Federal Court Rules "God" in Pledge Constitutional

[Pangloss]

The oft-lamented-as-liberal 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco has done an about-face and upheld the use of the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/us/12brfs-PLEDGEOFALLE_BRF.html

 

The opinion, written by Judge Carlos T. Bea, stated that “the phrase ‘one Nation under God’ does not turn this patriotic exercise into a religious activity.” A different three-judge panel from the same court reached the opposite conclusion in 2002, but the United States Supreme Court reversed it in 2004 on technical grounds. In a biting dissent, Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt, who sided with the majority in 2002, wrote that Congress added “under God” to the pledge in 1954 for unconstitutional religious purposes.

 

Of further note:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/03/court-oks-pledge-of-allegiance-use-of-god-on-money-as-constitutional/1

 

Bea noted that schools do not require students to recite the pledge, which was amended to include the words "under God" by a 1954 federal law.

 

In a separate 3-0 decision, the appeals court upheld the use of the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency, citing the court's earlier ruling that the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic and "has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion."

 

I agree with this decision. IMO the common expression of religious beliefs is not a violation of the establishment clause.

 

What do you think?

[iNow]

I think the American public are a bunch of hypocrites, and that unfortunately so too are you on this particular issue, Pangloss.

 

If our currency said, "One nation under Allah," then there would be hell to pay, riots in the streets, and significant percentages of our population frothing at the mouth over such an "unconstitutional" term being on our coinage.

 

Same holds true for the pledge. If the court did not strike down our children reciting "One nation under Allah," buildings would be set afire and the court officials dragged out and strung up for lynching.

 

The only reason this seems okay to so many people is because it is inline with their personally chosen and preferred version of "god."

 

 

From the perspective of a non-theist like myself, the suggestion by the court that the word god is unrelated (or does not give preference) to religion is ridiculous, untenable, and downright shameful. When taken in context of the US Constitution, one might successfully argue that my "religion" is one where god does not exist, ergo the courts are without a doubt giving preference to one set of beliefs (to one religion) at the expense of my own, and at the expense of others like me.

 

Does anyone even know what the word "secular" means anymore? Apparently, our courts don't.

[jackson33]

iNow; I could feel your emotional straining, clear over here in NM, while the 1st round of text book reviews were in process, in Texas.

 

However, to my knowledge no specific God is mentioned and the Muslim Child is probably thinking "Allah" or the 2,164 different Protestants are thinking of theirs, then any patriotic American, could leave that portion out or legally not take part. Think any other decision, would have been a promotion in itself, of Atheism (a said religion) and contrary to the Constitution. Wasn't that from the 9th Circuit, the most liberal of any Federal District Court. Then doesn't the 1st A, give everyone the actual right to talk or mention any god, with in any context.

[Dudde]

to my knowledge no specific God is mentioned

 

The capitalization of the word God is indicative of a name, not a deity. One nation under god would uphold this phrase.

 

I agree with iNow, I don't give a dang about whether anybody wants to openly practice and love their religion, but thinking that the pledge referring specifically to "God" isn't religious is ridiculously blind sighted.

[Mr Skeptic]

The capitalization of the word God is indicative of a name, not a deity

 

True, but I think any monotheistic religion would feel comfortable with this usage. People with more or less gods than 1 would feel insulted, however.

[Moontanman]

I think it should be pointed that "under god" was added by Mc Carthy era witch hunt types who wanted to show how superior we were to Godless communism. Most of God types forget that those of us who do not believe get more than a little but tired of being consistently trolled by the believers. You stand on street coners, the billboards are every where. Churches on every corner. God is injected in every single part of our existence, why in the name of the non extant God do we have to acknowledge god before we can acknowledge our love for our country?

 

If i put up a billboard asserting that god was non-existent and that religion as a useless parasite on humanity how long would you think it would be up? About 15 seconds if you could find someone willing to put it up to begin with.

 

Believe in your god, go to church, give them your money but do not try to make me acknowledge your god. I grew up hearing how our enemies were godless people, and how we were special because god loves us, all the way from the president to the local simpleton who runs the school board.

 

I for one feel I've backed off enough, it's time to stand up and be counted, if you want god to run your life fine, but leave god out of the government and stop equating love of god and love of country, it's stupid and pointless.

