9TH CIRCUIT COURT: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

That's not what you said. You said majority rule. That's a democracy. We're (supposed to) be a Republic. Try and be more articulate.

If you own a home, a car, or any other "thing" you are being forced to pay for government schools. Here in Arizona over 82% of our property taxes go to finance public schools. Now, considering the fact they we, even those of us with no children, are paying for public schools now why should we be forced to pay twice?

I thought at first this had to be a joke. But then I thought that too when the left went after the Boy Scouts. Maybe this will finally wake people up to what the Dims and other lefties are really up to.

I also hope the people who claim it doesn't matter which party holds the Senate, which controls judicial nominations, wake up and smell the stench of this decision. This should be the issue this fall. Vote for Dim Senators if you like this decision. If, on the other hand, you like the Pledge of Allegiance, vote Republican.

Nonsense. Every child who's parents cannot afford to send them to non-government schools, but must send them somewhere at the point of a gun is forced to say the pledge. Little children cannot opt out due to pressure from teachers and other children. Grow up.

Only in your deluded mind. Most parents willingly send their children to public schools and the best of those parents teach their children to stand up for what they beieve in. Mine did for me, I did for my kids and my kids will do the same for my grandkids.

Compulsary schooling is immoral.

Blah, blah, blah, same sh4t different day. I repeat public schools are the public square. Care to address that point?

Compulsary schooling was never supported by Jefferson or Madison.

Same strawman, different day. Your namesake was a strident supporter of public education. I suggest you change your nome de guerre. Perhaps you might even use your own name. It is after all, a free country.:-}

My cause? What might that be? Try to avoid speculating.

Compulsory eduation. LOL The debate is centered on a Federal Court telling public school districts that they are forbidden to use the word God in reciting the pledge. Compulsory education is your strawdog. I'm a Christian and I didn't stay home. I won't be staying home this time either.

Harry Brown will be glad to hear it, as for me I could care less.

see #760

Hmmm,, different viewpoint than the father has. He thinks that his child is being forced to recite something she has been told is wrong. He sees the force from a different angle.

SHE WAS NOT BEING FORCED TO SAY IT!

Sorry for shouting but that is the whole point. She was not being forced to say it she was not even being asked to stay in the room while others said it. This mans beef is that it is being said at all.

That is not acceptable.

a.cricket

You obviously missed the part where the court ruled that no student may even utter the pledge under any circumstances in a school building.

Don't feel bad. I still can't find that part in the ruling, but it must be there because so many people are asserting it.

My "unalienable" (not inalienable) rights include Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

Freedom of religion is not an unalienable right, but all the same it is a right we have embraced in our country. Our 1st Amendment protects that.

Ah, are you of the opinion that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness your only unlaienable rights?
Did you forget this?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Do you now see that those are not the only unalienable rights?
Further, Isn't it clear where the rights originated, that the Constitution was instituted to secure?
Are you aware of the concerns of some of the Framers about including a Bill of Rights?
Do you understand the purpose of and the principle supporting the Ninth Ammendment?

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

rudypoot... meet slippery slope.

Preamble for Michigan:

We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.

SQUEEZE HERE.

That was my reaction -- he moved to get this in the 9th circuit. Even then he couldn't get a unanimous ruling!

I agree 200%.

From the atheists' web site: our money is next:

GOD WE TRUST" -- STAMPING OUT RELIGION ON NATIONAL CURRENCY

Is it a futile form of protest? A symptom of frustration? Some Atheists and separationists are crossing out the national motto on paper money. Whatever your opinion, the history of how "In God We Trust" ended up on currency shows that the motto is religious, not secular, in its origin and function today.

Web Posted: March 15, 1999
cross the country, there is a movement afoot.

It isn't using picket signs, or a flood of letters to congress, or even a lawsuit -- that's already been tried. Instead, some Atheists and separationists are taking pen in hand, and obliterating the "In God We Trust" motto from the national currency. Others are using rubber stamps, or inserting their own messages like "In Reason We Trust," or "Keep Church and State Separate." Mention religious slogans in an internet newsgroup or at a meeting and eyebrows are suddenly raised. Opinions are expressed. And there's a tame call to action, even if does only use the nearest ball-point or magic marker.

