You’ll be pleased to know that the “under God” part of the Pledge of Allegiance is still legal — but just barely:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the use of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments on Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who claimed the references to God disrespect his religious beliefs.
“The Pledge is constitutional,” Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. “The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded.”
The same court ruled in Newdow’s favor in 2002 after he sued his daughter’s school district for forcing students to recite the pledge.
In a separate 3-0 ruling Thursday, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto “In God We Trust” on coins and currency.
The Los Angeles Times adds:
A divided federal appeals court Thursday reversed itself, ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t violate the constitutional prohibition against state-mandated religious exercise even though it contains the phrase “one nation under God.”
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2002, which deemed that requiring students to recite the pledge violated their rights to be free of religious indoctrination by the government, was one of the most controversial to come out of the court that is second only to the U.S. Supreme Court in its power to determine law for nine Western states and two Pacific territories.
The Establishment Clause of the Constitution’s 1st Amendment prohibits the enactment of a law or official policy that establishes a religion or religious faith. The 9th Circuit’s earlier ruling that the pledge unconstitutionally included “under God” stirred nationwide controversy and exposed Newdow, a physician and lawyer, to virulent scorn for attacking the religious references.
In Thursday’s ruling, written by Judge Carlos T. Bea, an appointee of President George W. Bush, the judges ruled 2-1 that Newdow and others who joined his lawsuit didn’t have standing to challenge the 1954 amendment to the pledge adding the words “under God” because no federal statute requires them to recite it.
Senior Circuit Judge Dorothy W. Nelson joined Bea in the ruling, but Judge Stephen Reinhardt dissented, writing that “the state-directed, teacher-led daily recitation in public schools of the amended ‘under God’ version of the Pledge of Allegiance… violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.”
Nelson and Reinhardt were both appointed to the court by President Carter.
So, Michael Newdow: misunderstood First Amendment patriot like his predecessor, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, or… you be the judge,
Here’s Madalyn in action, with a special guest appearance by Phil Donahue:
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
79 Comments
well, i am liking the roberts court, and i hope this peanut brain does take his case to be spanked by roberts. there is no seperation of church and state in the constitution. there is a clause that prohibits the congress from establishing a state religeon,but there is no separation. there is no such possibility that a mayor, or county official can establish a united states official religeon, and no school district can either. but it is pathetic that students would be tossed out on their butts for reading official founding documents, such as the proclamation making thanksgiving the first national holiday.
Can you believe we have people in this country who want to attack the pledge of Allegiance?
madalyn hope you like the heat !
Old-hairball did anyone ever find her body or is it still assumed that Rosie O'Donnell ate it?
" there is no such possibility that a mayor, or county official can establish a united states official religeon, and no school district can either"
They already have, at least the school districts that is. It's called the religion of Global Warming, otherwise known as de-population. Just ask ALGORE and Bill Gates and all the other true believers. PULL YOUR KIDS OUT! One more generation of public school "educated" children and we're all toast for sure. It may already be too late.
well, they have two religions, the global warming one, and every card carring liberal prays at the alter of abortion. i am not sure about the fisting, and two mommies might also qualify as well.
Poor old misguided Madalyn.
She sure was colorful. Although I disagreed with everything she espoused, and detested her with passion, I wholeheartedly supported her right to make a fool out of herself on the world stage for what she believed.
That is what has made America great. Folks like me putting our lives on the line, to allow people like her to sit in the comfort and safety of their gilded cages, and spout nonsense.
I am glad to see the court still ruling in favor of the Pledge, and in favor of our currency. It hangs by a fragile thread.
That's a good ruling.
Yes I think they found her body, or what was left of it, after some of her own family killed her and chopped it up for her gold stash. Her son, who was not involved, has since become Christian on his own. He has said she was a horrible and nasty person who lied, cheated everybody and thrived on conflict.
Imagine if I spent so much time and money trying to purge all references to something I didn't believe in anyway. Can you imagine suing in court against all mention of Leprechauns, or the Easter bunny? Atheists are screwed up.
I think the bodies were eventually found, chopped up and packed in a shallow grave. It has been about ten years now, and I was living back in Texas at the time and vaguely remember hearing it on the news for about five seconds. She met her just rewards.
Psst.
How about you and I team up and file suit against CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood? I personally am beginning to take umbrage with the mention of Allah and the Prophet Muhammed. Maybe we can raise some money, and some rabble, and get the law firm of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe to represent US………….
The Easter bunny doesn't exist!? Fine, destroy my imaginary world!
