I am shocked by it.

SAN FRANCISCO (June 26) - Stunning politicians on both the left and right, a federal appeals court declared for the first time Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional because of the words ``under God'' inserted by Congress in 1954.

The ruling, if allowed to stand, would mean schoolchildren could no longer recite the pledge, at least in the nine Western states covered by the court.

Critics of the decision were flabbergasted and warned that it calls into question the use of ``In God We Trust'' on the nation's currency, the public singing of patriotic songs like ``God Bless America,'' even the use of the phrase ``So help me God'' when judges are sworn into office.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the phrase ``one nation under God'' amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the separation of church and state.

Leading schoolchildren in a pledge that says the United States is ``one nation under God'' is as objectionable as making them say ``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,'' Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote.

In Canada, where President Bush was taking part in an economic summit, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said: ``The president's reaction was that this ruling is ridiculous.''

``The Supreme Court itself begins each of its sessions with the phrase `God save the United States and this honorable court,''' Fleischer said. ``The Declaration of Independence refers to God or to the creator four different times. Congress begins each session of the Congress each day with a prayer, and of course our currency says, `In God We Trust.' The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision and the Department Justice is now evaluating how to seek redress.''

The ruling was also attacked on Capitol Hill, with Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle, D-S.D., calling it ``just nuts.''

After the ruling, House members gathered on the front steps of the Capitol to recite the Pledge of Allegiance en masse - the same place they defiantly sang ``God Bless America'' the night of the Sept. 11 attacks.

And senators, who were debating a defense bill, angrily stopped to unanimously pass a resolution denouncing the decision.

The government had argued that the religious content of ``one nation under God'' is minimal. But the appeals court said that an atheist or a holder of certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see it as an endorsement of monotheism.

The 9th Circuit covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state. Those are the only states directly affected by the ruling.

However, the ruling does not take effect for several months, to allow further appeals. The government can ask the court to reconsider, or take its case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Congress inserted ``under God'' at the height of the Cold War after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, religious leaders and others who wanted to distinguish the United States from what they regarded as godless communism.

The case was brought by Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who objected because his second-grade daughter was required to recite the pledge at the Elk Grove school district. A federal judge had dismissed his lawsuit, which named the school district, Congress and then-President Clinton.

Newdow, a doctor who holds a law degree and represented himself, called the pledge a ``religious idea that certain people don't agree with.''

The appeals court said that when President Eisenhower signed the legislation inserting ``under God'' after the words ``one nation,'' he declared: ``Millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.''

The appeals court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said students cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. But even when the pledge is voluntary, ``the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge.''

The ruling was issued by Goodwin, who was appointed by President Nixon, and Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a Carter appointee.

In a dissent, Circuit Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez, appointed by the first President Bush, warned that under his colleagues' theory of the Constitution, ``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,'' he said, ``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.''

Fernandez said the same faulty logic would apply to ``In God We Trust'' on the nation's currency.

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., was one of many lawmakers who immediately reacted in anger and shock to the ruling.

``Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok,'' Bond said. ``What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God' from the pledge taken by new presidents?''

Harvard scholar Laurence Tribe predicted the U.S. Supreme Court will certainly reverse the decision unless the 9th Circuit reverses itself. ``I would bet an awful lot on that,'' Tribe said.

The 9th Circuit is the nation's most overturned appellate court - partly because it is the largest, but also because it tends to make liberal, activist opinions, and because the cases it hears - on a range of issues from environmental laws to property rights to civil rights - tend to challenge the status quo.

The nation's high court has never squarely addressed the issue, Tribe said. The court has said schools can require teachers to lead the pledge but ruled students cannot be punished for refusing to recite it.

In other school-related religious cases, the high court has said that schools cannot post the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.

And in March, a federal appeals court ruled that Ohio's motto, ``With God, all things are possible,'' is constitutional and is not an endorsement of Christianity even though it quotes the words of Jesus.

 

I don't believe that it would hurt if those words were removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

~Manny.
An American Original.