Indeed, religious graffiti on currency is one of the issues which sooner or later all of us will sound off about. It's also one of the periodic topics that ends up being vented, dissected and discussed on news groups and mailing lists. Simply put, most Atheists don't like the "In God We Trust" slogan staring at us every time we pull out our wallets or purses. It has to go. But how?

One of the first legal actions to challenge religious sloganeering of this type was made in 1978 by American Atheists founder Madalyn Murray O'Hair. In the case of MADALYN MURRAY O'HAIR et al. v. W. MICHAEL BLUMENTHAL, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, et al. (462 F. Supp. 19 -- W.D. Tex 1978), the court opined: "Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of religious exercise." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reached a similar conclusion in the 1970 case ARONOW v. UNITED STATES. Subsequent cases also fell short, even though they argued that the motto clearly encouraged religion and made a statement about god and theology. On September 14, 1988, then-President of American Atheists Jon Murray addressed the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs and Coinage concerning proposals to redesign the nation's currency. At that time, Murray expressed concern about including "In God We Trust" on the national currency, suggesting instead a return to the secular "E Pluribus Unum" ("One from many") that was used earlier in the nation's history.

Where did "In God We Trust" originate? Many mistakenly believe that it has been the national motto since revolutionary days; but the phraseology is strictly religious in origin.

The national motto adopted by the Founders was inscribed next to the Great Seal of the United States, a decoration devised under the supervision of Franklin, Adams and Jefferson. It was Jefferson who suggested "E Pluribus Unum," and that slogan was adopted in 1782, five years before the Constitutional convention of 1787.

It wasn't until nearly a century later, though, that "In God We Trust" was seriously proposed as a motto. Writing in her book "Freedom Under Siege," (J.P.Tarcher, Los Angeles, 1974), Madalyn O'Hair delineated the historical background for readers:

"In 1861, the Reverend M.R. Watkinson persuaded the secretary of the Treasury to try to introduce 'In God We Trust' as a motto on the coins of the land, arguing on the theological premise that in a Judeo-Christian nation, 'There is but one God.' Congress, then beginning to be responsive to the religious community and the votes that it was presumed to control, passed the Coinage Act of April 22, 1864, which designated that 'In God We Trust' be put on coins 'when and where sufficient space in the balance of the design' would permit it."

Rev. Watkinson's missive was directed to Secretary of the Treasury Samuel P. Chase. It read:

"Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.

One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW..."

Seven days after the transmittal of Watkinson's letter, Secretary Chase, on November 20, 1861, wrote to James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia. He instructed Pollock to prepare a motto, declaring "No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins..." A design was submitted in December, 1863 proposing OUR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY, or the alternative of GOD, OUR TRUST. On December 9, 1863, Chase formally approved a third slogan in a letter to the Mint Director.

"I approve your mottoes (sic), only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word OUR, so as to read OUR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. And on that with the shield, it should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST."

"In God We Trust" thus appeared on the short-lived 1864 two-cent coin. It has been used continuously on the one-cent coin since 1909, and on dimes since 1916. Since July 1, 1908,"In God We Trust" has also been stamped on gold coins, silver dollars, quarters and half-dollar coins

Watkinson's effort to religionize the coinage was part of a larger campaign waged by a coalition of eleven Protestant denominations under the umbrella of the National Reform Association. Disenchanted with the secularism of documents such as the Constitution, the NRA sought to amend that instrument to "indicate that this is a Christian nation." Petitions were raised and formally presented to Congress. They proposed a new preamble to the Constitution which read:

"We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government..."
Fortunately, the petition failed despite the membership of powerful and wealthy men in the National Reform Association. They included Supreme Court Justice William Strong, a handful of governors and prominent businessmen.