[Pangloss]

I think the American public are a bunch of hypocrites, and that unfortunately so too are you on this particular issue, Pangloss.

 

Does anyone even know what the word "secular" means anymore? Apparently, our courts don't.

 

Or they just don't subscribe to your interpretation of how that word should apply to a democratic government.

 

Secular presence in government does not automatically denote or require lack of religion in any and all all aspects of government, therefore it's not hypocritical to have a secular government in which official documents carry the occasional footprint of one religion or another.

 

 

True, but I think any monotheistic religion would feel comfortable with this usage. People with more or less gods than 1 would feel insulted, however.

 

I'm sure some will. I'm offended by a lot of what my government does. But as the court pointed out, they're not required to speak the words. How offended can they really be?

 

And maybe more to the point, who cares? If you ask me we spend way too much time these days figuring out who's offended and then going out of our way to address their concerns. Campus functions at the major university where I'm a graduate student are so politically correct that they're tame beyond belief. No partying or gaming or unapproved recreation. Student groups that run the gamut from gay outreach groups to "Women Against Wife-Beaters". Guests that range from Nelson Mendala to the Dalai Lama. I think if someone were to be caught watching a hentai on an iPod half the campus would faint dead away.

 

Anyway, that's how I see the fight against "god" in the Pledge -- PC run amok. Just my two bits, of course.

 

 

Believe in your god, go to church, give them your money but do not try to make me acknowledge your god.

 

The pledge is optional. Nobody is trying to make you acknowledge their god.

 

Now if the religious right were to somehow get mandatory prayer back in public schools, then I would absolutely object. But this? Nah.

[iNow]

Or they just don't subscribe to your interpretation of how that word should apply to a democratic government.

 

Secular presence in government does not automatically denote or require lack of religion in any and all all aspects of government, therefore it's not hypocritical to have a secular government in which official documents carry the occasional footprint of one religion or another.

We are not a democracy, sir... We are a Constitutional Republic, and in our constitution is an express provision that religion and governance be split with a wall of separation. I am not saying that our elected officials cannot be religious practitioners. I am saying that our government is explicitly prohibited from including religion as part of any of its services, laws, or actions unless those services, laws, and actions apply to all believers and non-believers equally. It is plain to see that the inclusion of the word god on our currency and in the pledge gives preference to one religion (or a few religions) over another, and that is explicitly prohibited.

 

As Mr.Skeptic correctly reinforced above, our governments action of inserting god (clearly, a religious idea and concept specific to particular religions) into our currency and into our pledge of allegiance gives preference to the religion of some... specifically at the expense of those who worship many gods or none whatsoever.

 

You are welcome to disagree and hold a counter opinion if you wish, but both you and the court are wrong on this issue if you do. The addition of the term is offensive, unconstitutional, should be removed, and there's really no more to it than that. This would be obvious to you if the word said "allah" or "zeus" instead of "god." The fact that more people accept the term god does not mean that all do, and it's inclusion is unconstitutional on its face.

 

Let the theists practice safely on their own, but keep that shit out of everything with which our secular government is involved.

Edited March 14, 2010 by iNow

[Moontanman]

Pangloss, you don't understand, the pledge is not optional, if you don't say the pledge you are automatically equated with the godless heathens that hate our country, try this just one time, go to an event where you are noticeable and everyone is saying the pledge of allegiance and simply do not do it. Be prepared for a very bad reaction, try it is you are in the public eye as a leader of any type, run for some minor office and don't say the pledge, the repercussions can resonate even to your job, reflect on your kids, and cause you antagonism through your community. Just that one simple act can have a great negative influence on your life.

 

Children are especially vulnerable to these negative effects. There is real coercion to saying the pledge and the very fact that "under god" was added after the fact is enough for me to see religious coercion in this. What is says is, if you don't say the pledge you are not an American and to be an American you have to give god his due. It's not right, it has nothing to do with me hating my country or not loving my country it has to do with me being expected to acknowledge God before I can acknowledge my country. This was specifically set up like this by 1950's era people who were doing their best to destroy everything America is about to further their own ends. It needs to stop, the phrase should be removed, there is no reason for it, if you want to acknowledge god do it in your own church, don't require me to do so before my behavior is judged correct.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Pangloss, you don't understand, the pledge is not optional, if you don't say the pledge you are automatically equated with the godless heathens that hate our country, try this just one time, go to an event where you are noticeable and everyone is saying the pledge of allegiance and simply do not do it.

