# FLASH: U.S. Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional



## suzanne (May 26, 2001)

An Appeals Court in San Francisco has just ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional due to its inclusion of the phrase "under God," which is in violation of the separation of church and state. The words were added by an act of Congress in 1954 (I actually remember having to learn the new version in first grade, after learning the old one in kindergarten).

_Note: I originally mis-identified which court passed down this ruling. I apologize for the error, and hope it did not cause too much consternation._


----------



## mstevens (Jun 25, 2002)

The specific case involved in this decision was that of an Atheist family that objected to having their child exposed to the pledge every day in school. The ruling specifically refers to the pledge being recited in public schools. I wonder when "In God We Trust" on our currency will be challenged, it was added about the same time the Pledge was altered during the anti communist hysteria of the 50s.


----------



## cape chef (Jul 31, 2000)

I believe it was handed down by the 9th court which is the most liberal in the states. I'm sure the supreme court will over rule this


----------



## jim berman (Oct 28, 1999)

I'm not trying to stir things up and certainly respect everybody's beliefs, but can't we just leave the Pledge of Allegiance alone? It is part of the country we live in; which, if it is not the country of choice, there are no walls surrounding it.
That's all.


----------



## mstevens (Jun 25, 2002)

The problem with this is that the same argument could have been made almost 50 years ago when the Pledge was changed to include the "under God" line. So, at what point do you want to leave it alone? By rights that portion should never have been added.


----------



## pastachef (Nov 19, 1999)

I think I'm going to be sick...


----------



## monkeymay (Feb 11, 2002)

It's a matter of separation of church and state, as stated in the Constitution...
I heard everyone was up on the Capitol steps saying the pledge, meanwhile our economy is tailspinning due to corporate corruption...
In God we trust indeed...


----------



## fodigger (Jul 2, 2001)

As a person who is blessed (?) woth not needing alot of sleep, I read alot. One of my favorite subjects is the formation of this great nation. Over and over in the federalist papers the founding fathers profess their love of God and that this nation was born to serve him. No where in the Constitution of these great United States will will find the phrase "Separation of Church and State" what it does say (I paraphrase) is that there will be no state established religion(similar to the church of England). The phrase separation of church and state came from a letter that Thomas Jefferson had wrote a colleague around the turn of the new century in explaining the Constitution. Had the court read the entire letter into the record, the whole arguement would be mute as T.J. acknowledged that this Country was formed on a Belief in God and that w/o him This Country would fall. The whole case centers around a fathers wish that his daughter not say the Pledge. She was not being forced to in any way shape or form. What a crock. It shows how important it is to confirm the right judges to the federal bench as it is a lifetime appointment.

And as far as the CEO's cheating, on the cover of USA Today sports section 90% of CEO's admitted to cheating on their golf scores. I do alot of business on the golf course and if I see someone cheating I won't do business w/ them as I see that as a major character flaw. If they are willing to cheat themselves what is to stop them from cheating me.


----------



## monkeymay (Feb 11, 2002)

Sorry fodigger - I smoked a lot of pot in high school - I know that Constitution thing was in there somewhere...
never the less my sentiment still stands.

Peace.
Monkey


----------



## kokopuffs (Aug 4, 2000)

CC:

In the 60's, if you wanted to achieve Consciencious Objector status, the best chance was with the 9'th circuit court of appeals in SF. Being located across the bay from Mario Savio's free speech movement in Berkeley, the two synergized. Hence, the Berkeley Daze of the 60's. Yeah, liberal. Vive La Revolucion!!! Pot in every pot!


----------



## peachcreek (Sep 21, 2001)

Well put, Fodigger.
I try not to weigh in on these threads, but here goes. My defination of "Religious differences".

"Old Time religion"- I'm right, you are wrong.
"New Age religion"- You are right. I, however are more right than you.
I wish we could agree to disagree. I THINK that is what they were trying to say in the Constitution. I'm not much of a law scholar or theologian. I'll be in the kitchen. At least there I know when I'm screwing up...


----------



## mstevens (Jun 25, 2002)

Technically, according to constitutional law the ruling was correct.

However, especially in light of the recent groundswell of "Patriotism" it was grossly politically incorrect and does not stand a chance of resisting being overturned.

Interesting as the Republicans are scrambling to make this an anti-democratic issue when the judge who ruled was a republican appointee.


----------



## chiffonade (Nov 29, 2001)

Stopped in to read the boards and stumbled upon this thread. (We bought a house, woo hoo! More on that later.)

