U.S. To Challenge Pledge Ruling - Dispute Over Words 'Under God' Headed To Supreme Court

MSNBC News Service ^ | MSNBC

[Sergio]

When this decision was first handed down, Dennis Miller had some choice words to say. I paraphrase, but it went something like this.

So the phrase "Under God" is unconstitutional.

So this means that when the Court Justices took the oath of office, with their hand on a Bible and with the statement, "so help me God." This was also unconstitutional.

This means their swearing in is null and void.

Which means the Justices aren't really Justices.

Which means anything they say is irrelevant.

My theory is that these guys must have been beat up a lot in elementary, junior high, and high school, and have just never gotten over it.

Best regards

Sergio

[cayla]

"Then he should have no problem if the US Supreme Court outlaws abortion, bans quotas and reverses the Miranda ruling.



But don't you understand? That is different. Those are LIBERAL issues. You can't expect them to live by the same standards that they are trying to force us to live by.

[votelife]

could the timing on this ruling have been ANY better with regards to getting Estrada confirmed? Look for a LOT of play on this next week ie liberal judge bashing, implying Estrada would not do this!

[rustbucket]

You don't want to say the words "under God", then don't. But don't go telling me that the suspension of political speech in Oakland is much ado about nothing.

Feel free to say "under God" on your own time, at your own home, at your own place of worship, at your own private school. You have that right of free speech. However, there are limits on your free speech. You can't come into my house and preach your religion or your politics. I won't permit it.

I respect your religion and your right to practice it. But leave my children out of it. A local public school board has no right to push religious beliefs on my children, either by coercion or "voluntarily" through peer pressure.

The Ninth Circuit ruled in essence that there should not be pressure, overt or implied, on children in public school to conform to someone's religious ideas, however harmless or virtuous they may seem to you.

The minority view is being protected from the tyranny of the majority by this court ruling. That is the greatness of this country.

The people who wrote the Constitution were influenced by the European wars of religion, where people were killed for not conforming to the majority religious view. That is what the slippery slope of government endorsement of religion can lead to. No thanks.

[B4Ranch]

Ping to a sickening article.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Interesting. The court doesn't like the words 'under G-d', in the pledge.

I wonder how it felt when in 1991:

---

To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. (Received in Senate from House)

HJ 104 RDS

102d CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 104

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 6 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 6), 1991

Received

---

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'.

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;

Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;

Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;

Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;

Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;

Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe,' this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving,' the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and

Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 1991.

Attest:

DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.

The Noahide laws, given by G-d, to Noah after the flood for all mankind, in Genesis 9, and reiterated in Acts 15:20-21. The council's decision was sent out to all the communities of Believers. It is repeated in Acts 21:25. Later at Mt. Sinai the 10 Commandments are given (Mosaic law), which incorporates the Noahide laws. Gentiles (non Jews) are to follow the Noahide law.

Anyway, the 7 Naohide laws are:

1. no idolatry
2. no sexual immorality
3. no blasphemy
4. no bloodshed
5. no theft
6. no eating of non-kosher food
7. establish just courts

So, how do they reconcile that this is a nation founded on G-d and the Noahide laws, and yet it's unconstituional to have 'under G-d', in the pledge?

[truthkeeper]

You are so right and these are the kind of people the nutty dems want on the courts.

Well, YOU are so right and it's up to the Republicans to tell the dumb Sheeple this in plain language (just like you did) via ad spots, soundbites, etc. repeated ad infinitum. God knows the RATS would do it.

Take off the gloves already.

[ohioman]

Right on. You must have been listening to Savage last night. I can't wait until his TV show next Saturday.

[jwalsh07]

Feel free to say "under God" on your own time, at your own home, at your own place of worship, at your own private school. You have that right of free speech. However, there are limits on your free speech. You can't come into my house and preach your religion or your politics. I won't permit it.

I've got news for you rustbucket. In the public square, of which public schools are a member, there are no limits on political or religious speech and you should be well prepared to not permit me or mine from exercising that right because I am willing to go the distance to protect it.

There is no right in the Constitution not to be offended but what puzzles me is why any atheist would be offended by something they see as not existing.

There is one thing worse than tyranny of the majority and that is tyranny by the minority. I give you the Baath party as an example.

[aristeides]

Link to 9th Circuit's Opinion.

[jwalsh07]

That's funny, in K-12 in Massachusetts no one ever told us the pledge was voluntary and that goes for the Lord's Prayer that we said every morning too.