I fully understand the concept of rallying to a flag on the field of battle, and the importance of holding that flag upright, but off the battlefield the flag is, in the words of the patriarchs, "a graven image."

Worshipping a flag instead of taking the effort of trying to comprehend the greater concept of government is at best a misinformed shorthand, and at worst a weakness that undermines the very concept of an informed and effective electorate. Kids would be much better off being taught this rather than blind obedience to fabric.

The pledge was a required exercise in school when I was growing up. We could not "opt out" or stand quietly, so many of us regularly and quietly changed the wording to such things as "in the windowsill" and "Justice for Paul." (I note that many of my subversive co-conspirators are now selectmen and municipal officials.) Check sometime about the legality of contracts signed "under duress" or signed by minors.

FWIW, those who defend the pledge as an peculiarly american sign of individual freedom might be somewhat interested to know that the "pledge" was written in the late 1800s by a socialist, Francis Bellamy. So much for individuality and origins based in the flames of freedom fighter battles.

In contrast, Vermont has a "Freeman's Oath" or affirmation (Quakers and others of strong religious beliefs are not allowed to engage in "oaths.") which dates back to the 1630s. It essentially states that as a voting citizen, the person agrees to uphold the interests of the state. The current version is:

You solemnly swear (or affirm) that whenever you give your vote or suffrage, touching any matter that concerns the state of Vermont, you will do it so as in your conscience you shall judge will most conduce to the best good of the same, as established by the Constitution, without fear or favor of any person.

I took the freeman's oath willingly and freely, and I follow the same concept in manners concerning the United States, but I cannot in good conscience pledge allegiance to a flag, nor do I expect any other person to do so.

As for the removal of the "Under God," IMO the court skirts the real issue here; that making kids say pledges of any kind is totally counter to the body of law, and such pledges have no validity.

Buddhists, native Americans, Hindus, pagans, and many others probably regard the "under God" phrase as strange, offensive, or quaint.
Religions in U.S.

 

Rick

 

Although students couldn't be required to say the pledge, under the first amendment to The Constitution, students COULD recite the pledge.

I believe that all citizens should know the pledge and the National Anthem, and what they mean.

Or, you know what, we should all just curl up someplace and stay there, because if we say or do anything it could be offensive to somebody, someplace.

We must re-write our history and everything else connected with it that has anything to do with God! This means The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution... Anything that might offend ANYONE has got to be eliminated. EVEN THE VERY FACT THAT WE'RE HERE OFFENDS SOME!! Do the planet a favor! Kill yourself!

::sighs::

I'm going now.
 

FREEMAN'S OATH 1638
In March 1638, Newport, Rhode Island, Thomas Emons took the oath of a Freeman. To become a Freeman a person was legally required to be a respectable member of some congregational church. This was an important status as only Freeman were allowed to hold office or vote for rulers.

The oath as established by the General Court is as follows:

"I, A.R., being by God's providence an inhabitant and freeman within the jurisdiction of this Commonwealth, do freely acknowledge myself to be subject to the government thereof, and therefore do here swear by the great and dreadful name of the Everlasting God, that I will be true and faithful to the same, and will accordingly yield assistance and support thereunto, with my person and my estate, as in equity I am bound; and I will also truly endeavor to maintain and preserve all the liberties and priveledges thereof, submitting myself to the wholesome laws and orders made and established by the same.

And further, that I will not plot nor practice any evil against it, nor consent to any that shall do so,but will truly discover and reveal same to lawful authority now here established for the speedy preventing thereof.

Moreover, I do solemnly bind myself in the sight of God, that when I shall be called to give my voice touching any such matter of the State, wherein freemen are to deal, I will give my vote and suffrage,as I shall judge in mine own conscience may best conduce and tend to the public weal of the body without respect of persons or favor of any man. So help me God in the Lord Jesus Christ."