Although I believe there are a few religious groups who refuse to say the pledge because they can't take oaths. So there is a handy excuse.

[Dudde]

Pangloss, you don't understand, the pledge is not optional, if you don't say the pledge you

~~~

, if you want to acknowledge god do it in your own church, don't require me to do so before my behavior is judged correct.

 

This sums up what I was going to say pretty nicely. The argument that "saying the pledge is optional" is ridiculous and selfish - of course it's optional, so is having the usage 'God' in the pledge.

 

the difference between the two is that without the word, everyone who loves their country can say it comfortably and show patriotism, whereas with the word included is kinda like saying "you don't show allegiance toward your country unless you believe in God"

 

- and again, I'm fine with not saying the pledge, or just saying the word God because I'm non-religious and it doesn't bother me, but to pretend that this absolutely can't offend anyone because they don't have to say the pledge is pretty myopic

[iNow]

I'd like to make clear that framing this issue as one where people take offense sort of misses the point. We don't have any right not to be offended. No where in our governing documents does it say that people have a right not to be offended, yet that's how the argument seems to be shaping itself in this thread.

 

I just want to remind everyone that, beyond the offense we feel with this, the issue is one of constitutionality. The court has ruled that the pledge does not favor certain religions over others. That should be the focus of the arguments against the court decision since that is so plainly silly and indefensible. Use of the word god ABSOLUTELY favors certain religions over others, and the only reason so many people are okay with it is because it favors theirs.

 

We are not a majority rules democracy, and yet that's the only way this decision to allow the word god in the pledge (and on our currency) can be supported. However, since we are a constitutional republic, and our constitution expressly prohibits this type of activity by the government, the word should be removed (our polytheistic and non-theistic citizens are to be afforded the same respect and secular rules as are our theistic citizens).

 

 

From wiki:

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

 

If someone can legitimately show how the addition of the word god to our pledge and our currency is intended to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause, then I will honestly rethink my position. However, until that time, the argument that this is not unconstitutional is bullshit, and I will fight against it as such.

 

---

line[/hr]

Anyway, that's how I see the fight against "god" in the Pledge -- PC run amok. Just my two bits, of course.

 

And that's what disgusts me about the position you hold. You see this as little more than an issue of people being politically correct, instead of recognizing it for what it is: Yet another battle for equality... a battle against the way that non-theists are continually discriminated against in our nation and our world by the tyrannical theist majority.

 

For all of your talk about respecting other peoples opinions, this statement right there shows just how profoundly you do not. This is about much more than "PC run amok," and I'm truly sorry that you cannot see or acknowledge that.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The text of the decision itself makes an interesting case:

 

Because California Education Code § 52720 as implemented by the School District’s Policy requires the recitation of the Pledge as a whole, we must examine the Pledge as a whole, not just the two words the Plaintiffs find offensive. In doing so, we find the Pledge is one of allegiance to our Republic, not of allegiance to the God or to any religion. Furthermore, Congress’ ostensible and predominant purpose when it enacted and amended the Pledge over time was patriotic, not religious.

We hold that the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause because Congress’ ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism and that the context of the Pledge—its wording as a whole, the preamble to the statute, and this nation’s history—demonstrate that it is a predominantly patriotic exercise. For these reasons, the phrase “one Nation under God” does not turn this patriotic exercise into a religious activity.

 

The Lemon test, applied:

Under the Lemon test, to be constitutional (1) the challenged governmental action must have a secular purpose; (2) “its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion”; and (3) it “must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.” Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The School District’s Policy must satisfy all three prongs of the Lemon test. Under each prong of this test, we first examine California Education Code § 52720 and the School District’s Policy and then, because the School District’s Policy states that recitation of the Pledge will suffice, we also examine the Pledge.

All parties agree that the “ostensible and predominant” purpose of both California Education Code § 52720 and the School District’s Policy is patriotic. We agree.

