The Pledge

[FastNed]

Two words - "under God" - have Americans engaged in a fierce and sometimes bitter controversy over the core concept that America embraces a belief in Freedom of Religion. There is no question, at least within America that this concept includes the right not to believe. Because America does not and will not collect religious data (except for narrow, closely defined purposes) no-one knows exactly how many of us are atheists and no-one really cares.

These words are going to Washington, to the Supreme Court, because one atheist believes that his daughter should not be "exposed" to these two words in the "Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag" each day in school. Note that it has long been Law in America that no child is required to speak these words but that each is required to participate, to stand and observe a respectful silence should they not wish to recite the Pledge. Good manners and common courtesy require that at a minimum. (Think Hockey Game and two National Anthems being played).

I do not wish to turn this into a "Civics" lecture but this recital of the pledge is exactly that, an exercise in civics. Intended to promote patriotism and national unity, is is part of the process in which American children become aware that they are citizens of America and this is also an important part of the "melting pot", the process by which immigrants (or at least their children) become citizens of America - America has never intended to become the Balkans!

At this moment, due to the 9th Circuit Court Decision (which the Supremes will review), Schools in nine Western States are, theoretically, banned from all recital of the Pledge. A significant number of Schools are in defiance of this ruling and as the U.S. Senate quickly passed a resolution 99 - 0 supporting the Pledge, "under God", it is unlikely that any School will face prosecution. This is a "third rail" issue and no one wishes to be electrocuted touching it!

What is this Pledge which has become such a focus of controversy and does the inclusion of the words "under God" by Congress in 1954 remove any historical protection for their use?

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The immediate historical reference will be the words of Lincoln - those he thought would be little known nor long remembered:

"It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to the cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God , shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." (italics added)

Does the fact that at least one atheist believes these words are "Hate Speech" mean that "under God" is now banned in America?

This is not a spark, a fire or even a forest fire - this is a conflagration! The Supreme Court decision is expected in June of 2004 - just in time to be a 'burning' issue in the Presidential election. Forget the usual demographics, ignore the 'Blue" and 'Red' States and ask how a 'tranzi' Democrat can finesse this issue? This will be 'the' issue of the election.

[KrustyKidd]

Idiots. The whole meaning is not religious. It could be read as;

"One nation under none but a higher entity."

For brevity it is said

"One nation under God,  indivisable with liberty and justice for all."

In today's Liberal God hating terrorist loving bafflegab it could work with a disclaimer

"One nation *under God, indivisable with liberty and justice for all."  **

* controlled by none except a higher being and ; If there is none then we are under nothing.

** those who wish to quote the disclaimer may do so in a separate moment provided by the class administrator (at his/her discretion) either before or after the pledge is recited.

[Black Dog]

This will be 'the' issue of the election.

Oh man, i hope not. A stumbling economy, a costly and divisive foreign occupation, millions of lost jobs, and some B.S. about God in the Pkledge will be the major issue? I sur ehope Americans are smarter than that.

The Pledge stood for many years with no God reference, which was added during the height of the '50s' anti-Communist mania. Befiore that, it read, simply:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and  the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"

Adding to the irony is the fact that the Pledge's authour was a rabid Socialist....

Idiots. The whole meaning is not religious.

The court disagrees.

"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for establishment clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus', a nation 'under Vishnu', a nation 'under Zeus', or a nation 'under no god', because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," concluded Judge Alfred T Goodwin in his written judgment for the three-judge panel.

[Morgan]

BlackDog,

The Supreme Court judges frequently think Judge Alfred Goodwin and his 9th District activist judicial colleagues make wacky rulings that need to be overturned. The 9th District Court is the most frequently reversed federal court in the USA. Hopefully, the pledge decision will end up being yet another reversed judgment.

http://www.centerforindividualfreedom.org/...9th_circuit.htm.

"U.S. Supreme Court Keeps a Watchful Eye on the 9th Circuit"

Long considered the federal court breeding ground for judicial activism, the 9th Circuit has been the federal appeals court most often overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years.