Rick http://home.cfl.rr.com/dot/freemen.html

The Student's Bill of Rights
Students have...
...The Right to carry and distribute religious literature. You have the right to carry religious literature including the Bible. You also have the right to distribute religious literature and Bibles to fellow students. School officials can prohibit students from distributing any type of literature on campus, however they cannot prohibit it simply because it is religious.

...The Right to pray and have religious discussion. You have the right to engage in individual or group prayer and religious discussion during the school day. You may read your Bible or other Scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray before tests.

...The Right to express your religious beliefs in school assignments. You may express your beliefs about religion in the form of homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free of discrimination based on the religious content.

...The Right to display religious messages on items of clothing. You may wear Christian T-shirts, buttons, etc. Religious messages may not be singled out for suppression.

...The Right to have prayer and worship services on campus. If the school permits non-curriculum related student clubs to meet on campus, they may not refuse access to your student religious group.

...The Right to publicize religious meetings. You have the right to announce your religious club meetings including using the public address system, the school newspaper, and the school bulletin board just like other student groups.

...The Right to persuade your peers about religious topics. You can discuss religious topics the same way you talk about political topics.
 

The courts ruling is absurd. So absurd that the Senate voted 99-0 (Helms was absent)in favor of a resultion condeming the ruling.
 

During my 30 years teaching, I was often expected to lead my classes in the Pledge of Allegiance, but never thought much about it until
students of several religious groups demurred, saying they were taught not to pledge to or show obeisance to anything but the deity.
They objected to the flag as icon. When the words "under God" were added, I objected to the forceful injection of religion into public schools. Teachers were told they could merely permit the students to rise and either recite with the loudspeaker voice, or remain silent.
Still I felt it was not the government's role to attempt to institute belief or non-belief in God. I believe religious faith is a personal matter and should be tolerated but not promulgated by the state.

I agree with the justices of the Court of Appeals that the Pledge violates the constitution.

This is another example of someone suing because they have nothing better to do, and because they do not have enough faith in their own influence as a parent over their child. If someone is worried that their child will adapt a religion because of two words uttered in what becomes a routine, monotonous event at the beginning of a school day, he needs to spend more time with his kid explaining his own beliefs and how to co-exist with others that think differently.

We are a country founded not on a specific religion, but the belief of religion. Heck, even Clinton said he went to church, because he knew people would think better of him. But, it doesn't surprise me that some black robes, in what seems to be an effort to further the moral decay of the country, have decided that the judges in the last 50 years have all been wrong, and they are the ones that are right.
 

If, and he should never be, successful with the currency, the gov't ought to make as part of the ruling, that the originator of the suit must cover all expenses incurr to create, print, distribute, destroy EACH and EVERY piece of currency that exists before they can claim victory.

Gordon, beware, someone may complain about your film-tech title.
 

Chad, when you say "God does not indicate a specific religion, it is a word chosen to represent the deities of all religions." you miss the point. It was instituted as a strictly Christian addendum, just as the all-seeing-eye on the back of your dollar bill is a Masonic mystic symbol, and the eagle has roots in the heraldry and pagan traditions of Rome. Not all religions have a supreme diety, and not all people follow a religion.
Many people object at least as strongly to saying something against their beliefs as certain citizens who would choke upon being forced to say a phrase like "the nation under Clinton's leadership" or "under Bush."

I personally think that a lot of the original reason for separation of church and state had to do with the way the formation of the Anglican Church consolodated all power in Henry VIII. Given the other checks and balances in the framing documents, I suspect that the real issue was how to avoid a despot claiming divine inspiration usurping the body of law, or a possible future ascension by fiat of a Pope or popelike figure.

I think there will always be a battle between those who want religion in government and the schools and those who don't.
 

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut http://www.muellersatomics.com/

It seems to be going a little bit overboard (does this mean that we have to leave out _all_ discussion of God and religion in _all_ public school classrooms? if so, wouldn't this eliminate most aspects of western literature, art, and history?), but I can definitely agree with the idea that no child should be required to pledge allegiance to anything as a condition of education. As others have said, forced pledging is completely meaningless and is often associated with nationalism and fascism, rather than democracy.
 

