Archive through June 26, 2002
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archive: Pledge of Allegiance Declared Unconstitutional: Archive through June 26, 2002

Oregonfire

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 04:51 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Wow. I couldn't believe this! Read below.

Court rejects Pledge of Allegiance

‘One nation under God’ violates Constitution,judges say

NBC NEWS AND NEWS SERVICES

June 26 — A federal appeals court on Wednesday declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because, it said, the words “under God” added by Congress in 1954 amount to an endorsement of religion. Through his spokesman, President Bush called the ruling “ridiculous,” while the Senate voted 99 to 0 to reaffirm its support for the phrase “under God” in the pledge and to call on an appeals court to reverse the ruling.

‘The school district is ... conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of ... the pledge.’ — 9TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULING

THE 2-1 RULING by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, if allowed to stand, would prevent children in public schools in the nine Western states covered by the court from reciting the pledge.

WHITE HOUSE CRITICISM
In a statement to reporters, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said, “The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision, and the Department of Justice is now evaluating how to seek redress.... This decision will not sit well with the American people, and it certainly does not sit well with the president of the United States.”
Fleischer added that when Bush went to Arizona Tuesday to meet with people whose homes had been destroyed by wildfires, “the thing he said that brought the most warmth and hope to those people... was ‘Have faith in God Almighty.’”
A few hours after the ruling, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott offered a sense of the Senate resolution to condemn the ruling and re-affirm the use of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The resolution, which passed unanimously, instructs the Senate’s legal counsel to seek to intervene in the case to defend the constitutionality of the pledge.
After the Senate vote, Daschle urged members of the Senate to show up at 9:30 a.m. ET Thursday to recite the pledge.

About 100 members of the House, led by Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, gathered on the east steps of the Capitol to recite the pledge and sing “God Bless America.”
“A judge who believes the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional doesn’t belong on the bench,” said House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a Texas Republican. “I hope the court returns all the taxpayer money they have been paid in currency marked ‘In God We Trust.”’

In a “talking points” memo e-mailed to GOP House candidates and operatives, Steve Schmidt, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said, “I strongly encourage you to put out a statement as soon as possible in response.... Call on every school board to ignore this decision.”
Seeking to capitalize on the decision, Schmidt also urged GOP candidates to blame Daschle and Senate Democrats for blocking action on 45 of Bush’s judicial nominees “who would serve as a counterweight to this type of nonsense. This ruling demonstrates why it is so important that Daschle move on President Bush’s judicial nominees.”

ENDORSING RELIGION?
In overturning the act of Congress that inserted the phrase “under God” in the pledge, the court said the language amounts to a government endorsement of religion, which, it said, violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
The First Amendment to the Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....”
Some scholars have argued that the phrase “establishment of religion” refers to “established” churches — official churches supported by taxpayer dollars, which some states had at the time the Constitution was adopted in 1789. Connecticut and Massachusetts maintained their tax-supported Congregational churches until the 1820s.
According to this view, the Establishment Clause was simply intended to prevent Congress from setting up a national, taxpayer-supported church.
But in the past several decades courts have used the Establishment Clause to, for instance, outlaw state financial aid to church-connected schools and to ban the display on government property of a Christmas crèche with a banner proclaiming “Gloria in Excelsis Deo.”

The Youth's Companion, a Boston-based family magazine, published the original pledge in its Sept. 8, 1892 issue. Although its authorship has since been disputed, historians believe that Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and socialist, penned the words to mark the public schools' 1892 quadricentennial celebration of Columbus Day. During the celebration it was repeated by more than 12 million public school pupils in every state in the Union.

1892 version
'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

Againt Bellamy's wishes, the pledge is altered during a flag conference hosted by the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution.'My Flag,' is changed to 'the Flag of the United States of America.'

1924 version
'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

A campaign led by the Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic organization, leads Congress to add the words "under God" to the Pledge.

1954 - present version
'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

“A profession that we are a nation ‘under God’ is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation ‘under Jesus,’ a nation ‘under Vishnu,’ a nation ‘under Zeus,’ or a nation ‘under no god,’ because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion,” Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel. He was joined in the decision by Judge Stephen Reinhardt.

The court said that an atheist or a holder of certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see the phrase as an endorsement of monotheism — a belief in a single god.
The appeals court noted that when President Dwight Eisenhower signed the 1954 legislation, he wrote that “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.”