Notably, the 9th Circuit accounted for both 30 percent of the cases (24 of 80) and 30 percent of the reversals (18 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by full written opinions this term. In addition, the 9th Circuit was responsible for more than a third (35%, or 8 of 23) of the High Court's unanimous reversals that were issued by published opinions.

Thus, on the whole, the 9th Circuit's rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts.

...in pursuing political and policy preferences at the expense of established precedent and textual commands, some 9th Circuit judges seem to invite review and reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Black Dog]

Hopefully, the pledge decision will end up being yet another reversed judgment.

Why?

[Morgan]

Black Dog,

I hope the 9th district court's pledge decision is overturned for a number of reasons.

1. The case was filed under false pretense. Dr. Michael Newdow claimed he had legal standing to file a brief on behalf of his daughter, saying his 8 year old's constitutional rights to religious freedom were being violated with the phrase "under God" in the pledge, that she "was injured" even having to listen to her state-employed teacher and other students in her public school say "under God" though she herself was not being forced to say the phrase, that the state was interfering with his parental responsibility of directing his daughter's religious training, that the Establishment clause of the constitution ensured a separation between government and religion.

In fact, Dr. Newdow does not/did not have legal custody of his daughter. The 9th district should not have heard Newdow's claim in the first place, had they taken the time to verify Newsow's legal standing to represent his daughter.

As it turns out, not only did Newdow not have legal standing before the court, but he also misrepresented his daughter's true sentiments about the "under God" phrase. Newdow's daughter is a church going Christian who enjoys saying "under God" in the pledge and says she will continue to say that phrase despite the 9th district's ruling. Her mother, Sandra Banning, who never married Newdow, is a Sunday school teacher. Furthermore, Ms. Banning has a copy of a court order awarding her sole custody of the child. The order also gave her the right to make decisions regarding the girl’s education.

Ms. Banning has filed a brief on the little girl's behalf with the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th district's decision. Ken Starr has agreed to represent Ms. Banning and her daughter pro bono.

2. The case was originally heard by a 3 judge panel and the decision was rendered on a 2-1 vote in Newdow's favour. But one of the 2 judges who sided with Newdow, Judge Reinhardt, should have recused himself, IMHO, and appointed another judge to take his place, who would not bring personal bias to the case. Judge Reinhardt's wife is Ramona Ripston, the executive director of the ACLU in Southern California, and the ACLU is the main provocateur against Christian symbolism in America.

3. Newdow is trying to impose his personal belief system on a nation of 300 Million people. In 2 polls a vast majority of Americans from all walks of life and representing a variety of religious/secular belief systems want the pledge to stay the way it is, with "under God" included.

An ABC News/Washington Post Poll, conducted June 26-30, 2002, showed 89% support for the pledge to have "under God" and a similar percentage of 87% was confirmed by a Newsweek poll, conducted June 27-28, 2002.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm.

FYI, Newdow also plans to challenge the use of "In God We Trust" on currency and the inclusion of prayers at presidential inaugurations, according to the Times. This guy wants to tear down traditions/symbols held dear to the hearts of the vast majority of Americans, and to my mind, Newdow personifies the phrase "tyranny of the minority."

Judge Ferdinand Fernandez identified Newdow's single-minded personal agenda when he wrote in his dissenting opinion, being one of the three 9th district court judge panel, "Upon Newdow’s theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues ... we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings. 'God Bless America' and 'America The Beautiful' will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third. And currency beware!"

4. I don't think the "under God" reference in the pledge has anything to do with the Establishment clause, which was written into the constitution to prevent government from establishing a new religion.

Rather, I agree with U.S. Solicitor General Olson, who says that the "under God "phrase in the pledge merely acknowledges the undeniable fact that “the Nation was founded by individuals who believed in God.”

Much of the Newdow case's background details included in my post were from the following articles:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/22/...ain564394.shtml.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=28160

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=28213

http://www.mediaresearch.org/bozellcolumns...col20020709.asp

[FastNed]

Very well done, Morgan! I wished to frame the general issue and leave details to come up and out in the debate. You exceed my expectations on an immediate response with your well researched and cited posting.