This story represents in vivid color, the total exploitation of the rights people enjoy in this country. If this guy doesn't like "under God" he can pack up his family and move them to a place that doesn't say "under God." The planes land here, but they take off too.

I sincerely hope his fifteen minutes of fame are over soon. Any coverage of this guy on TV nauseates me.


----------



## alexia (Mar 3, 2002)

As this country was founded mostly by people fleeing from the oppression of the various religious establishments in Europe, each spending LOTS of time and energy oppressing and killing each other when they had the advantage, the founding fathers not unreasonably in my opinion decided not to have any of that here. 

And though the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights may have individually had strong personal religious beliefs (or not), they felt the best buffer against such barbarous and oppressive behavior was to eliminate any governmental sponsership of religion. 

Each of us has the right to believe (or not) in any religion or diety as long as we do not impose it on others. The price we pay for this freedom of belief is that we lose the right to have governmental sanctioning of our beliefs over those of others. In this case, those who believe in a diety are free to practice those beliefs in their homes, churches, even on TV. And those who do not believe are entitled not to have the beliefs of others imposed upon them by governmental agencies such as public schools. (I would guess that sectarian and other private schools that do not receive funding from the state are still free to invoke God in their pledge of allegiance.) 

We need not only look to history to see what mischief is brought about when the State becomes the agent of religion - any religion. We can look at today's newspaper or newscast. For the most part Christians have decided to tolerate each other's beliefs (with some exception); and for the most part Jews and Muslims are similarly tolerated in our country (though we read of scattered exception to that). We are very fortunate here, for even today people are slaughtering each other over religious (and tribal) beliefs in many other parts of the world. 

As for the Pledge itself, substantive issues aside, I think it flowed better the old way. And I doubt that anyone will be carted away for muttering in "under God" for themselves any more than for making a private prayer before they take an exam, etc. At issue is whether it may be foisted on others who may not share the same beliefs.


----------



## kimmie (Mar 13, 2001)

One of the judges on the panel (9th Circuit) just put a stay on his own decision! What's up with that? Afraid not to be re-elected are we?


----------



## alexia (Mar 3, 2002)

Oh you cynic you. But doubtless right.


----------



## jim berman (Oct 28, 1999)

EXACTLY!


----------



## mstevens (Jun 25, 2002)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this guy doesn't like "under God" he can pack up his family and move them to a place that doesn't say "under God." The planes land here, but they take off too. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm, there's a sterling example of tolerance...  

"I may disagree with everything you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

Rumpole... er, oops! Voltaire


----------



## panini (Jul 28, 2001)

I say the country should spend numerous hours,days and years discussing this. It's very important!!.


----------



## greg (Dec 8, 1999)

I think the problem here is that some people are forgetting the words that come right after "under God". Goes a little somethin' like this: "*indivisible, with liberty and justice for all*".

Or, at least think of it like this. No one ever gets offended by something that is not said. Is it so hard to not say something, and offend no-ones personal liberties?


----------



## monkeymay (Feb 11, 2002)

Thank you Alexia, for your eloquent words.

Meantime, Supreme Court decision to allow vouchers for private schools?
I mean Jesus is just alright with me, but it's hard to be a happy pagan these days...
(all meant with light and fun, remember - it's okay, we can just Talk about this stuff- think about the things that bind us...)

Monkey


----------



## greg (Dec 8, 1999)

Just found this little bit of info. It appears that, in a 1943 decision (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette), the U.S. Supreme court struck down a state statute requiring children to pledge their allegiance to and salute the flag, stating thus:

So, apparently, this father's objection can only be based in law by his child having to say it, not having to hear it. I don't like to hear Styx, but have no immediate plans of suing radio stations. So, I believe this will be overturned by the Supreme Court. I do however agree with the man in principle, somewhat. Principle and the law are 2 different things, though.


----------



## mstevens (Jun 25, 2002)

The Judge in question was appointed (By Republicans no less!), not elected.


----------



## bevreview steve (Jan 11, 2000)

I hate how people misinterpret this whole "separation of church and state" issue. Like it's in the constitution or something. Which it isn't. And if you really looked at the historical background on how this phrase came into meaning, you'd be amazed at how off-track this ruling really is.


----------



## shimmer (Jan 26, 2001)

BECAUSE the constitution says this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Basically, we cannot be mandated to profess anything regarding God or any other higher being. This would hold that a pledge of allegiance to our nation in its entirety would leave out any religious recognition.