INVOCATIONS RULINGS CITED
The court also cited the Supreme Court decisions saying that students cannot hold religious invocations at graduations and cannot be compelled to recite the pledge.
But even when the pledge is recited in a classroom, the appeals court said, a student who objects is confronted with an “unacceptable choice between participating and protesting.”
“Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, 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,” said the court, which has frequently seen its decisions overturned by the Supreme Court.

The 9th Circuit covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state, and only those states are directly affected by the ruling.
However, the ruling does not take effect for several months, to allow further appeals. The government can ask the full 9th Circuit Court to reconsider or can take its case to the Supreme Court.
In a dissent, Judge Ferdinand Fernandez said the phrase has no tendency to establish religion or suppress anyone’s ability to exercise the religion of his or her choice, “except in the fevered eye of persons who most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of public life.”
He said the ruling, if it stood, would preclude the singing of “God Bless America” and “America the Beautiful” in schools.

SACRAMENTO CASE
The case was brought by Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who acted as his own attorney.
Newdow objected because his second-grade daughter was required to recite the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified School District.

He sued, and a federal judge dismissed the case, which the Ninth Circuit has now remanded for trial.
“I’m an American citizen. I don’t like my rights infringed upon by my government,” Newdow said in a recent interview.
Newdow called the pledge a “religious idea that certain people don’t agree with.”
Newdow, a physician, filed a similar suit in Florida on behalf of his daughter in 1998, but that suit was dismissed because his daughter wasn’t yet of school age. He filed the suit ruled on Wednesday after his daughter began attending public schools in Sacramento.

NBC’s Pete Williams, The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

Seamonkey

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 06:01 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Next thing you know they'll banish "God Save the Queen" in the UK.

Maris

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 07:12 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
England does not have the separation of Church and state, in fact the Queen is the head of the Church of England. That of course is one of the reasons we had that revolution.

Ryn

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 07:18 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
The phrase "under god" was not in the Pledge until 1954.... Eisenhower apparenlty pushed to have it included.

Just something I found interesting.

Seamonkey

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 07:39 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Yes, I understand the difference..

I understand it caused quite a stir on both sides of the aisle on Capital Hill..

Juju2bigdog

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 07:49 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I remember when they added the "under God" part. Sigh.

Max

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 08:25 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
This is so ridiculous. Soon, we won't be able to sing the National Anthem, God Bless America, My Country 'Tis of Thee, or many other songs. Our money mentions God. Guess we'll have to change that, too.

This whole political correctness thing has just gotten WAY too out of hand, IMHO.

What's next? Many schools don't give grades 'cause it might hurt kid's feelings. Sports are played, but there are no winners 'cause it might hurt Johnny or Jane's self-esteem to lose. Christmas pageants can't have any mention of Christ (but Hannakuh is okay 'cause it's culture).

Everyone has a concept of God, even if it's a negative one. YOu can't be an atheist if you don't understand the concept of God. What would you not be believing in?

I'm really getting tired of "free speech" being determined by whoever has the biggest bank account to file lawsuits. Don't people have something better to do with their time?

Soon, we'll be told the word 'manhole' is outlawed because it makes women feel bad. Dictionaries will be revised to remove all words that have any kind of religious or gender-specific reference. Where does it stop?

I don't like things to be homogenous. I want differences. I want kids to learn what it's like to have an opinion of their own. I want them to learn that life isn't always fair, that sometimes you lose, that the way you learn from experiences is what makes you a better person, that we are all special in our own ways but we are all different with different skill levels and ideas and that IT'S OKAY!

How are they going to learn that if we keep sheltering them from everything we think might damage their self-esteem or give them food for thought.

Sorry to rant so much, but this is just about the straw that broke the camel's back for me. It's not really about the God factor, it's bigger than that.

I don't often agree with Dr. Laura, but I heard a snippet of her show yesterday talking about the "dumbing down" of America. She made a good point about everyone NOT being equal on all levels. She said that's the concept of Communism. I disagree, I think it's actually Socialism, which is not the same at all, but her train of thought is valid.

In a uptopian world, everyone is equal in all aspects. Wealth is shared for the betterment of all. Everyone works at whatever they are most skilled in doing and the work product is shared by all. All the cogs of the machine work together to make a strong, unified community. To me, that's what Socialism is, in concept.