In an odd side note to that, I'm originally from Italy and when I first saw the imagery for the Easter bunny I didn't quite know what to make of it. At first I thought it might be some sort of meal served with Easter eggs.
[...] Read the rest. [...]
How can it be that carbon dioxide, the as we exhale, is deemed a threat by the EPA, but a religion which exhorts its followers to kill non-believers is tolerated – no- defended and treated with kid gloves by our government? Personally, I don't know who I'd sue first: CAIR or the Nation of Islam.
Eggs are stuffed into the bunny's body cavities, then you roast the little guy with some fresh rosemary and carrots.
Personally, I always thought roasted fish was supposed to be the Easter meal. Wasn't that what Jesus asked for when he walked in the flesh after His crucifixion and before the Ascension?
Where do people like this get the money and the time to file all these law suits anyhow? If they lose in court after sucking down all these man hours and court docket slots do they have to pay the court fees? If they don't now they should.
yup. They were dead in 55 gallon barrels in a self storage on N. Burnet Dr. for a while, then the perps moved them to a ranch in the Hill Country then they were "discovered".
Good riddance. Killed by their "office manager" over about $250K, if memory serves me.
Wow, the notoriously whacky 9th Circut got it right! Miracles do happen, or they just followed the law and common sense.
When will these attacks on our country by these whack jobs end?
Remember that kooky disbarred lawyer in Austin who was doing the same stuff? I think he went broke fighting over the 10 Commandments on the Capitol grounds. Like it was really bothering him.
Suffer the fools…
Thanks for the laugh. I needed it today.
JUST BARELY HUH?…..How about "In God We Trust" on the currency, the only thing that validates it, as valuable (Worth anything), other than the promise from a corrupt government!!?… How about that question? Why don't we all quit believing in God (Our Governor) as you Pagans say we should! How would you control us (The masses) then, if we weren't required by a higher unseen power to obey boundaries/limitations to the g/Godship of choice, we would all be unlimited as you are!!! "Cradle to grave" would be the "Beginning and the ending"; god vs God….. choose your teacher/governor/god[God] , chose it wisely!!
Good reads: Jeffrey Kuhner columns in Washington Times – March 5 and March 12. I'm having trouble linking to sites tonight, but highly recommend these.
For the life of me I will never understand how we have come to the current interpretation of "separation of church and state". For one thing, that phrase is not even in the Constitution itself and is traced back to a misinterpreted letter sent by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. Just read some of the quotes from the founders in this video and you decide what they thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzYl48V0HTM
I guy I knew bought a house across the street from O'Hair's in a nice part of Austin in the early 90's. Not "on the water" nice, but very nice. He didn't realize who she was.
He rarely saw her anyway and then "poof" she disappeared. After she was gone the Atheists pulled up stkes and moved back east someplace. No big loss for wacky liberal Austin.
Have you seen the cartoon/tee shirt with the two choclate bunnies talking? One has it's butt bitten off the other has it's ears bitten off. One says "My ass hurts" the other one says "what?"
There are 29 judges on this Court….It was a 2-1 decision…By the luck of the draw, we go two logical ones and only 1 lamebrain who was a Carter appointee…
Shocking…
Hey, I am an athiest and I agree that references to "God" do not violate the establishment clause. "God" is a generic term used by ALL religions so it is INCLUSIVE OF ALL RELIGIONS. The establishmen clause is only violated if some religions are EXCLUDED…. like the ban on same sex marriage. Some religions allow same sex marriage thus a law that prevents the free practice of that religion DOES violate the establishment clause. I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding these things.
How many pages did Reinhardt rant for? I bet it was a bunch.
Actually, if you go and read the original court case in which that notorious phrase appears you'd be surprised: they got it right back then. By the way, the original court case is Everson v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?... I'd suggest reading it, as Justice Black's overview of the Establishment Clause is quite useful to know. The decision isn't hard to understand either, I suggest people read it.
It should also be noted that Everson was decided against those who were trying to "separate" religion and government.
To sum up, the effective tests for the Establishment clause is either forcing religious observance (which generally has to be specific religious observance) or when a government directly gives money to a religious organization. Note I said directly, if there's an intermediate step between the government and a religious organization, it's fair game. An example of this is school vouchers being used for religious private schools (the intermediate step being the parents, who get money from the government and then decide what to do with it), Everson also fits under this understanding of the Establishment clause.
OUTSTANDING!!!! The ninth circuit court did something RIGHT for once!! I'm impressed and very very pleased.