IS IT LEGAL?
What about crossing out "In God We trust" on paper money? Is it legal? There appears to be confusion over the legality of stamping out or erasing the motto, or writing a message on US currency. We noted that Title 18 Section 333 of the U.S. Code prohibits defacement of currency if it is done with the intent to defraud, i.e. changing the face value.
We also received a fax which apparently comes from the same code or a similar regulation. It is listed at the top as "Ch. 25, COUNTERFEITING AND FORGERY 18-476. Section 475 reads as follows:

"Imitating obligations or securities; advertisements. Whoever designs, engraves, prints, makes or executes, or utters, issues, distributes, circulates; or uses any business or professional card, notice, placard, circular, handbill, or advertisement in the likeness or similitude of any obligation or security of the United States issued under or authorized by any Act of Congress, or writes, prints, or otherwise impresses upon or attaches to any such instrument, obligation, or security, or any coin of the United States, any business or professional card, notice, or advisement, or any notice or advertisement whatever, shall be fined not more than $500."

A citation below this reads "June 25, 1948, c 645. 62 Stat.706; July 16, 1951, c.226. 2. 65 Stat. 22."

A recent television program included a segment on "traveling money," where people wrote down phone numbers or addresses on currency, only to have the bill returned, or somebody call them. There was no mention of FBI or BATF swat teams storming their houses for this offense. On the other hand, should hundreds, then thousands of Atheists and separationists start crossing out "In God We Trust," there just might be a prosecution under the above mentioned statute.

The point of this article, which originally appeared in AANEWS, was not to encourage readers to empty their wallets and purses and develop a new form of carpal tunnel disorder by crossing out IGWT on millions of bills. We wanted to provide the historical background on how this clearly religious slogan found its way onto our nation's money supply; we likewise suggested that crossing out "In God We Trust" betrays the frustration which many people admittedly feel at a legal system which chooses when, and under what circumstances, it will truly recognize the full separation of church and state. The idea that "In God We Trust" or incantations to a deity at public gatherings serve a "secular function" and do not advance religious belief is something we still find incredible.

So, what about crossing out "In God We Trust" or writing a message on money? Should you do it? At least consider the potential consequences; and realize money passes through our hands quite rapidly. We usually glance to check whether it's a $1 bill, a sawbuck, or something bigger. One alternative to spending your time obliterating IGWT is to put the same effort into a letter-to-the-editor of your local paper, or even your representative in Foggy Bottom. Either way, the choice is yours.

The next step in the process of religionizing the national currency had to wait nearly a century, when on July 11.1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed Public Law 140 making it mandatory that all coinage and paper currency display the motto "In God We Trust." The following year, Public Law 851 was enacted and signed, which officially replaced the national motto "E Pluribus Unum" with "In God We Trust" All of this occurred at the height of cold war tension, when political divisions between the Soviet and western block was simplistically portrayed as a confrontation between Judeo-Christian civilization and the "godless" menace of communism. Indeed, the new national motto was only part of a broader effort to effectively religionize civic ritual and symbols. On June 14, 1954, Congress unanimously ordered the inclusion of the words "Under God" into the nation's Pledge of Allegiance. By this time, other laws mandating public religiosity had also been enacted, including a statute for all federal justices and judges to swear an oath concluding with "So help me God."

All paper currency issued after October 1, 1957 included the IN GOD WE TRUST national motto.

OTHER RELIGIOUS ORIGINS
The phrase "In God We Trust" does not appear in the Bible. Nevertheless Biblical passages such as 1 Timothy: 4-10 ("Trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men...") and 2 Corinthians 1:9 ("But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead...") are cited as scriptural inspiration. And just as the pleas of Rev. Watkinson and the National Reform Association had led to the inclusion of "In God We Trust" on coinage, similar religious sentiments were used to justify the mottos addition to the nation's paper currency. Evidence of this comes from an examination of the Congressional Record. On June 7, 1955 for instance, Congressman Bennett of Florida rose in support of H.R..619, a bill "Providing for the inscription of 'In God We Trust' on all United States Currency and Coins." Bennett declared:

"I sincerely hope that the Senate will give its prompt approval to this proposal. In these days when imperialistic and materialistic communism seeks to attack and destroy freedom, we should continuously look for ways to strengthen the foundations of our freedom. At the base of our freedom is our faith in God and the desire of Americans to live by His will and His guidance. As long as this country trust in God, it will prevail. To serve as a constant reminder of this truth, it is highly desirable that our currency and coins should bear these inspiring words 'In God We Trust.'"