In reality, Socialism turns into Communism because human nature is such that we simply do not like to all be the same. We strive to compete, to excel, to rise in whatever way works best for us. Thus, utopia gives way to repression as those who are most driven to increase their power over others take control and those who are more inclined to follow become separated in the social strata.

Things don't get bad right away. It's a series of small steps that most people don't find harmful or even noticeable. Then one day you turn around and find that the whole system has changed and you can't quite figure out how or why.

IMO, we've had many such small steps in the last 20 years.

Okay, I'm gonna stop ranting. Here comes the...

Disclaimer:
These views are my own. I don't expect everyone to share them. Indeed, if I did expect that, I'd be building the same thing I'm ranting about. Feel free to disagree with me, debate with me, whatever. Just don't blame me for having an opinion and voicing it, okay? :)

Wcv63

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 08:27 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
If one doesn't agree with the "under God" part of the pledge why not just leave it out?

I'm getting sick of the backbreaking political correctness. You can't do anything these days without offending SOMEBODY.

What happened to freedom of speech? It is a victim of political correctness.

Faerygdds

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 08:42 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Give me a break folks... You really think this IS one nation UNDER GOD????

We are a nation that has long been a melting pot of races and religions. To point to one God (the Christian God) is wrong. OK.. would you feel better if:

Muslims said: One nation under Allah

Pagans said: One Nation under the Goddess

Budhists: One Nation under Buddha

Hindu: One Nation under Shiva

NO!!! If any of THOSE things were suddenly deemed unconstitutional you would be CHEERING... but because it's the Christian God then it's wrong???

Nope... sorry folks... I agree with this ruling. 54% of the US is Christian... that means 46% are not... and you know what.. it isn't fair to impose YOUR GOD on them!

Willsfan

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 08:48 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I have no problem with the 1924 version -
" one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Of course, if you have dual citizenship, dislike the US flag or dislike having to stand for the pledge then it will still be offensive. In fact, soon flying the flag in front of any public buildings will be questioned. After 9/11 we saw people that were objecting to seeing flags on fire trucks, etc.

Ryn

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 08:50 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
It was an athiest that challenged it.

I think MOST people of any religion take the term "God" as used in the pledge as to mean a supreme being.

Not looking to start a fight, personally I was surprised to hear the phrase had been added in 1954, to me the solution is to remove it.

Ya know the Supreme court says something before every session mentioning God - wonder if anyone will challenge that?

We swear before court "so help me God" - is that going too?

Kinda gets complicated when you start to think about it :)

life goes on......

Wcv63

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 08:52 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Well Max I agree with you. And Faerygdds, you certainly have a right to your opinion. I believe the word "God" can mean many things to many different people.

All it really means is faith. Faith is certainly a very cool concept not just associated with religion. Merriam-Webster defines Faith as follows:

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY

Although faith in God (a higher power) is certainly one of the definitions it is certainly not the only one.

Max

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 08:54 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Hmmmm, Faerygdds ...
You and I disagree on a major point: You interpret the use of "God" to mean the Christian God. I intrepret it to mean the concept of a higher power that's labeled God.

In my interpretation, no one is pushing any one way of believing, it's simply the concept of something bigger than us, watching over us.

Don't forget that there are many different versions of practicing Christianity. My concept of being a Christian is vastly different than many others who label themselves the same way.

Yet we have a commonality of belief in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. In the same manner, I have a commonality of belief in a higher power that other faiths label as Krishna, Buddah, Allah, and so forth.

I respect your opinion, though. You're certainly entitled to hold it.

Oregonfire

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 08:58 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Hmmm...interesting. I guess the ruling bugs me on a number of levels:

1.I'm a liberal, and it makes liberals look silly. This is probably the main reason for me. We need to choose our battles, and this one was poorly chosen. Now the political machine is trying to pin the blame on liberal judges, and is pushing the Democratic Senate to approve the conservative judges they've been blocking for months. Let the backlash begin.

2. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

3. "God" is a pretty amorphous term. It doesn't specifically signify the big guy in the sky for me, never did.

4. I grew up saying the Pledge of Allegiance, and am pretty ambivalent about religion, and saying it never bothered me at all.

5. Saying the Pledge provided a comforting predictibility to grade school and childhood. Children like daily rituals because they are comforting.

I guess it's just a matter of hurrying up and getting it fixed then, if they are going to take out the God part. I always liked saying the Pledge of Allegiance in grade school, and somehow managed not to become a brainwashed Hitler Youth as was once suggested to me by someone from another country. Apparently other countries don't say one.