There is a great deal to ponder in this issue as in others which may be categorized under the "tyranny of the minority".

For you political junkies - note those numbers of 87/89 percent - this is not a red/blue hot button but rather an 'American' one!

[KrustyKidd]

MORGAN FOR PREZ!!!

FYI, Newdow also plans to challenge the use of "In God We Trust" on currency and the inclusion of prayers at presidential inaugurations, according to the Times. This guy wants to tear down traditions/symbols held dear to the hearts of the vast majority of Americans, and to my mind, Newdow personifies the phrase "tyranny of the minority."

After reading this I said "Oh my, I hope some higher entity (if it exists) decides to spare his sorry butt and not strike him dead."

I also loved the rational that the pledge is saying that the nation was formed by people who believed in God.

[Debo]

I'm a newbie here and an American. My views on religeon differ from most but on the subject of discussion I would like these people to remember that Freedom of religeon is not the same as freedom from religeon. Which would be a scary place to live.

[Morgan]

Though there are good reasons for the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th district's ruling, the most obvious reason being that Dr. Newdow has no legal standing in the courts to file a case on his daughter's behalf, sometimes it's luck, or lack thereof, that has a hand in final outcomes. To whit:

"...Justice Antonin Scalia said he will not participate, raising the possibility that the court could deadlock 4-4. That would let stand the 9th Circuit's ruling that rejected the Pledge. Newdow had called on Scalia to step aside after the justice appeared to criticize the 9th Circuit's ruling in a speech..."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...us-pledge_x.htm

"Supreme Court to consider Pledge"

By Richard Willing, USA TODAY, October 14, 2003

[Achilles]

I attend a jr high school and assert my rights by simply standing with my hands behind my back and mouth closed when the pledge is recited. I have routinely been to the principle's office for this, to which I tell them to look up the law.

[KrustyKidd]

Why would you not simply say the pledge and inconspiculously leave out the word God? It is true to your heart (unless of coourse you hate your country) and is less likely to make you look like so much of an attention grabbing freak? If the words as a whole or part offended you so much I am sure that an excusal from the whole ordeal would be accomidated for you but it really isn't this is it? It's simply a point you want to make, a game perhaps? Whether it is or is not it is a good exercise in asserting your rights at your age. Harmless. What irritates me however is when these adults like the gent mentioned in the posts above wastes money, time and resources on something that is so trivial to some and yet so mesaningful to others.

For example, if I was an Athiest why would I care if God or the Three Stooges was mentioned? To the person next to me who was very religious and had a family member who died in a foriegn war it would mean a great deal. I would recite it simply out of respect for them, and audibly I might add. Unless the word "God" shatters your eardrum or somehow opens up the gates of hell in your mind there is no reason to fear using it. If it is that one quarter second that you feel wasted each day when it is mentioned then a person might consider getting some serious time management skills under his/her belt. However, we all know this fight is trivial and at a time when there are many other issues to tackle filling the courts up with this is a sin to the people.

[Hugo]

A lot of the founders of America were fleeing religious persecution in Europe. People such as the Puritans and Quakers are prime examples, but English Catholics or French Protestants would be equally valid. They fled to America in order to be able to worship freely, in public, which they could not do in their own countries.

Now their descendants are being told, or are about to be told, that they may not worship freely, in public, and despite the fact that well over 80% of Americans are religious, religion and religious overtures are being banned from schools, courthouses and other public places.

Good job. If Dr. Newdow feels the need to mock and abase the principles of his country so badly, one might suggest that he go live in a nice, atheist country such as China, Cuba or North Korea and see how he likes it.

[Black Dog]

For example, if I was an Athiest why would I care if God or the Three Stooges was mentioned? To the person next to me who was very religious and had a family member who died in a foriegn war it would mean a great deal. I would recite it simply out of respect for them, and audibly I might add. Unless the word "God" shatters your eardrum or somehow opens up the gates of hell in your mind there is no reason to fear using it. If it is that one quarter second that you feel wasted each day when it is mentioned then a person might consider getting some serious time management skills under his/her belt. However, we all know this fight is trivial and at a time when there are many other issues to tackle filling the courts up with this is a sin to the people.