Lemon’s second prong is also met. The effect of California Education Code § 52720 and the School District’s Policy is stated quite clearly in each: each school shall conduct “appropriate patriotic exercises” daily. There is no mention of anything religious in either. Further, although the recitation of the Pledge “shall satisfy” this requirement, it is not mandated under California law. Schools could decide to have the children learn and recite a different historical document each week, or participate in another patriotic activity, such as working on a project to help the nation. Recitation of the Pledge is just one of many ways to satisfy this patriotic requirement.

Plaintiffs also concede that Lemon’s third prong, “excessive [governmental] entanglement” with religion, is not violated by California Education Code § 52720 or the School District’s Policy, and we agree. Neither involves any entanglement with religion at all, let alone excessive entanglement.

 

Interesting, and you can read the entire decision here:

 

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/11/05-17257.pdf

[bascule]

I'll take a snippet from the Everson v. Board of Education verdict:

 

Neither [Federal or state governments] can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

 

So long as saying the pledge is never compulsory, I suppose this verdict is okay.

[Pangloss]

Pangloss, you don't understand, the pledge is not optional, if you don't say the pledge you are automatically equated with the godless heathens that hate our country

 

I disagree, and what you're saying is not consistent with recent experiences I've had in witnessing primary school activities and Scouting events.

 

Certainly, though, I believe you if you say that you've seen that happen, and I think it's wrong and should be addressed by your appropriate local event leaders. I certainly wouldn't run an event in which people behaved that way, and I hope you get that worked out.

 

 

try it is you are in the public eye as a leader of any type, run for some minor office and don't say the pledge, the repercussions can resonate even to your job, reflect on your kids, and cause you antagonism through your community

 

This happens, I agree, but I think it would happen even if the word "god" was removed from the Pledge. I'm no fan of mass appeal or emotional reactions, but people ultimately have to decide whether their leaders are the correct ones. Those choices have to be based on the decisions they witness their leaders making.

 

What's the alternative, Moontanman? I'll agree with you if you say "just stop having people recite the pledge before official events" -- I think it's silly and pointless anyway. Sworn leaders have an oath of office they have to take, why go through the show of a Pledge too?

 

 

Children are especially vulnerable to these negative effects.

 

I agree. And they notice what issues their parents obsess on, too.

[Zolar V]

You know, whenever i recited the pledge or saw the phrase on a coin.

I always took the word God, to mean the concept of a higher being, rather than a specific religious "God".

[Moontanman]

So pangloss, inserting God into the pledge is ok, but taking it out is wrong? Typical religious behavior, it's always ok to acknowledge god but going back to what the pledge originality said is bad? What if the pledge said Thor, or moon goddess or Gaea? it all boils down to "does our country promote a specific religion" and yes it does, it not only favors a specific religion it goes out of it's way to inject that religion into our lives and supports people with that agenda.

 

Yes I could not recite the pledge just like I don't go to church or let Jehovah's witnesses or Mormons in my house on their weekly rounds of proselytizing. But why can't the pledge be non religious? Why does god have to counted when I pledge my allegiance to my country?

 

why?

 

Again if the pledge said Thor or Gaea or Satan can you imagine how many people would go bananas? Why is it ok to go with the Christian god and not others?

 

why?

 

It goes far beyond the simple pledge as well. If I wanted to teach religion in schools most people who be fine with it, in fact most people seem to think it's great idea as in "if we only put god back into our lives all of our problems would go away, I have heard that so many times when people talk about problems with unruly students in schools. But if i wanted to teach atheism in schools I'd be run out of town on a rail, if I was lucky, yes our government supports religion, a specific religion, and it frowns on people who do not get with that agenda.

 

I think it's sad and it shows just how sad and small religion is, not god, but his followers who cannot allow dissent or competition and the need they have to make sure religion is shoved down everyone throat as much as possible.

 

I can just about imagine what would happen if I went around in my neighborhood promoting Wicca, i would imagine i would be in deep trouble quite quickly, I would almost certainly be asked by the police to stop and if i didn't the laws that allow them to arrest anyone who is a nuisance would be invoked and I'd find myself in the back of a patrol car very quickly.

[Pangloss]

So pangloss, inserting God into the pledge is ok, but taking it out is wrong?

 

No, I would have disagreed with inserting it into the pledge. But it was a democratic process and the courts have ruled it okay, so I advocate moving on to more important matters.

 

 

Typical religious behavior, it's always ok to acknowledge god but going back to what the pledge originality said is bad?

 