Here is a breakdown of our current pledge of allegance...

I Pledge Allegiance (assuming that allegience means that someone is willing to die for a cause)...
To The Flag (mind you that a FLAG is a symbol of something greater than itself)...
Of the United States Of America (thats the USA for the reading impaired)...
And to the REPUBLIC (yes we are a republic, not a democracy people)...
For Which IT Stands (referring to the FLAG that is standing for the REPUBLIC)...
One Nation (thats referring to the country as a whole, not as a nation full of individuals creating mob rule)...
UNDER GOD (this goes to the core of the first ammendment here, the so called seperation of church and state clause. remember that the ammendment does not prohibit the combining of the two, but only prohibits the government from ever establishing an official state sponsored government, and also prevents the government from ever prohibiting anyone from ever practicing any from of religeos practice at thier own leisure)...
Indivisible (once again showing that we unite together for a common good, not separate to get as many toys as possible before our neighbor does)...
With Liberty (the freedom to choose whether or not to make the pledge itself)...
And Justice (the governmental rule that keeps us from screwing with our neighbors just becuase we like to see them squeal)..
FOR ALL (thats for everyone, and this guy who filed the suit truly did not understand the pledge, nor did the judges)....

It is our choice to take the pledge, but whether we take it or not, we as citezens are protected by it nonetheles..

Dave
 

If this guy doesn't like the pledge, he can put his kid in private school.. After all, that is what thousands of Christian parents are told when they object to the content of some public school curriculum.
 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A day after he shocked the nation by declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, a federal appeals court judge put his ruling on hold Thursday.

Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, who wrote the 2-1 opinion that said the phrase "under God" violates the separation of church and state, stayed his ruling until other members of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ( news - web sites) decide whether to change course.

The appeals court can rehear the case with the same three judges, or an 11-judge panel.

Goodwin's action Thursday has no immediate impact, since the ruling already was on hold by court rules for 45 days to allow for any challenges.

Vikram Amar, a Hastings College of the Law scholar who closely follows the appeals court, said the latest ruling means that, for now, Wednesday's opinion finding the pledge unconstitutional "has no legal force or effect."

"They're acknowledging the likelihood that the whole 9th Circuit may take a look at this," Amar said.

Goodwin flabbergasted people across the political spectrum when he declared that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional because the phrase "one nation under God" — inserted by Congress in 1954 — amounts to a government endrosement of religion.

Legal scholars immediately said the ruling would probably be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court ( news - web sites), if not reversed beforehand by the 9th Circuit.

"I would bet an awful lot on that," said Harvard University scholar Laurence Tribe.

The lawsuit was brought by a California atheist who did not want his second-grade daughter to be forced to listen to the pledge.

Goodwin said leading schoolchildren in a pledge that says the United States is "one nation under God" is as objectionable as asking them to say "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."

Dave

 

Further, he's using is young daughter as a case for his argument, parading her around and making her get barraged with questions. He should get punished for the damage he's sure to be doing to her. 'Hey honey, whether you think you should or not, just say what daddy told you to say, and I'll buy you some ice cream'.
 

Seems to me, if this is such a big deal, someone should have spoken up back in 1954...

=TMP=
 

I think I'll sue some old teachers......they were nuns.
 

There is another issue at stake. If the pledge is ruled unconstitutional, look for a 27th Amendment to be introduced in very short order. Although amending the Constitution is not an easy process, it could become a reality. But then again, the flag burning amendment that was proposed never made it.

I am now thoroughly confused. How can it be against the US Constitution for schoolchildren to make an alligance to God, but permissable for US Citizens' taxes to be used to fund religious schools?

------------------
Adam Fraser
www.pinestheatre.com
 

------------------
"Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" - Homer Simpson
 

God of nations at Thy feet
In the bonds of love we meet.
Hear our voices, we entreat,
God defend our Free Land.
Guard Pacific's triple star
From the shafts of strife and war.
Make her praises heard afar,
God defend New Zealand.