Any Americano traveling to CUBA and spending dollars, is complicit in the torture, murder and rape of the country.
When freedom finally comes after a 50+ year holiday, these people will be clueless as to what it means.
Their collective psyche will be so damaged, it will take a "Psychological Marshall Plan", 2 generations just to get them to up to the "Danny Glover Socialist drone level" we have here in the US.
I doubt they will ever end, but hopefully they won't get so far because we have been awakened and will no longer sit by idly and hope the courts get it right.
Amen to that CL – remember when I told you all about that huge Islam billboard in Chicago? Well I went over there to take a picture and surprise, it's now a teeny tiny sign, seems someone beat to me to it with a complaint.
It is human nature to seek God. Liberals have allowed progressives* to push God out of their lives and that in turn has left an empty spot. Attempting to fill that emptiness is what leads good people to follow what seem to be well meaning causes such as "Global Warming" or "Hope and Change."
When these causes are exposed as frauds, it leaves the liberals in despair and disarray as day after day they witness their progressive* heroes twist and turn as their lies become more and more bizarre. Even then, in their depression, they turn to alcohol, drugs, immoral behavior and all the other vices of man.
The answer is simple, continue your search for God, he has not abandoned you, he is waiting for you. Even more important, save your children. Don't let those impressionable young minds follow the progressive* frauds down the same path. YOUR CHILDREN ARE IN DANGER! AMERICA IS IN DANGER!
*progressive: I am elite and smart, you are stupid, therefore I will be your master
Obama Mocks Christian Faith
http://usataxpayer.org/?0033881580
Progressive Assault on Children
http://usataxpayer.org/?0040951310
Shit, I long for the days when atheism had good apologists like Bertrand Russell instead of this arrogant half-baked crap people like Newdow and Richard Dawkins are promoting.
Newdow really does think he speaks for all non-believers in his lawsuits and tries to paint this picture of victimhood. So glad his crap never usually goes anywhere.
The lasting damage of Obama will be the crazy liberal judges he can appoint. We'll have to work hard to counter their damage.
The shocking thing is that this ruling occured *in San Francisco*! Although, I guess you do have the Prop 8 people in California too, lots of Catholics and some Mormons, so maybe it makes a little bit of sense. And now that Democrats have accepted some social conservatives in order to broaden their ruling coaltion (think Stupak), maybe liberals are less hostile towards those who believe in God these days.
I guess the ols saying is true. A stopped clock is right twice a day. This is one case before the 9th that I hope does not get overturned. See the impossiable can happen. If this does not prove God is real then you are beyond hope.
[...] View full post on Big Journalism [...]
We put our trust in God, and once again, He came through!
The Founders never did a video.
Why does anyone think we need a "Pledge of Allegiance" or that it does any good? It is nothing but Big Government bullying.
The two sides in this ridiculous "under God" contoversy disagree about whether (a) the "pledge" should include references to a religious belief to which not everyone in America subscribes, or (b) the "pledge should acknowledge no moral authority higher than the almighty nation-state.
But they both agree that it is somehow essential, to assure our continued success as a free nation, that we have some set of words that we intimidate a captive audience of helpless school children to recite.
I disagree with both sides on the latter point. Hey teacher, leave them kids alone.
And to think all it took was ONE idiot woman to change everything in this country!!! I will NEVER understand how she had the law on her side and the majority of this country was dismissed as foolish!!!
To what do we owe this decision from the 9th CIRCUS Court of Appeal straying so far from their usual flavor of rulings? I"ll be giving thanks to God on this one for sure. Hope it is the start of a trend.
A teeny tiny sign?
You didn't tear it down?
Now maybe this troll will go and find a place to f#*k himself!__The fact that this even made it to the 9th circuit is ridiculous
I can do all things through Christ Who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13
"Fools mock but they shall mourn, My grace is sufficient for the meek"
Jesus Christ
I'm having a hard time understanding the bit about "some religions allow same sex marriage". Which ones do not view homosexual marriage as an affront to nature or an abomination?
As an atheist, do you disbelieve in the values "good" and "evil"?
Agreed, just teach the kids our nations ideals and history…
This is great news. Whether people like it or not this country was founded for Religion not anti Religion.
What's happened to the Ninth Circuit? How could they be finally getting it all right?
Miracles.