What about the advocacy and ideology on the other side? You're mistaken to think that there's only one ideological group playing politics with this issue. For decades nobody gave a rat's patootie about that word in the Pledge. Then some liberal advocacy group decided to make it an issue. They decided that it was a good time for the political agenda to tackle that issue, and convinced enough people to go along and make it so. You know, kinda like what Rush Limbaugh does every day.

 

Now you may feel that Rush's issues are poor and yours are grand, but I don't buy that one advocacy group's preference is religious/political and the other's is pure reason. My response to "two can play at that game" is "fine, you two play".

 

 

I think it's sad and it shows just how sad and small religion is, not god, but his followers who cannot allow dissent or competition and the need they have to make sure religion is shoved down everyone throat as much as possible.

 

And you don't think that opinion is coloring your perception of this issue just a little bit?

 

Interesting.

 

 

I can just about imagine what would happen if I went around in my neighborhood promoting Wicca, i would imagine i would be in deep trouble quite quickly, I would almost certainly be asked by the police to stop and if i didn't the laws that allow them to arrest anyone who is a nuisance would be invoked and I'd find myself in the back of a patrol car very quickly.

 

I can't speak for your neighborhood, but that certainly wouldn't be the case in mine, and I don't believe that the police reaction in most cities would be any different from if you went house to house promoting Christianity or any other religion. The decision to put you in the back of the patrol car would be based on how much of a pest you're being, not which religion you're promoting.

 

If it is like that in your neighborhood then I feel for you and recommend you consider moving.

[iNow]

For decades nobody gave a rat's patootie about that word in the Pledge.

Nonsense. The only difference now is those people who have always cared finally have voice... They can speak openly without fear of recrimination. You have no idea the level of discrimination non-believers have faced in this country for decades, and just to be clear here... those people have always given "a rat's patootie." The fact that you were unaware of it doesn't mean it was not there.

 

 

Then some liberal advocacy group decided to make it an issue.

And there you go... AGAIN... dismissing this as some PC issue... something which doesn't matter... something which is only being done to stir up trouble.

 

Just because it doesn't matter to you, Pangloss, does not mean it doesn't matter.

 

 

 

They decided that it was a good time for the political agenda to tackle that issue, and convinced enough people to go along and make it so. You know, kinda like what Rush Limbaugh does every day.

Poison the well, much? Try making a real argument, instead of ridiculing those with an argument you can't seem to understand.

 

Rush Limbaugh is not arguing for equality. Rush Limbaugh is not making his case based on the constitution. Rush Limbaugh is not trying to ensure everyone is treated equally, and that our government lives up to its secular ideal... an ideal so important to our founders that they wrote in the provision expressly.

 

Your comparison to Rush Limbaugh is a false one.

 

 

If it is like that in your neighborhood then I feel for you and recommend you consider moving.

 

True leaders don't run away. They stand up and defend their principles. Your mocking of that action doesn't make it any less important nor any less valid.

[Moontanman]

For your information a great many people care about and have cared about that word in the pledge, people cared enough to add it but fear of real reprisals in our society kept people from stating our objections. Now days we enjoy some protection from those fears but when it was injected into the pledge there was a real fear of jail and persecution if you had objected.

 

Yes my opinion is colored by my lack of religion and i am quite sure most good god fearing people would take great offense to me going around promoting Wicca in the neighborhood, or in schools or anywhere else.

 

Good save on the edit of extreme Christianity, I consider Mormonism and Jehovah's wittinesses to be both extreme and troubling and if you think people wouldn't give you a hard time I suggest you go to some neighborhood and start knocking on doors and asking people if they would like to reject god and Jesus and worship the religion of Wicca and become a witch, good luck, I'd wear a bullet proof vest if i was you.

 

Rush Limbaugh is shit stirrer, he makes his living stirring other people up on issues that are often lies. Respect for my needs are just as real as anyone else's. I nor anyone else should be penalized for our beliefs or lack there of. In this case it is particularly insulting that i have to agree to the idea of a supreme being before I can pledge allegiance to my country. it's simply wrong to promote religion that way.

 

I have never seen any religious person stand up and say Atheism is just as justified as their Christian God, on the contrary atheists are often considered a little "touched" and need to be saved from our selves, (if we are lucky) hence the idea of going around knocking on doors to ask me if I've heard the good news. The idea that God is a good thing to put in the pledge is simply tyranny of the majority religion, nothing less.

[Mr Skeptic]

The text of the decision itself makes an interesting case:

