Posted on 06/28/2002 1:00:32 PM PDT by Coleus
Rodino faults ruling on pledge
Friday, June 28, 2002
Associated Press
NEWARK - A former New Jersey congressman who co-sponsored a 1954 measure that added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance says a federal appeals court was wrong to conclude that the phrase makes the pledge unconstitutional.
In a 2-1 decision issued Wednesday, a panel of 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.
Peter Rodino, 93, a Democrat from West Orange who served in the House of Representatives for 40 years, criticized the ruling, saying there is a distinction between that principle and the words "under God" in the pledge.
"That phrase is inspirational - a reaching out for certain ideals," Rodino said in a report published Thursday. "In reciting it, we do not intend to set up a government that is governed by any particular religion or religious proclamation."
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 appeals court ruling does not take effect for several months, to allow further appeals. The government can ask the full circuit court to reconsider, or take its case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
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.
And now we're at war against radical Islamism, which also makes the worship of God (other than Allah) against their laws.
I thought that atheism fit the definition of religion because it is a belief. Does the Constitution specify that the United States should establish atheism?
I wouild be the first to object if this little atheist girl in Kalifornica was forced to utter the Pledge against her will. She could have went to the hallway until the Pledge was over. To deprive the remainder of her class the opportunity to exercise their beliefs is criminal.
"...by the communists, who were athiests."
...And who have, in these latter days, essentially co-opted Rodino's old party.
The man behind the phrase frets -- Peter Rodino, co-sponsor of 'under God' addition
Can't the fact that we believe in a loving God of justice and mercy be enough to distinguish us from the god of the Islamists which feeds off the violence perpetrated by its adherents?
As I stated on another thread here, the recognition that this is a nation "under God" is less the establishment of religion, and more an historical fact. Our nation was formed by the foundation that "all men are CREATED equal" and that they are "endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights" -- rights not created or granted by the whim of the state, but rights bestowed upon man by God. This is a critically important distinction. Eliminate this concept of God-given rights from the basis of our society and values, and what we have to revert to are rights and liberties that are derived from the power of the state -- and the state will always have the power to take those rights away.
The founders clearly acknowledged that this was a nation founded "under God" or Providence. The atheists may not like it, but this is historical fact, and as Americans who love their country, they should be willing to acknowledge that historical fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.