I'm an atheist and the use of God in teh Pledge offends me because it's tantamount to the state promoting religion or at least religious beliefs. I wouldn't care if it was God, Allah, Vishnu or whatever: religion is a personal matter and should not be endorsed or promoted by public institutions.

As for this being a trivial matter, both sides would probably disagree with you.

[KrustyKidd]

I am religious but don't care if it is in or not. It would not offend me if it were taken out nor would it make me quake in fear if it were left in. I do however feel that some people like it in. More than want it out. To the many, it gives comfort. To the few, for whatever reason it does nothing but irritate. This is one of the foundations of America. All things must change however so why not make up your own Atheist pledge and say it while the other Americans say theirs?

I view it like the continual changing of the Canadian anthem; enough already for God's sake!

[Derek]

This is how i view the how the founding fathers thought about seperation of church and state....

They never really thought about religions such as Islam and Hindu. Budd. etc. they thought about Lutheran, Catholic, Quakers, etc. etc.

I am just saying the founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves, if they knew about what our court system is "arguing" about these days.....Its pathetic.

I don't care if we offend some Islamic immagrant from pakistan because of the words "in god we trust" on our coins.

If he/she doesn't like it go someplace else,

If some atheist doesn't like it, they don't have to read it, if some kid doesn't want to say the "pledge" in school they do not have to.

Pretty soon we will have to change anything that has the word God on it that is displayed in public. Wait we already do......

[FastNed]

Say, Black Dog, I don't understand why you cast this in terms of the State.

I am willing to accept and acknowledge that you, as a non-believer, have no requirement to say those words when the Pledge is said. You are free to take that position and I would defend your right to do so.

So why are you not willing to grant me the same right to express my belief? Because you do not believe, you wish to prevent me from expressing my belief? For that is the effect of what you propose! That is exactly the tyranny of the minority!

Those who take this position are treading on thin ice - very, very thin ice!

Let me predict for you the majority reaction should the Supremes be left tied at 4 - 4 and this Circuit Court decision remain as Law, in the 9th Circuit.

On this issue, those who push it are attacking not only the Majority views on religion, there is also an issue of patriotism. The majority are going to pass the swiftest Constitutional Amendment in American History and it will not be limited solely to these words in the Pledge. Trust me, no atheist is going to like the results of a constitutional change in this area - the majority are going to shove back and do so with interest added!

[Mr Farrius]

I'll have to take the right-winged side on this one. The complaint that students in schools are being "forced" to acknowledge God is egregious. It is simple. You aren't forced to recite the pledge, so if it has something you don't like, don't recite it. Or if you feel such burning patriotism for your nation and you feel convicted to recite the pledge everyday, close your mouth when it comes to the "under God" part. There is no need to take this all the way to the Supreme Court and try to undermine everything that the founding fathers of America established. Trying to mess with the Constitution is unconstitutional.

[righturnonred]

I'm an atheist and the use of God in teh Pledge offends me because it's tantamount to the state promoting religion or at least religious beliefs. I wouldn't care if it was God, Allah, Vishnu or whatever: religion is a personal matter and should not be endorsed or promoted by public institutions.

First of all, just let me say that it is very strange indeed to maintain the belief that there exists no higher being in any form what so ever. Logic stipulates there must be or have been a creator.

Secondly, no where in the US constitution, it amendments, the Bill of Rights, or any other founding document does it mandate the "separation of Church and state." It is insane to suggest that this is what the founding fathers intended. The Framers meant that Congress couldn't establish a national church. They did not intend to forbid every little activity on government property or partially funded by the government. Like it or not, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principals and while the Founders envisioned a secular state, they did not wish to create of nation devoid of faith in the public arena. The point here is not that it is desirable for the government to endorse religious activities. Rather it is that courts have made the law up as they've gone along, completing mucking up Establishment Clause jurisprudence, and, in the name of protecting religious freedom, have greatly suppressed it.