Because California Education Code § 52720 as implemented by the School District’s Policy requires the recitation of the Pledge as a whole, we must examine the Pledge as a whole, not just the two words the Plaintiffs find offensive. In doing so, we find the Pledge is one of allegiance to our Republic, not of allegiance to the God or to any religion. Furthermore, Congress’ ostensible and predominant purpose when it enacted and amended the Pledge over time was patriotic, not religious.

 

I think that they are being a little inappropriate here. The two words need to be looked at individually, not as part of the pledge. Had they been in the pledge to begin with, that would make sense, but since they were added to the pledge, then the addition of them is a separate process, and so needs to be looked at separately. In doing so, this addition would fail the Lemon test.

 

What about the advocacy and ideology on the other side? You're mistaken to think that there's only one ideological group playing politics with this issue. For decades nobody gave a rat's patootie about that word in the Pledge. Then some liberal advocacy group decided to make it an issue. They decided that it was a good time for the political agenda to tackle that issue, and convinced enough people to go along and make it so. You know, kinda like what Rush Limbaugh does every day.

 

Well if it isn't a real issue, why not just remove the contentious words from the pledge and move on? Then the liberals wouldn't have any excuse to make this into an issue, problem solved. I'm a genius! (Also, people have been upset about those words in the pledge since they were added, much like gay people were upset about the treatment they received but didn't dare to complain until recently).

 

---

 

My solution? Simply modify the pledge to be religion-agnostic. Have the atheists give a brief pause, and the religious folks say the name of the god or gods they believe in, and then continue on.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think that they are being a little inappropriate here. The two words need to be looked at individually, not as part of the pledge. Had they been in the pledge to begin with, that would make sense, but since they were added to the pledge, then the addition of them is a separate process, and so needs to be looked at separately. In doing so, this addition would fail the Lemon test.

 

The court was asked to rule on California's law on mandatory pledging, not the addition of the words to the Pledge. (Although as they point out, pledging isn't strictly mandatory.) Has there been a case strictly on the addition, not mandatory pledging?

[iNow]

Has there been a case strictly on the addition, not mandatory pledging?

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow

Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al., 542 U.S. 1 (2004), was a lawsuit originally filed in 2000 which led to a 2002 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an endorsement of religion, and therefore violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, as Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow.

 

On June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court held Michael Newdow, as a non-custodial parent, did not have standing to bring the suit on his daughter's behalf. The mother was previously given sole custody of the daughter. The Ninth Circuit's decision was thus reversed as a matter of procedural law.

 

Thus, the Court also did not consider the constitutional question raised by the case.

 

 

More from the above:

 

From the 9th circuit hearing:

 

• Decided - the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism"—a fact which (according to the court) the federal government did not dispute. The court also noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act which added the phrase "under God," he also announced "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."
  
  
• Judge Alfred Goodwin from the 9th circuit remarked: "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."

[Pangloss]

Nonsense. The only difference now is those people who have always cared finally have voice...

 

Sure sure, when it's conservatives who find support on an issue then they're being mislead by demagogues, but when it's liberals who find support on an issue then they're "finally having a voice".

 

 

They can speak openly without fear of recrimination. You have no idea the level of discrimination non-believers have faced in this country for decades, and just to be clear here... those people have always given "a rat's patootie." The fact that you were unaware of it doesn't mean it was not there.

 

(shrug) Okay, it was important to some people. Many things are important to people that the majority doesn't always agree with. That doesn't mean they're being harmed.

 

 

Just because it doesn't matter to you, Pangloss, does not mean it doesn't matter.

 

Just because something matters to you, iNow, doesn't mean that something needs to be done about it.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Pangloss

[Sisyphus]

We hear all the time from cultural conservatives that the United States was intended to be a Christian nation, because of references to "God" in early documents and the words of the founding fathers. Ironically, it's now established legal precedent that merely saying something like "under God" doesn't count as establishment of religion.

 

Irrelevant? Or hilarious unintended consequence?