Ignorance is not an excuse now Metesky, is it?

The whole matter of "pledging allegiance" to one's country every morning is so trivial as to be meaningless.

Because something is meaningless to you does not give the state the right to ban it. You sound like a damn lefty for crying out loud.

Do you think that kids will suddenly become Jihadis by not reciting the pledge every morning?

It doesn't matter what I think kids will become or not become. The state has no business limiting speech and if you think it does then you are a statist. It's that duck kind of thing, walks like and talks like, then it is.

Will saying the pledge stop the commie indoctrination in the schools?

The basic tenet of communism was the removal of God and religion from all areas of the public square in an effort to make the state the object of worship and the giver of all things. And you are supporting same. That duck thing again.

As for your little diddy about donuts and holes, I keep my eye on the holes at all times. The world abounds with them.

[Cowboy Bob]

"We may not — we must not — allow public sentiment or outcry to guide our decisions," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the 46-page opinion.

But its okay for 2 people (2-1 decision) to force their extremist views on the millions living in the states covered by the 9th Circuit.

[rustbucket]

In the public square, of which public schools are a member, there are no limits on political or religious speech

Feel free to become a street corner preacher. I'm not stopping you. Neither are the courts. What I and the courts will stop is people imposing their religion on public school children. I'm sorry that you can't see the distinction.

There is no right in the Constitution not to be offended

We agree. Democrats and liberals offend me all the time. They probably offend you too, but they have the right to speak in public.

what puzzles me is why any atheist would be offended by something they see as not existing

I presume that you wouldn't want someone else's religion imposed on your children, assuming you have some. That is the issue I'm concerned about. Do you insist that your religion be imposed on my children? I don't insist that mine be imposed on yours.

There is one thing worse than tyranny of the majority and that is tyranny by the minority.

I'm not sure which is worse. I don't want tyranny from either side. Hopefully, you don't either.

[jwalsh07]

You're missing the point. I acknowledge your right and your childrens right not to utter the words "under God" or even to recite a pledge of allegiance to their nation.

You, on the other hand, are intent on silencing my views and the views of my children.

Schools are the essence of the public square. Voluntary recitation of the pledge in whatever form is Constitutional. The Ninth Circuit's decision regarding the outlawing of the words "under God" from voluntary speech is reminiscient of communism in the Soviet Union.

It is a statist position and one which will be smacked down by SCOTUS.

Remember the words of Voltaire.

[rustbucket]

Public schools could take one of three positions:

Position 1: Argue for God and/or various religions
Position 2: Stay silent on the issue
Position 3: Argue against God and/or various religions

I argue for Position 2. This seems to offend you.

You have yet to convince me that you have the right to indoctrinate or intimidate my children in public school. Who is being the Baathist now?

If you insist on your children saying religious things in school, then I suggest you send them to private school. I'm happy to have government issue a voucher so that they can attend the school of your choice. That way you and your children can do whatever you like with respect to religion and my children would not be ostracized for being different.

It is funny to see someone arguing that a state-run school should permit or encourage religion, then argue that those opposed to this are statists.

[metesky]

Ignorance is not an excuse now Metesky, is it?

Of course not, but then I'm no longer a little boy and no one can force me to do anything I don't want to anymore, unless his name is proceeded by "Judge".

You sound like a damn lefty for crying out loud.

Actually, you're the one that sounds like he wants to force his views on everyone, which would make you the lefty, sonny.

The state has no business limiting speech and if you think it does then you are a statist.

In the real world, the state has no business either forcing ( OK, it's supposedly voluntary, so let's just say embarassing) kids to pledge allegiance to it every day and the reference to God in the pledge is something that generations of kids got along fine without.

And you are supporting same.

Oh please, you're trivializing yourself now.

And if you're always on the lookout for the holes, you are missing the point just as you are here.

[webber]

Sir/Ma'm,

---

You have probably never heard of the phrase, "letting the nose of the camel in the tent".

The price of "Freedom" sir, is ETERNAL vigiance, NOT complacency, apathy, and ignorance.

[jwalsh07]

It is funny to see someone arguing that a state-run school should permit or encourage religion, then argue that those opposed to this are statists.

What is funnier is guys like you and Metesky wanting to silence those you happen to disagree with. That was the position of the Soviets.