CHALLENGING THE MOTTO: O'HAIR v. BLUEMENTHAL
The 1978 MADALYN MURRAY O'HAIR v. W. MICHAEL BLUMENTHAL case was decided at the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. There, the court invoked the notion of "secular purpose," suggesting that like prayer at government meetings or other displays of religiosity in government, the motto was "really" no religious. The court declared with regard to the motto "In God We Trust," that "Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise. " The Ninth Circuit had reached a similar conclusion in the ARONOW v. UNITED STATES case in 1970.

DEFACING FEDERAL CURRENCY?
So, what about those folks who are launching a civil protest by crossing out the "In God We Trust" motto, or stamping an alternative slogan on the currency. What about frustrated separationists who instead write "Atheist Money" or something similar in the thin margins of every dollar bill? Are they breaking the law? Reproduction or alteration of currency with an intent to defraud does violate federal statutes; but using the greenback as a bulletin board for social protest does not. Article 331, Title 18 of the U.S. Code prohibits defacement of currency only if it is performed with such deceptive intent, or the depicted face value of the currency is altered in a significant way. How effective the tactic is remains to be seen. Would government suddenly take notice if hundreds of thousands or millions of bills were altered with the motto crossed out?

Ironically, religious groups and courts often use the same evidence to argue vastly different conclusions. Money and the "In God We Trust" motto is a case in point. While researching this story we discovered that the religious motto was often cited by religious groups as "proof" of the melding of government and faith, or in support of the notion that America is founded upon Christian religious principles. Other evidence included the opening of congressional sessions with prayer, the display of a Ten Commandments bas relief at the U.S. Supreme Court building, or the fact that the President of the United States takes the oath of office while swearing on a bible. The same sort of evidence, though, often appears in court rulings which decide establishment clause cases. Justices will cite the "In God We Trust" motto, for example, as evidence of a "civic religion," or maintain that it has a secular intent.

One thing remains certain. Despite the convincing evidence that "In God We Trust" has a strong origin in religious sensibilities, it is doubtful that courts today would care to revisit O'HAIR v. BLUMENTHAL, or any other case which proposes to take up this controversial issue. Scratching out "In God We Trust," or stamping separationist slogans on the currency displays the frustration that many Atheists have in dealing with a legal system which rarely holds to a stern and strict interpretation of the establishment clause. The wall of separation goes only so far.

You can bet your money on it.

For all: I'm watching the US Senate right now. Sen. Loserman is going balistic. He says we have freedom of religion not freedom from religion. He is proposing a consitutional ammendment for the Pledge. Sen. Nelson and Sen Warner are also speaking about it. Warner just announced he wants to start the ammendment process now and Loserman has agreed! Oh, and one more thing - Guess who is Madam President right now in the Senate - Hillary! BWAAAAA

Red Skelton was a prophet for our times.

All GW needs to do is get on Airforce one, fly to California, visit a school and lead the pledge.

I thought the very same thing. It would work except that schools are out for Summer Vacation right now. But that doesn't rule out Summer School.

We need to get Bush there right now, leading hundreds of children in the Pledge of Allegiance, emphasizing the worlds "under God". We also need to get organizations like the ACLJ and the Thomas Moore Law Center to offer to defend any school sued for continuing to use "under God" or to defend any students disciplined for using "under God" when reciting the Pledge.

That's fine with me, if the public schools are open throughout the year in California. In much of the world, this is the case. I'm all for a uniform start date, uniform textbook selection, etc for public schools around the world. It's easier to promote harmony when everyone is on the same page... and not subjected to government endorsement of a certain religion. Religion can antagonize government so they are best kept apart, some say.

Uh, atheists do not believe in any "gods". They do not consider the material world as a "god".

What they consider is that an atheistic material universe is the default theological position.
Since it's a theological position, it's as religious as anything atheists complain about.

Feeble insult. Who are you?

A place where people are "free" to worship, as long as they don't offend anyone. In other words, in secret. A place where any open display of religion brands you as a counter-revolutionary enemy of the state, thereby enforcing a very real separation of church and state. A place where there is no God in sight - a virtual utopia of peace, tolerance, and goodwill - and no religion, too. Imagine.

I'm afraid that is the standard view many atheists have of religion today - you are free to practice it as long as they do not know about it.