Maris

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 08:59 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
the problem is Max is that not everyone believes in that concept of something bigger. The fact is the constitution does provide for separation of church and state. I said the pledge of allegiance as I grew up and my kids say it today. I have always understood that it wasnt constitutional and i thought take it while you can get it.

Fact of the matter is you cant in a public school embrace a religion. Right or wrong that is our constitution and I love it. Otherwise we could be living in a place like saudi arabia where it is illegal to sell a star of David.

Government must distance itself from religion and leave the worshp to the citizens private lives. We are a much healthier society for that

Wcv63

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 09:06 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Maris there's always a higher power at work. Call it God, call it Allah, call it Mother Nature.

Denying the existence of a higher power is like saying that we have control of our universe. This is simply not the case.

Ryn

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 09:13 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
noooooooo

lets not start a "is there a higher power" debate here.....

start a new thread!!! lol

Max

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 09:18 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Call it Fate. :)

Wcv63

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 09:32 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Ryn don't be afraid. :) We're a fairly civilized bunch even when we disagree.

Faerygdds

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 09:33 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I was doing some more reading while everyone was responding...

From CNN.com

The court said 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, the court said, the federal government did not dispute.

So... seeing that this was the reason it was inserted... it should be taken out. The point is this... it's not just the Christian God part, but rather the idea that there is only one God. Many religions are NOT monotheistic.

If you can't see my point... try to stomach saying the follwing...

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under the Gods, idivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

A little tough to stomach eh? Well... for many people this is what THEY believe.

Frankly... I have no problem with the 1924 version. I have no problem with the addition of "the United States of America" as that is indeed the country we all live in, but not all of us believe in ONE God... and many do dot believe in the concept of God at all. SO again... why should YOUR FAITH... YOUR beliefs... be imposed on them... oh yeah... because it's a hand me down of the red scare...

Seeing as how we have hopefully evolved since then... let's just take it back out. After all... the red scare is over and now, in this country, we are supposedly taught to "celebrate diversity".

BTW.. I have nothing against monotheism or Christians... I was just making the point that frankly... we all don't believe the same things and therefore should not be imposing our beliefs on others. After all.. I'm certainly not going to sit here and tell you that your religion is full of it and philosphy/theism X is the "true path"... it would be both futile and WRONG. As someone pointed out... Faith is a very strong bond. When our faith is challenged, ppl get angry or hurt. And that simply isn't what I am about... I'd rather have you look at the other side of the coin to see the fairness in this decision. You can agree... or not... that is up to you and frankly, not my business... but I have to give you food for though huh???

I wouldn't be me if I didn't... :)

Faerygdds

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 09:36 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Oh Ryn... don't be scared... you know I have to play Devil's Advocate...


of course that's REALLY funny.... considering that I don't believe in the Devil anyhow! lol

:)

Gail

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 09:44 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
So, if they decide it is unconstitutional to have "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, what happens when someone is sworn in in a court room. I've never been to court but don't they have you swear on a bible and say "Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?"

or is that just in movies and tv?

Gail

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 09:44 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
If you don't believe in the devil, you have not met my youngest dog.

Faerygdds

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 10:03 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
The whole courtroom thing is interesting. OK.. lemme think out loud on this one...

The reality is that many ppl don't believe in God.. therefore, many ppl who take that particular oath do not believe in it. Ok... so that means that they are taking an oath to be honest and it means NOTHING to them... do we change it or leave it alone???

Wow... when I put it like that.. I think we should change it. But now the issue comes up... who do we swear to?

Wait... stop.... who says we have to swear on ANY diety... and wait...

Is it considered blasphemy to swear on God in a court of law?

And if your an athiest or non-Christian... and you DO swear on a Bible... is that perjury(sp)??? hmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

Well... in Manitou, Colorado, my husband got a traffic citation and had to go to court. There was no Bible. He simply stood in front of the judge, raised his right hand and was asked, "Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole thruth and nothing but the truth?"

Sounds good enough to me!

Faerygdds

Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 10:05 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Oh Gail.... your pup can't be that bad. See, to me the "Devil" is an embodiment of "pure evil" or "true evil" and to me... true evil lies in only one place -- and that is in the heart of man (meaning the species, not the gender)...

but that's a different topic altogether... :)

Edited to add: Gail... you can remove this post if you want as it's totally OT... just wanted you to see my reply :)