Well, guess what Peter K.? No one gives a crap what YOU or that Sacramento Atheist thinks. You want to know why? Because this country was founded by CHRISTIANS on CHRISTIAN BELIEFS. The majority of this country is CHRISTIAN, so if you or anyone else from another country feels disrespected, TOUGH. You're FREE to leave our country and go find one that believes in what YOU believe. This PC b.s. has got to stop! You're also FREE to believe whatever you want, but don't try to change our laws or way of life because you don't agree. If a Christian went to the Middle-East and said that their religion "disrespected" them, they would be beheaded in public! This country allows the freedom of all religions, but don't try to disrespect OUR religious beliefs because YOU happen to disagree with them.
I remember back in the day when I was in high school, when we had to walk up hill both ways in chest deep snow(all year) before we all became enlightened about AGW, my theology instructor has a tape of a debate between O'Hair and a priest. She was easily reduced to a slobbering troll, granted with her looks alone it wasn't that far of a transition, as the priest kept his cool and just slapped her around intellectually. It was great.
I learned and recited the Pledge daily in elementary and semi-regularly in junior high school before the Amendment inserted "under God." Since I then "stumbled" over that phrase for a long time, I was ambivalent about whether it should be in the Pledge or not — until the God-haters started whining about being "offended."
While I can understand agnosticism (even though I'd think it more sensible to go with Pascal and his philosophical proofs that "it's more reasonable to believe God exists than to believe God does not exist"), I can't for the life of me figure out how so many atheists (who claim there is no God) can be so vitriolic and hateful about anything they say "doesn't exist." That always suggests, to me, there's something dark lurking about to provoke such anger (shudder).
Oh the temptation was great, but I didn't have a ladder tall enough
Yep, and I for one am up for the challenges we face – somehow I doubt I am alone
They got this one right – and saying "under god" is vastly different from doing anything "under god". No-one forces you to do anything "under god" so you can ignore it.
I did a search…
About $500,000 in gold coins, actually. All the family, nicely diced. The accomplice, Danny Fry, was re-united with his missing head and hands when they recovered the other bodies…they found the accomplice in a creek bed…
David Roland Waters was the murderer, an extremely violent ex-felon hired because 'ol Madalyn liked dominating people who had taken human lives…according to the son…
He was exposed by Madalyn for a $54,000 theft he made from the organization…she publicly humiliated him in the newsletter, and listed crimes he did prior to his hiring…it made him a little cross…
Waters even had the money he took stolen from him…a gang had a master key for the storage shed he had the money in…and stole the gold…
Very "Old Testament" Wrath of God stuff…a "very sticky ending" as the Brits say…
Wonder how Newdow will finally end up…
that was my first thought. the '9th Circus' must have gone off their meds- or maybe got new ones. unfortunately, if their track record is any indication, it will probably be overturned on appeal…
The prior thread kind of indicates that her "comfort and safety" were somewhat over-rated
Sombody fill me in. Is this their first correct ruling, ever?
gotta be close..but, as my pappy used to say, "even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then."
I probably have a different take on this than 99% of the people here. Being a non-organized religious person myself, I used to be on the side of the "keep God out of everything" argument. As I get older, I realize it's really not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. So while I'm not a religious person, I am not particularly offended by the mention of God.
The reason? Despite what most here probably believe, I don't believe that the Founders were all born-again Christians. Many were deists. I'm sure some here admire Thomas Jefferson. He actually made his own version of the Bible, taking out all the references that he believed were supernatural in nature, looking for the simple essence of the teachings of Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible. He also created the first American University (University of Virginia) that was not based in religion, but on a more secular approach.
I don't believe he was the only one from that time who had non-fundamentalist Christian beliefs.
I DO believe that the Founders were at the least Deists, however. I don't think many of them were particularly atheists. They did believe that we are here because of Our Creator, and I think they thought that man was more or less a special creation and that we had a special destiny, and that knowledge may bring out the best in us, as opposed to someone who thought we were just savage beasts and had no destiny other than to die. Fair enough. If they believed "In God We Trust", I have no problem with that, at all.
However, this is actually not the victory that many fundamentalist Christians want it to be. They would like us to think that "Our Creator" and the God that we "Trust In" is the Biblical God. We hear over and over that this is a "Christian Nation". If the Establishment Cause holds true, then "Under God" is the most general form of a God, and NOT the God of the Bible, because if it were specifically the God of the Christian Bible (and not the God of however many different religions and faiths) then we would be back to establishing a religion, Christianity.
At least to me, this ruling says that "Under God" is simply the Creator, and that Creator is open to interpretation. I think that is just and fair. My concept of God may be different than yours, and I don't particularly care for being called a Godless heathen anymore just because my concept of God may differ than yours. I have a feeling the Founders may have shared my view.