What is even more hilarious is your understanding that the founding fathers, the men who wrote the Constitution, would agree with the notion that the words God and religion are to be banned from the public square. That was the position of Josef Stalin and Vladimir Lenin.

By the way, I'm a Grandpa who attended public schools in the 50's and 60's where I recited the pledge and even said a prayer in the morning. The education I got in those public schools was second to none and nobody was indoctrinated or coerced into either.

As for my kids, I paid for their education and will be helping pay for my grandkids education in parochial schools. I would suggest you do the same because SCOTUS is going to shove this down the Ninth's throat just like they have on many issues before this one.

I see you guys as no better than the run of the mill lefty. Speech that you don't agree with is verboten.

As for indoctrination, public schools(the state) are already silent on religion. What you two and the ninth circuit would now like to do is banish voluntary religious speech.

I would suggest you re-read the first amendment and pay close attention to the words "free exercise thereof".

Sonny? LOL.

[webber]

Mr. Rusty Pucket, Then I suppose you also want "In God We Trust Removed From our money, Remove the Bible from courts used for swearing in, Remove the religious symbols in every Gov't building in Washington D.C., Prevent the Supreme Court from opening court by prayer, The the each member of oongress, every member of Judicial system, the President of the United States, and Vice President of the United States, and every member of his cabinet, and every Governor of Every State of the Union, and every Mayor, and every member of the State Legislature and every member of county and city, and local government, should not be sworn into office using the Bible?

This sir,ma'me is part of the Heritage of the United States of America, and if you don't like it, your first amendment right gives you the privilege of moving your ass out this country to a nation of atheists like France or Germany. Au Revoir, Auf Vieder sehn.

[jwalsh07]

Here's the bad news:

Supreme Court Statements About the Pledge of Allegiance

---

Controversy surrounds the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision holding that the phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation under God" violates the Establishment Clause. It is most instructive to read, however, what various Supreme Court Justices have said regarding the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. Although the Court has not directly ruled on the issue presented to the Ninth Circuit, many Members of the Court have indicated in past decisions that the Pledge of Allegiance poses no Establishment Clause problem. Following is a compilation of statements made by various Supreme Court Justices since the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance.

---

A. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

In Engel, the Court struck down New York State's law requiring school officials to open the school day with prayer. Significantly, the Court distinguished New York's policy from a requirement that school children participate in patriotic expressions of religious faith. Although the Court ruled that "government . . . should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves," the Court explained,

There is of course nothing in the decision reached here that is inconsistent with the fact that school children and others are officially encouraged to express love for our country by reciting historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence which contain references to the Deity or by singing officially espoused anthems which include the composer's professions of faith in a Supreme Being, or with the fact that there are many manifestations in our public life of belief in God. Such patriotic or ceremonial occasions bear no true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise that the State of New York has sponsored in this instance.

Id. at 435 n.21.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Potter Stewart cited the many examples of how the government has consistently recognized the "deeply entrenched and highly cherished spiritual traditions of our nation." Id. at 450 (Stewart, dissenting). Specifically, he referred to the following: 1) The Supreme Court's practice of opening its sessions with the phrase, "God save the United States and this Honorable Court;" 2) the legislative branches' practice of opening their sessions with prayer; and 3) Presidential appeals (from George Washington to Dwight Eisenhower) to God for protection and help. Id. at 446-49 n.3. Justice Stewart also referred to the National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance as examples of governmental recognition that "[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." Id. (quoting Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313 (1952)).


Although he concurred with the result in Engel, Justice Douglas nevertheless agreed with Justice Stewart that the New York prayer practices were akin to other governmental actions that recognized of our nation's religious heritage, including the Pledge of Allegiance.

What New York does on the opening of its public schools is what we do when we open court. Our Crier has from the beginning announced the convening of the Court and then added "God save the United States and this Honorable Court." That utterance is a supplication, a prayer in which we, the judges, are free to join, but which we need not recite any more than the students need recite the New York prayer. What New York does on the opening of its public schools is what each House of Congress does at the opening of each day's business.

Id. at 439-40 & n.5 (pointing out that the addition of the phrase "under God" to the Pledge was another example of this nation's recognition of a Supreme Being).


B. Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Just one year later, in Abington, in which the Court held unconstitutional government mandated Bible reading in public schools, Justice Goldberg again distinguished the challenged practice from patriotic expressions of faith. Citing Engel, Justice Goldberg stated that its decision in Abington did not mean that "all incidents of government which import of the religious" would be "banned by the strictures of the Establishment Clause." Id. at 307.