Men of ev'ry creed and race
Gather here before Thy face,
Asking Thee to bless this place,
God defend our Free Land.
From dissension, envy, hate,
And corruption guard our State,
Make our country good and great,
God defend New Zealand.

Peace, not war, shall be our boast,
But, should foes assail our coast,
Make us then a mighty host,
God defend our Free Land.
Lord of battles in thy might,
Put our enemies to flight,
Let our cause be just and right,
God defend New Zealand.

Let our love for Thee increase,
May Thy blessings never cease,
Give us plenty, give us peace,
God defend our Free Land.
From dishonour and from shame
Guard our country's spotless name
Crown her with immortal fame,
God defend New Zealand.

May our mountains ever be
Freedom's ramparts on the sea,
Make us faithful unto Thee,
God defend our Free Land.
Guide her in the nations' van,
Preaching love and truth to man,
Working out Thy Glorious plan,
God defend New Zealand.

------------------
A KIWI eats,roots & Leaves.

I decided to, quietly, bugger off & watch the Rugby Super 12 Finals last year.

Someone saw me on Monday & saw me singing and yes dancing on T.V. to the National Anthem.
 

The first time I heard that one, I laughed so hard my face hurt.

------------------
A KIWI eats,roots & Leaves.
 

The whole judical system has it's kinks. Fortunately, "rulings" are expressed in "opinions" and as such, can change over time.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
 

True, I don't know anyone that knows the Maori version.

 

------------------
A KIWI eats,roots & Leaves.
 

quote:

---

From what I have heard and seen. The money would be given to parents to do with as they choose in picking a school. If the parent picks a religious school, that is their choice. If the parent picks a arts based charter school, that is also their choice. In my opinion, the state is not supporting a religion because they are giving the parents the money to make their own choice on where to educate their children. Thus not directly involving the government subsidizing religion.

---

A sticky one, I admit. On the other hand, you could argue that the government is subsidising religion because it is allowing taxpayers' money to be spent on religious education (i.e. it is not excluding religious schools from the voucher scheme).

IMHO this is an important issue of principle in any genuinely democratic country, not so much on account of Christian denominations but because other religions can - and in the UK have - argue that subsidising one sort of religious education but not another amounts to discrimination. Last year a Muslim school in West London hit the headlines after it was discovered that it had been teaching the kids various hardline beliefs, e.g. that capital punishment should be imposed for adultery and that limbs should be amputated for a number of minor crimes, some of which aren't even crimes under English law. As I remember, this school was not in any way state subsidised (it was a private school which the parents paid), but it did have a licence from the Department of Education, which basically certified that it was delivering education which met the standards of this country.

At the other end of the scale, Rastafarians smoking cannabis as part of their religious practices have often complained they are being discriminated against by the drug being illegal.

So how do you deal with religious beliefs that directly contradict the laws and customs of a given country? With difficulty in many cases, and it gets even more difficult when you bring religion into state education. That is why I would prefer to see 'faith schools' kept out of the state system altogether. Private ones are OK if they meet the required educational standards and if they are not teaching the kids anything which contravenes the criminal laws and socially accepted norms of the country in which they operate, but if anyone tells me that my taxes should be spent teaching kids a 'religion' that makes women wear bin liners and executes them for doing things which aren't even illegal in civilised countries, then the words 'over', 'dead' and 'body' come to mind...

I also like what you wrote...however in the Pledge Allegiance is to the Flag of "The United States of America". Canadian and Mexican's are not refereed to as American's. Even though Canada is over the United States of America and Mexico is below - all of the Universe is "Under God".

"In God We Trust" Hurry, right away fill your cuboards. Buy while you can. Send all money with this slogan to my attention..at once.
 

I would love to comply with your directive, but Soupy Sales got all mine.

Hillary
 

You're much funnier than Soupy. Whatever I have left is yours.