Court: Pledge unconstitutional

[Evanauto]

Rebuffing the Bush administration, a federal appeals court Friday refused to reconsider its ruling that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional because of the words "under God."

The case could go next to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Attorney General John Ashcroft condemned the decision and said the Justice Department will "spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag." But he stopped short of saying the administration will appeal to the high court.

In June, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the words "under God" amount to a government endorsement of religion and violate the separation of church and state. The ruling was attacked by President Bush, Congress and many others, and the Bush administration asked the full 9th Circuit to reconsider.

Only seven of the 24 active judges on the 9th Circuit wanted the full court to reconsider.

The June ruling, which applies to the nine Western states the court covers, had been put on hold until the full court reviewed it.

It was not immediately clear when the ban might take effect for the millions of public school students in those states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Appellate rulings take several weeks to take effect, to give each side an opportunity to appeal.

The challenge was brought by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who objected to his 8-year-old daughter's listening to the words "under God" in school. The words were added by Congress in 1954 during the Cold War to distinguish democracy from "godless Communism."

Newdow did not immediately return a call for comment Friday.

The three judges who took part in the original ruling — Circuit Judges Alfred Goodwin and Stephen Reinhardt on one side, Ferdinand F. Fernandez on the other — did not change their positions during the appeal.

Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain called the original ruling "wrong, very wrong" and noted that it provoked a nationwide public outcry. He said the decision defies common sense and "contradicts our 200-year history and tradition of patriotic references to God."

"The absolute prohibition on any mention of God in our schools creates a bias against religion," he wrote.

Fernandez said the words "under God" have caused no real harm over the years, "except in the fevered eye of persons who most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life."

But Reinhardt lashed out at the "disturbingly wrong-headed" suggestion that the public outcry should have persuaded the court to reconsider.

"The Bill of Rights is, of course, intended to protect the rights of those in the minority against the temporary passions of a majority which might wish to limit their freedoms or liberties," Reinhardt wrote.

The lawsuit later became a parental rights case that pitted Newdow against the girl's mother, Sandra Banning.

In response to the court's original ruling, Banning asserted that her daughter is not harmed by reciting the pledge and is not opposed to God. But the court said Newdow had legal standing to bring the case on behalf of his daughter.

[Ted-Easton]

It's true. People shouldn't have to say it, and not only because of the words "under god", but because the government has no right to these people's alliegance.
Alliegance is given willingly after being earned, not forced.

And the government said they were fighting to make it stay compulsory because it "is a right". But why don't we just waive our right?

[JMHX]

You know, I say the pledge...from time to time...but I leave out Under God. I don't go to court about it and cause all this. Who was it? Michael Newdow or someone? Exploiting your kids like that to get some press. Just don't say "Under God". Man. People are lookin' for a lawsuit anywhere nowadays.

[Freakapotimus]

The pledge itself is not unconstitutional, but the version with the words "under God" cannot be recited as part of a teacher- or school-lead activity in public schools. Students also do not have to recite the pledge, they do have the right to not say the pledge.

[RydiaLockheart]

The words "under God" were first placed in the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50's as a way to fight the "godless" Communists.

If the phrase "under God" is so offensive, why doesn't someone either remove it? Or perhaps it could be voluntary. One of my Wiccan friends likes to insert "under Goddess" in there as a substitute. There's one way to solve the problem.

At all the schools I went to, you didn't have to say the Pledge, but you had to at least stand. Fair enough.

[Raptorman]

No reason to sweat it one way or the other. The 9th circuit court of appeals has the dubious distinction of being the only court that has the majority of its' challenged rulings overturned. As a matter of fact, this court has a higher overturn rate then any two other district courts combined.

Whatever you may think about the phrase "under god" it is clear that any desision by the 9th circuit is a far cry from the final word.

[Hatchet-Rider]

The pledge IS unconstitutional. The simple fact of the matter is that we are a nation with freedom of religion and not a nation of discrimination. We shouldn't force our students and workers to turn to the sign of their freedom and LIE. Nor should we make them stand in a corner. Some inevitably will be forced into this. But we shouldn't stand by and let it continue.

[Hatchet-Rider]

At 2/28/03 09:22 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: You know, I say the pledge...from time to time...but I leave out Under God. I don't go to court about it and cause all this. Who was it? Michael Newdow or someone? Exploiting your kids like that to get some press. Just don't say "Under God". Man. People are lookin' for a lawsuit anywhere nowadays.

Should America take the path of least resistance or should we actually stand up for our laws. because if we stand up for our laws we are free, and if we don't we are fools

[The-Last-Kumiho]

Hmmm, I always just left out 'the under god' part but I agree that it should be removed and I am saddened that some people in seats of power want to keep it.

Heck the 'under god' part actually makes it lose it's meaning.
"One nation indivisible."
"One nation, under god, indivisible."
The original just sounds right.

I have to agree though that patriotisim should not be mandatory.

[m00mastafunk]

If you think about it, does it really matter either way? So what if they dont change the pledge. It doesnt really effect anyone.

[JMHX]

At 3/1/03 12:09 AM, Rydia_Lockheart wrote: The words "under God" were first placed in the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50's as a way to fight the "godless" Communists.

What an enduring symbol of American ideals.

[TheEvilOne]

I think I did mention in another thread that reciting the pledge was strictly voluntary at my high school. That's the way it should be, both for the pledge in general and "under God" in particular. But I don't want a judge to say that it can't be recited even on a voluntary basis.

[Labanzab]

The odd thing is, I never gave it much thought. We did it every day in school. It became a meaningless, mechanical ritual by about the second week of kindergarten.
It actually seems a little unsettling to me now. Having children pledge their allegiance to a flag every day... it seems rather Orwellian.

[PsychobillyClock]

Oh please, so what? God could represent anything. It could mean "under Zeus" or "under Shebba". If it said "under Jehova" then it becomes unconstitional.

If you don't like it then you can just shut up when under god comes in. Do you need to sue someone?

[Taors]

When I have to stand up in the morning and say the pledge of allegiance during our morning announcements, I say "under god", because it's not that big of a deal to me. It's not such a hassle as most people are making it. I think people just want news coverage, no one cares if their kid hears the word "god" in school. Oooooh, scary!

[Grinwald]

There is nothing wrong with saying "under God" in the Pledge if you are not told to say it. "Under God" is far from a prayer. If it said "praise Jesus" or "Go, Allah!" or something of that nature, yes, there would be cause for concern. However, "under God" merely states that this nation was founded by men who believed in God, men who believed that God should have a place in this country. It is everyone's right to refrain from saying the entire pledge, it is everyone's right to refrain from saying "under God." I don't really care if it's removed, myself - after all, the original version didn't have it - but it isn't something I consider wrong.

[JMHX]

At 3/3/03 01:31 AM, Grinwald wrote: There is nothing wrong with saying "under God" in the Pledge if you are not told to say it. "Under God" is far from a prayer. If it said "praise Jesus" or "Go, Allah!" or something of that nature, yes, there would be cause for concern.

You make it sound like a Japanese cartoon. Go, Allah! Use your martyr power!