I think everyone is way too emotional about this. Get a grip. Not everyone in this nation believes the same thing. Nobody has to believe in God, and there should not be that expectation as a citizen or a school child. School children are not the only people who stand in groups and say the pledge of allegiance. What about military, etc?

I heard one woman say the other day how important it was to instill moral values in her children, that it is the job of the schools, and now the world was going to **** (that's a paraphrase, I must admit). Hello! Whether or not you say the nation is under God or not, if you believe it is has no correlation to whether or not it does. And if that two word phrase repeated by rote every morning is the only moral value your child is taught, there is already a problem.

Friends, I am sick and tired of people saying things such as "If they think X then they can just leave." That's entirely inappropriate. The point of this is not whether or not someone agrees with your self-established moral "higher ground" but whether or not the phrase "Under God" is constitutionally allowed in the pledge of allegience. I don't think it should be only for those citizens who share a certain belief. That's not inclusive, that's exclusive. THat's not what our country is about. *THERE IS NO SHARED MORAL OR RELIGIOUS SYSTEM.* Despite what people so desperately want. If there was, there would be no point in the democratic process. Everyone would have already agreed, and we could let someone else make our decisions for us. That will never happen.

Let me clarify something else, that should be evident in the careful study of history but is so overlooked by people who think only the United States can be a haven for refugees- People did not come to our country to be free from religious persecution. That never happened. IF they wanted to flee, they would have fled to a nearby country that was the opposite of what they were persecuted for. So why did they come? Free land. The opportunity to start over. Read the history book again. Its in there. Besides, to use that fact as a basis to keep the word God in the pledge seems ironic to me. IF people fled here to get away from that, why would we insist it stay?

Another important note about history- both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were deists, or transcendentalists. This is similar to the average unitarian church today. They believed in a higher being as far as someone must have done something for them to be there, but they did not believe in a higher being who was active in their every day lives. Of course, when they were around, the pledge didn't SAY "Under God." There is a reason. The constitution was written as a statement of financial independence from the British empire, not as a statement of religion.

And for those of you who insist some can just "not say the Under God part," using the radio argument- well, if someone played offensive music at work, I could insist it was turned off, that could be based on any number of reasons- any form of harrassment would suffice. Many people are not allowed to hang naked women or men up in a public environment, in many similar places the brash display of religious material is also forbidden. Why should this be different?

I think the pledge as it stands is an oxymoron. Either we say the nation is under God, or we say there is liberty and justice for all. It cannot be both.

I won't bother saying what I believe religion-wise. It frankly makes no difference, and isn't even a part of this. Its an issue of the constitution and what is best for every citizen's rights.

~~Shimmer~~


----------



## alexia (Mar 3, 2002)

Yes Shimmer, it is a constitutional issue. But historically, in times of crisis and/or hysteria, the constitution has been ignored or abridged at least temporarily (in the life time of some of those on this board we can look at the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, the use of the loyalty oath during the McCarthy era, etc.). So don't take any bets that the court's recent decision will be upheld.


----------



## fodigger (Jul 2, 2001)

Shimmer wrote: Another important note about history- both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were deists, or transcendentalists. This is not accurate at least in regards to Thomas Jefferson. The writtings towards the end ofhis life show a diffinite belief in God. His later in life letters include many references to God.
I do agree however that it is a PARENTS job and duty to teach their children morals. Not the school, church or anywhere else. It is the abdication of these duties that is taking our country down the black road we travel. Our biggest enemy is not from anywhere but our own homes. If we as parents really want to change the world then we must first change our own lazy ways and teach our own children.


People did not come to our country to be free from religious persecution. That never happened. IF they wanted to flee, they would have fled to a nearby country that was the opposite of what they were persecuted for. So why did they come? Free land. The opportunity to start over. Read the history book again. 

I would like to see what revisionist history books you are reading as other than 1 totally off the wall one I don't recall reading about the land grab at all.
I also don't see how "one nation under God" and "with liberty and justice for all " are exclusive of each other. noone is forcing this girl or anybody else to say the words "under God" I also feel that Gregs use of Styxs was right on because unless the music is pornographic in nature( and we all know how hard that is to prove) there is nothing harassing about the music and at least according to my labor attorney if you chose to file a claim based on it, you yourself could be held up to a lawsuit if it could be proven that you did so w/ intent to cause harm to the company.
One last bone of contention is that it is not what is best for every citizens right but what is best for the majority. To the greater good of the majority goes the spoils. Too bad for the minority.


