

[xocet]

30. Well...?

So, you are not into separation of church and state? Interesting.

Would it be different for you if the wording were "under Allah" or "under Hastur" or "under Dushara" or "under no god"?

[Nye Bevan]

32. I just think it's an overblown, vote-losing issue.

No kid has, or will ever, become indoctrinated into a religion simply because the words "under God" are in the pledge. Or because "In God we Trust" is on banknotes.

[xocet]

34. FYI

Health care reform is a vote-losing issue, too.

[Nye Bevan]

37. Big difference.

Passing health care will stop people dying when they lose their jobs and cannot afford insurance.

Removing "under god" from the pledge of allegiance will achieve precisely nothing, except that it will cause Democrats to lose votes.

[xocet]

39. Principles Matter....

It is the principle of standing up for the progressive ideal that matters. Government and religion should be absolutely separate. Historically, the mixing of religion and government has not worked out well.

What some may deem nit-picking over things like habeas corpus, torture, separation of church and state, prosecution of the Bush Administration, and the Patriot Act will all lose votes, but Democrats have to stand for some set of values. Note that the Democrats always appear weak, because they stand for nothing on a regular basis. This loses votes.

Freedom of religion has been important, because it is related to freedom of thought: "The law for religious freedom... put down the aristocracy of the clergy and restored to the citizen the freedom of the mind." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:400" (http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm)

In reply to an earlier post, too: Yes, my opinion is that there are many Democrats in D.C. who are too craven (Pelosi, Reid, Obama, ...) or too corrupt (Baucus, Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson (NE), ...) to stand for any set of values that would substantially help the country obtain a socially-just future state.

[NYC Liberal]

43. And what about the kids shamed or taunted because they didn't want to say it?

This is not just about kids being "driven to religion" (although it does promote religion).

[Nye Bevan]

45. Nobody will notice if they don't say it.

Just say "underdog" instead of "under god". Or say nothing. Or just say the words without thinking about any kind of deity.

The only kids who might get taunted are the ones whose parents embarrass them by making a huge production out of it.

[NYC Liberal]

46. So why have it then?

"Why not?" isn't a reason to include religious language in something like this. How about, if children want to add their own religious statement, they can do so. The default should be to have none.

The whole idea of having kids chanting loyalty oaths en masse every morning is disturbing anyway.

[ldf]

61. the "go along to get along" philosophy

is a big part of the problem.

as it stands, the democratic party is currently the "bipartisan" party, where the losers, the republicans, dictate to the winners, the democrats, on each and every issue.

why even have elections?

we need to sweep all this "god" crap under the rug, permanently.

look at god's "big" plan. all of nature (which includes us) is nothing but a giant food chain, with us at the top of the heap. so we have "dominion" over all.

how inspiring is THAT?

if that's all there is, i think i'll keep on dancing, break out the booze.....

edit to add...

You can NEVER make me utter any religious words. i was raised in that crap and quickly saw it for what it was, a method of manipulation and control.

can you say NEVER???

[PassingFair]

51. Some kids DO...

if they won't say it, they are still forced to
listen to it, and feel "wrong" and outcast if
they do not go along to get along.

http://www.hb-rights.org/1local/issue6]


My kids always knew I would back them up
if they wanted to sit out the pledge, they
mostly chose to mumble along (as do I).

One day, my oldest daughter came home and
told me that she had worked up the courage
to sit it out and NO ONE NOTICED!!!

:rofl:

[paulsby]

55. i didn't say it

i went to a large public high school for a while (i was a private school kid) in 5th grade. *i* didn't say "under god" when i said the pledge because i thought it was bullshit that it was in there.

nobody harassed me or gave me a hard time.

at my private (religious) schoo, we did not say the pledge of allegiance (but had chapel every morning) and i was fine with that, fwiw.

but i was a little rebel and just refused to say under god in the pledge.

in brief, nobody cared.

[starroute]

54. Do you want kids to grow up believing all politicians are hypocrits?

That was the attitude we had when I was in high school in the early 60's. "It doesn't really mean anything. The politicians don't believe that religious stuff any more than you do. They just like to stick the word 'God' in everywhere because they think it's a way to get votes. Or else it's a fancy way of saying, 'We're better than everybody else because God is on our side and not theirs.' So you can just ignore it, because it's a bit of meaningless self-promotion."

There's just one problem with that attitude -- and that is that kids may also start ignoring the important parts of the pledge, like "liberty and justice for all." And you wind up with somebody like Glenn Beck going around telling people that justice is un-American.

So yeah, the real problem with "under God" is that it's a poison pill which delegitimizes the pledge as a whole. And that's not something you can just overlook.

[Journeyman]

12. Hilarious. God is now just a circus sideshow freak, inserted willy-nilly. . .

God is now just a circus sideshow freak, inserted willy-nilly whenever ceremony or tradition calls for a stronger dose of patriotism or ceremony than mere mortals can hope to add on their own. Like a carnival barker, or a shiftless, traveling evangelical, our secular patriots can haul God out as needed for dramatic emphasis or comic relief. He's no longer a deity, he's a flavoring, a dash of spiritual spice to be sprinkled about whenever the bland lot of life is deemed too dull for the tastes of foolish mortals.

What a silly, useless being his supporters have rendered him to be.