Finally, please note that the words One Nation "Under God" were not in the Pledge until 1954. This means that for 62 entire years, the Pledge was said WITHOUT those words, and I bet the case could be made that during those years, people were even more patriotic than they are now.
In conclusion, I have no problem with the "Under God" or "In God We Trust" being a part of our public life. But I also respect and appreciate the rights and opinions of those who disagree with it, and I don't think them any less patriotic or American for doing so.
I'm an atheist and have been one for >40 years.
I have absolutely no problem with the Pledge or with the fact that this nation's roots are indeed religious and Christian in nature. That's a fact of history.
I find that none of my Constitutional rights have been impinged upon by religion.
Rather, my rights are at a much greater risk of destruction by Leftists.
Laugh will be on you, dude. You're taking a big chance mocking God. I'm pretty sure He doesn't like that.
Pity the atheists who spend their time fighting against someting they believe does not exist.
Well I agree with the ruling. Though I find it disstasteful for Chrisitians to lay clame to the name "God". The only reason I support the idea is that we can all have the free right to understand what "God" means to us. It doesn't have to the monotheistic Judea-Christian "God".
Just like many thought that Jefferson was a Christian but he wasn't and he had little respect for Christianity. He was a Diest and believes in a God and a unverisal framework far different from the monetheistic traditions of Judiaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Though Im not here to claim which is right or wrong; I just hope to make sure people keep an open mind and don't get swept away in the Christian euphoria. It was a victory for all faiths not just one!
It's just immensely depressing that the zombie believers of a Bronze Age mythology hold any sway over the public laws of a diverse secular democracy. The American Talibangelists aren't going to be happy until the boot of theocratic Biblical sharia law is on all of our necks.
Damn straight. Pledging allegiance to our flag is a basic statement of love for one's country, it's laws, and it's basic freedoms. There is NO bullying involved. I said the pledge every morning of every school day, and never felt "bullied" into it. Those who would argue otherwise either are whining little C-cakes, or are people who truly disagree with what this country stands for. For the former, grow thicker skin. For the latter, GET OUT.
The Establishment Clause of the Constitution’s 1st Amendment prohibits the enactment of a law or official policy that establishes a religion or religious faith.
I like this story.
With great respect, wldbil, because I know you're a thoughtful person: The entire reason for our Constitution is to protect the rights of the minority, not to enforce the will of the majority. Popular sentiment, written or spoken, needs no protection. It's the unpopular thoughts that can inspire great malice in others, and therefore need the greatest protection.
The government has, on numerous occasions, abused those who express unpopular ideas. The concept of free speech is now reduced to freedom from prior restraint.
In the runup to WWI, the government jailed newspaper editors for writing against our getting into the war. The government's argument? We didn't infringe on your freedom of speech. We let you have your say, fair and square, then locked your ass up for it.
So, majority rule is for a democracy, a hateful form of governance, but not for our beloved constitutional republic.
I believe an atheist nation would be no better than a religious nation. Atheists are still people, and people are a bit sketchy in general, a little dodgy here and there, self-serving and all the rest.
I also believe it would be no worse, and that good morals and values are not limited to religious adherents.
Pascal's Wager doesn't hold up. If, as he suggests, you believe in God because He might or might not exist, and you think you should hedge your bets and improve your position, you've already failed too impious to earn a Heavenly reward upon your death.
It can't work. According to Christian teaching, you must wholeheartedly believe in God. You can't believe wholeheartedly if, in the back of your mind, there lurks the thought: "It's wiser to believe, even if it's not true."
Actually, not. If any of us disagree, we're free to express that disagreement.
The fact that a Christian might be beheaded for opposing the party line in a Middle Eastern country should automatically give you pause about religious influence in government.
You have no argument. Your words are unthoughtful and lame in the extreme. You fall far short of Peter K, whose attitude is far more "American" than your own.
That's not thinking; it's non-thinking, a refusal to think.
[...] god” constitutional … Suit filed in baltimore city circuit court: mold's at home in … » overnight thread: thank 'god' — ninth circuit court rules pledge … 9th circuit court of appeals finds sanity « insignificant thoughts 9th u.s. circuit court of [...]
[...] CircuitCourts.org Circuit-Courts.org Featured links Not available… Related blogs » overnight thread: thank 'god' — ninth circuit court rules pledge … Community defense counsel | 2nd circuit: court's must consider … Federal circuit judge rader [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.