----------



## pjm333 (Nov 6, 2001)

What bothers me the most is the attention this is getting.. This so called news does nothing but but divide us.....

pat


----------



## shawtycat (Feb 6, 2002)

Hmmmmm.......I really don't understand what the lawsuit was about. Before I immigrated to the US I knew, even at 11, that I was not obligated to say the US Pledge of Allegiance if I did not want to.

This father says he is suing the school because of his daughter being subjected to hearing references of God? Because she is in a setting where she cannot distance herself from the word perhaps? This is really ridiculous. I could make a case myself that he is doing the same thing.  Child is a captive audience....subjected to an adults point of view....etc. etc. etc. Should I sue him? 

As for the Separation of Church and State....I believe that was just to keep the Church, or ANY church/religion for that matter, from having anything to do with the Government, Laws or Politics of this country. That way the corruption and persecution that occured in England and Europe (?) would not happen here. Anyone remember The Crusades or what happened after King Henry put in a bid for a divorce? ((shudder)) The Church had so much control there the royalty couldn't go potty without permission.

As far as I'm concerned....this IS a FREE country and I don't have to do anything I don't want to. Unless it's a Cop....then it will be "anything you say officer."


----------



## gsquared (May 29, 2002)

Down we we have a similar brouhaha broiling. The words "so help me God" in the oath administered to witnesses in court is being questioned as unconstitutional, as is the tradition (inherited from Britain) of addressing a judge as "my lord". The latter is said to give offense to people of some religious persuasions, although it does not historically refer to a deity.
I do not personally feel my pursuit of life, liberty and happiness threatened by these things and would be content to apply the maxim "de minimis non curat lex"......


----------



## kuan (Jun 11, 2001)

First of all, Judge Goodwin gave no reason for his decision. All that was said was that "under god" was offensive. Judge Goodwin, acting sua sponte, imposed a stay of his own decision. I think he realizes that his opinion will not even survive to see the light of U.S. Supreme Court review. I think the 9th Circuit will overrule the decision of one of its panels. The plaintiff can then appeal it to the U.S. Supreme court. I, for one, don't think we're quite at a constitutional crisis although we're arguing about it in that context. I'm just waiting to hear what Ginsberg has to say about this 

Anyway, first amendment advocates are pointing to Emerson v. Board of Education and the words of Justice Black. 

This is no doubt a precedent here which nobody has bothered to call upon in support of Judge Goodwin's decision. Of course, it can be argued that Justice Black was out of bounds in outlining the spirit of the first amendment, but that's why we have the Supreme Court right? 

The trick for lawyers arguing the case will be to show that the pledge of allegiance case is similiar enough to the public funding for bussing case, and that this IS an arguable case under the first amendment. In fact, if the latter is not shown, then it's likely that the judges won't even issue a writ for this case. ie., They'll refuse to hear it. 

I think, if anything, it's closer to prayer in school cases of which we've seen a few, the most recent I think being Lee v. Weisman in 1992. Here it was ruled that any government sponsored worship was unconstitutional. In his decision, Justice Kennedy wrote: 

Although this case looks like one which could be argued under the First Amendment, I believe it's closer to the core of the Fourteenth Amendment, as is the case with school vouchers as well. The final section of Sec. 1:

I don't see why the govt. should be able to tell you where you can't send your child to school. To me this wasn't even an issue, no matter what our persuasion, (in this case religion was a scapegoat) we should be allowed equal dollars (protection) to send our kids to whatever school we choose.

Anyway folks, the constitution is a very important part of the United States. It serves as the basis for our fundamental liberties and rights. Don't just let it slip by the wayside.

Kuan


----------



## shawtycat (Feb 6, 2002)

I am feeling a little bit of deja vu here...Im sure I said that the whole controversey may not have anything to do with the little girl herself. Seems it is the fathers problem.

*Mom: Girl not harmed by pledging 'under God'*
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The mother of the young California girl at the center of the legal battle over the use of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance said Tuesday that her daughter is not an atheist and has not been harmed by saying the pledge in school.

Sandy Banning has hired an attorney to intervene in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is reconsidering a decision by a three-judge panel of the court holding that the phrase "under God" makes the pledge unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The case was brought by the girl's father, Michael Newdow, who is an atheist. Banning and Newdow are not married. He is challenging her full custody of the girl.

For the rest of this story....click Here: Little Girl Is NOT An Atheist

Jodi


----------