Edited for clarity. And to insert the Supreme Spice Guy into the subject line (for creative effect only, invoking his name only for the oomph it lends to my words).

[Delphinus]

40. Ooh,

help me understand how to use this in that manner. Thanks!

[Zhade]

13. Bullfuckingshit it is.

More religious nonsense. Awesome.

[Chef Eric]

15. Awww, poor little judges feel threatened by secularism. Pathetic! nt

[alp227]

16. WHAT?

I guess that as long as "In God We Trust" etc. was used since the era of George Washington it's just "American heritage" not religious proselytising.

[truthisfreedom]

18. Under which god?

[Bill McBlueState]

20. I wonder how religious people feel about this

The court has reduced the word 'God' to a mushy expression of patriotism. That seems to belittle the God I heard about when I used to go to church.

[Solly Mack]

22. Patriotic? Damn

Scary people.

[maxsolomon]

24. Bush appointees in the majority since 02?

this is "legislating from the bench", Right Wingers - why aren't you getting incensed?

[Thothmes]

44. How many on the 9th Circuit

[Mari333]

27. the original pledge

1949

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA0A0ymd0CM

[sulphurdunn]

28. We have a state religion,

but we don't worship the Big Three god of monotheism. We just pretend to do that for the sake of appearances. The god in our pledge is the same One True God inscribed on our money. His name is Mammon.

[Plucketeer]

38. Aw Christ!

I love my country, but my country ain't got a prayer. Anyone seen where it got off to? :evilfrown:

[fascisthunter]

41. No, It's NOT Constitutional

what the fuck does a god have to do with patriotism. I don't believe in a god... it's like having to say "In Smurfs We Trust"


goofey

[xocet]

42. P.S....

What ever actually happened to E Pluribus Unum?

That motto is as undivisive as "In God We Trust" is divisive.

[Ter]

47. I don't mind "In God We Trust" on money

In all honesty, what do you think would happen if it was struck down and they forced the Fed to remove it? You would smile for a day, but we would love immensely in November. I also think there's a 30% chance an all-out Civil War would happen. No thanks, it's not worth the possibilities.

[unblock]

49. that's political question, not a constitutional one. but you're right, it would be a disaster

politicians would fall over themselves promising to "overturn" the court's decision with a constitutional amendment actually putting god in the constitution.

THAT would be a disaster in many ways, not just for this issue but also for the new crop of religiosos that would then be put into power.

[gtar100]

48. Of course it is; that's why God is mentioned so much in the Constitution.

... oh wait.

Well just because it doesn't say it really, doesn't mean that the founding fathers didn't want to. It says so in the bible... probably... somewhere.

Oh well. As long as you believe in the same God that I believe in, then we're going to be A.O.K. :dunce:

[Throd]

53. I'm a life-long atheist who considers the whole thing a non-issue

Some atheists, like Newdow, enjoy acting like a vampire from a 1930's movie every time they see a religious symbol.

[Mumble]

56. This is nothing more than a prayer of allegiance

And I thought prayer was forbidden in school.

[Throd]

57. The pledge of allegiance is the least of problems facing our schools.

[Rage for Order]

60. SUCK IT NEWDOW!!!!

You fucking prick. I love it!

[Imperialism Inc.]

62. Regardless of whether one think this is something that should have been

taken to court or not the real question is was it a proper decision. The case was taken brought to the court and the court's job is to make a decision based on law and the the Constitution. That people would celebrate the court making not just a bad but a horrible decision is pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourselves. The fact of the matter is that there could not be a more clear case of violation of the establishment clause. It should bother everyone that the court no longer cares about the law instead deferring to a fear of public backlash. How do you think we get horrible decisions like the recent corporations are people too decision. It is from judges that no longer care about precedent and the Constitution.

My recent blog on the topic includes copious quotes from the dissenting judge on the panel who eviscerates the majority's decision.

A short quote (more at my link)

http://bit.ly/dvqi8Q

Only a desire to change the rules regarding the separation of church and state or an unwillingness to place this court on the unpopular side of a highly controversial dispute regarding both patriotism and religion could explain the decision the members of the majority reach here and the lengths to which their muddled and self-contradictory decision goes in order to reach the result they do.

To put it bluntly, no judge familiar with the history of the Pledge could in good conscience believe, as today’s majority purports to do, that the words “under God” were inserted into the Pledge for any purpose other than an explicitly and predominantly religious one: “to recognize the power and the universality of God in our pledge of allegiance;” to “acknowledge the dependence of our people, and our Government upon the moral direction and the restraints of religion,” 100 Cong. Rec. 7590-91 (1954); and to indoctrinate schoolchildren in the belief that God exists, id. at 5915, 6919. Nor could any judge familiar with controlling Supreme Court precedent seriously deny that carrying out such an indoctrination in a public school classroom unconstitutionally forces many young children either to profess a religious belief antithetical to their personal views or to declare themselves through their silence or nonparticipation to be protesting nonbelievers, thereby subjecting themselves to hostility and ridicule."

[and-justice-for-all]

63. The original context of the pledge is not religious...

because it conflicts with the Constitution.

I also find "one nation under god" to be self righteous, pompous and flat out Theocratic. "designed to promote religion and to indoctrinate schoolchildren with a religious belief," sure is.