Thursday, June 27th, 2002
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled 2 to 1 that the reference to God, which was added to the pledge by Congress in 1954, amounts to an official endorsement of monotheism. Thus, the San Francisco-based court said, both the 1954 law and a California school district’s policy requiring teachers to lead children in the pledge violate the First Amendment prohibition against the establishment of a state religion.
“The recitation that ours is a nation ‘under God’ is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase ‘one nation under God’ in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and — since 1954 — monotheism. The text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. 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.”– Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, majority opinion for himself and Judge Stephen Reinhardt
“[L]egal world abstractions and ruminations aside, when all is said and done, the danger that ‘under God’ in our Pledge of Allegiance will tend to bring about a theocracy or suppress somebody’s beliefs is so minuscule as to be de minimis. The danger that phrase presents to our First Amendment freedoms is picayune at most … upon Newdow’s theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, 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! Judges can accept those results if they limit themselves to elements and tests, while failing to look at the good sense and principles that animated those tests in the first place.”– Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez, dissenting opinion
“That judge who shouldn’t be a judge in my opinion … let me say this, that I hope his name doesn’t come before this body for any promotion. He will be remembered. He will be remembered … I hope the Senate will waste no time in throwing this back in the face of this stupid judge. Stupid. That’s what he is, stupid.”– Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia
Senator Byrd also commented on how he would not allow this country to be run by athiests and if they didn’t like it they could leave.
“This is obviously an unbelievable decision, as far as I’m concerned. And an incorrect ruling, and a stupid ruling. Either it’s got to be overturned en banc by the Ninth Circuit or by a higher court, or we will do it in the Congress.”– Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi
“I don’t agree with the ruling. I haven’t read it, but from what I’ve heard about it, it doesn’t make good sense to me. I don’t see how having those words in the Pledge of Allegiance, or those words above the speaker’s chair in the House, ‘In God We Trust’ is an establishment of religion, or violates the separation of church and state. I think the decision is poorly thought-out, and that’s why we have other courts to look at decisions like that. I hope it gets changed…”– Senate Majority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri“I see no reason to change the time-tested, venerable pledge that is such a central part of our country’s life and our nation’s heritage…”
“Obviously, the liberal court in San Francisco has gotten this one wrong. Of course, we are one nation, under God. The Pledge of Allegiance is a patriotic salute that brings people of all faiths together to share in the American spirit.– House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois,“I strongly believe that parents, teachers and local schools should encourage children to recite the pledge to start the day, the same way those of us in Congress begin our daily business, (and) not allow a liberal judge to take it away. It’s time for the Senate to move forward and confirm some common-sense jurists.”
“This decision is so much out of the mainstream of thinking of Americans and the culture and values that we hold in America, that any Congressman that voted to take it out would be putting his tenure in Congress in jeopardy at the next election … It is no surprise that belief in God is something that a vast majority of Americans hold not only in a spiritual way but in a political way as well … “– Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa
You know what? Who cares?
Look, the Pledge lasted for 58 years without “under God” and it got us through a depression and two World Wars. The inclusion of “under God” was made in 1954 to distance us from the athiest evils of Communism. It as all part of the Red Scare. And it’s purpose was to say, “Look! RELIGION!”
And that is exactly what the court said was wrong with it.
Keeping “under God” in the Pledge is a Federal recognition of God, that this country is different from Communism on a philosophical level because of our fear of God, and therefore enforces the belief of one God. But that’s not right. America’s philosophy was and is different from communism and many other government’s because of the freedoms we grant our people to believe any faith they wish, without the government sponsoring one over the other.
And removing “under God” does not change the meaning and the intent of the Pledge of Allegance. We still swear loyalty to America and what it stands for, its values, its freedoms, and we are all united in that loyalty. To include “under God” is hypocritical because it erodes from the freedom of religion.
But our politician’s miss that. They see a declaration of the Pledge as Un-Consititutional as unpatriotic when that is not the case. It is VERY patriotic because it is a legal enforcement of the Constitution through the use of presidence set up by the Supreme Court. These guys didn’t just pull this decision out of a hat.
And the arguement that “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!” is a weak arguement. It’s simply saying let us not change the status quo because it’s asking too much of us and our government. But when we and our government have possibly been wrong for so long, of course it’s going to take a lot of work to fix.
The arguement that this decision is against what mainstream America believes is weak as well. Mainstream America was against freeing the slaves, integrating our schools, many things, but it was pushed because it was felt necessary for the sake of America and because we have a duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
Your Personal Self-Government Score is 70%.