The First Amendment does not prohibit practices, which by any realistic measure, create none of the dangers which it is designed to prevent and which do not so directly or substantially involve the state in religious exercises or in the favoring of religion as to have meaningful and practical impact. It is of course true that great consequences can grow from small beginnings, but the measure of constitutional adjudication is the ability and willingness to distinguish between real threat and mere shadow.

Id. at 308 (Goldberg J., concurring).

Justice Brennan also distinguished between religious practices, such as prayer and Bible reading, and patriotic exercises with religious references. He thought that such exercises, including the Pledge of Allegiance, did not violate the Establishment Clause because they had lost any religious significance through repetitive usage. Id. at 303 (Brennan, J., concurring).

This general principle might also serve to insulate the various patriotic exercises and activities used in the public schools and elsewhere which, whatever may have been their origins, no longer have a religious purpose or meaning. The reference to divinity in the revised pledge of allegiance, for example, may merely recognize the historical fact that our Nation was believed to have been founded "under God." Thus reciting the pledge may be no more of a religious exercise than the reading aloud of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which contains an allusion to the same historical fact.

Id. at 303-04.

C. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984)

In Lynch, the Court again recognized "there is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life." Id. at 674. "Our history is replete with official references to the value and invocation of Divine guidance in deliberations and pronouncements of the Founding Fathers and contemporary leaders." Id. at 675. The Court listed many examples of our "Government's acknowledgment of our religious heritage," and included amongst these examples Congress' addition of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. Id. at 676-77. The Court noted approvingly that "many thousands of public school children" recite the Pledge on a daily basis. Id.


D. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)

In Marsh, Justice Brennan repeated his conviction that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance did not violate the Establishment Clause because those words "have lost any true religious significance." Id. at 818 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Calling the Pledge a "formulaic recitation," he distinguished it from legislative prayer, which he considered a violation of the "principles of neutrality and separation that are embedded within the Establishment Clause." Id. at 808.


E. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)

In Wallace, Chief Justice Rehnquist foreshadowed the Ninth Circuit's recent decision when he expressed concern that the Court's decision invalidating Alabama's moment of silence statute in that case would eventually be used to strike down the Pledge of Allegiance" Id. at 88 (Rehnquist, J. dissenting). In a concurring opinion, Justice O'Connor responded to Justice Rehnquist's concern, arguing that the inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge is not unconstitutional because they "serve as an acknowledgment of religion with 'the legitimate secular purpose of solemnizing public occasions, and expressing confidence in the future." Id. at 78 n.5 (O'Connor, J., concurring).

F. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1991)

Also foreshadowing the Ninth Circuit's recent decision, Justice Scalia in Lee, criticized the grotesque inconsistency in the Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Specifically, Justice Scalia faulted the majority in Lee for striking down the graduation prayer yet implicitly approving the students' recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance before the prayer. Id. at 638 (Scalia, J., dissenting). He argued that the same degree of coercion was involved in both practices. Justice Scalia would uphold both the prayer and the pledge, but he criticized the majority for drawing illogical distinctions. Id. at 639. With great sarcasm, Scalia concluded that the Pledge of Allegiance "ought to be the next project for the Court's [Establishment Clause] bulldozer." Id.


G. Allegheny County v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

In Allegheny County, Justice Kennedy also foreshadowed the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in his critique of Justice O'Connor's "endorsement test." The endorsement test defines an Establishment Clause violation in terms of whether the challenged policy or practice makes nonadherents "feel like 'outsiders' by government recognition or accommodation of religion." Id. at 670 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). In his critique of this approach, Justice Kennedy argued that most "of our traditional practices recognizing the part religion plays in our society" would likely fail the endorsement test, surely a result never intended by the founding fathers. Id. Kennedy provided many examples of official acknowledgements of religion that would be unconstitutional under the endorsement test, including Congress' decision to add "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. Id. at 672. "It would border on sophistry to suggest that the 'reasonable' atheist would not feel less than a 'full member of the political community' every time his fellow Americans" recited the Pledge." Id. at 673. The Ninth Circuit quoted Justice Kennedy, even though Justice Kennedy stated emphatically his conviction that the endorsement test was a flawed approach to Establishment Clause analysis.