Trouble making atheists worse than monkeys

[theist 1]

Pledge Ruled Unconstitutional

Wed Jun 26, 9:42 PM ET

 

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Stunning politicians on both the left and

right, a federal appeals court declared for the first time Wednesday that

reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional

because of the words "under God" inserted by Congress in 1954.

 

The ruling, if allowed to stand, would mean

schoolchildren could no longer recite the

pledge, at least in the nine Western states

covered by the court.

 

Critics of the decision were flabbergasted

and warned that it calls into question the use

of "In God We Trust" on the nation's

currency, the public singing of patriotic songs

like "God Bless America," even the use of

the phrase "So help me God" when judges

are sworn into office.

 

The case was brought by a California man

who objected to his daughter being

compelled to listen to her second-grade

classmates recite the pledge.

 

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court

of Appeals ( news - web sites) said the

phrase "one nation under God" amounts to a

government endorsement of religion in

violation of the separation of church and

state.

 

Leading schoolchildren in a pledge that says the United States is "one

nation under God" is as objectionable as making them say "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," Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote.

 

In Canada, where President Bush ( news - web sites) was taking part in

an economic summit, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer ( news -

web sites) said: "The president's reaction was that this ruling is

ridiculous."

 

"The Supreme Court itself begins each of its sessions with the phrase

`God save the United States and this honorable court,'" Fleischer said.

"The Declaration of Independence refers to God or to the creator four

different times. Congress begins each session of the Congress each day

with a prayer, and of course our currency says, `In God We Trust.' The

view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision and the

Department Justice is now evaluating how to seek redress."

 

The ruling was also attacked on Capitol Hill, with Senate Majority

Leader Thomas Daschle, D-S.D., calling it "just nuts."

 

After the ruling, House members gathered on the front steps of the Capitol to recite the pledge en

masse — the same place they defiantly sang "God Bless America" the night of the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

And senators, who were debating a defense bill, angrily stopped to unanimously pass a resolution

denouncing the decision.

 

The government had argued that the religious content of "one nation under God" is minimal. But the

appeals court said that an atheist or a holder of certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see it as an

endorsement of monotheism.

 

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.

 

However, the ruling does not take effect for several months, to allow further appeals. The government

can ask the court to reconsider, or take its case to the U.S. Supreme Court ( news - web sites).

 

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.

 

Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento atheist, sued his daughter's Elk Grove school district, Congress

and then-President Clinton ( news - web sites) in 2000, calling the pledge a "religious idea that certain

people don't agree with." A federal judge had dismissed his lawsuit.

 

Newdow, a doctor who holds a law degree and represented himself, said Wednesday he was trying to

restore the pledge to its pre-1954 version, saying no one should be forced to worship a religion in

which they don't believe.

 

"Many people who are upset about this are people who just don't understand," he said. "People have

to consider what if they were in the minority religion and the majority religion was overpowering them."

 

The appeals court said that when President Eisenhower signed the legislation inserting "under God"

after the words "one nation," he declared: "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."

 

The appeals court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said students cannot be compelled to recite

the pledge. But even when the pledge is voluntary, "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."

 

The ruling was issued by Goodwin, who was appointed by President Nixon, and Circuit Judge

Stephen Reinhardt, a Carter appointee.

 

In a dissent, Circuit Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez, appointed by the first President Bush, warned that

under his colleagues' theory of the Constitution, "we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our

album of patriotic songs in many public settings."

 

"`God Bless America' and `America the Beautiful' will be gone for sure," he said, "and while use of the

first and second stanzas of the `Star-Spangled Banner' will still be permissible, we will be precluded

from straying into the third."

 

Fernandez said the same faulty logic would apply to "In God We Trust" on the nation's currency.

 

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., was one of many lawmakers who immediately reacted in anger and shock to

the ruling.

 

"Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness

run amok," Bond said. "What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God' from the pledge taken

by new presidents?"

 

Harvard scholar Laurence Tribe predicted the U.S. Supreme Court will certainly reverse the decision

unless the 9th Circuit reverses itself. "I would bet an awful lot on that," Tribe said.

 

The 9th Circuit is the nation's most overturned appellate court — partly because it is the largest, but

also because it tends to make liberal, activist opinions, and because the cases it hears — on a range of

issues from environmental laws to property rights to civil rights — tend to challenge the status quo.

 

The nation's high court has never squarely addressed the issue, Tribe said. The court has said schools

can require teachers to lead the pledge but ruled students cannot be punished for refusing to recite it.

 

In other school-related religious cases, the high court has said that schools cannot post the Ten

Commandments in public school classrooms.

 

And in March, a federal appeals court ruled that Ohio's motto, "With God, all things are possible," is

constitutional and is not an endorsement of Christianity even though it quotes the words of Jesus.

 

[Gauracandra 1]

Booo.... its unfortunate, but some people want to take away the traditions that have made America great. If nothing else this is part of our history. The thing is most schools don't even recite the pledge of allegiance anymore one way or the other. It would "infringe" on the rights of those who don't want to be patriotic.

[theist 1]

The law suit was filed because this atheist claimed that his daughter was being hurt by witnessing others say the words "one nation under God".It wasn't the patriotism that bothered him.

 

The only good solution is to break up the public school monopoly by giving people vouchers and letting them choose their own schools.

 

Here we can take instruction from Prahlada Maharaja.

[Pratyatosa Dasa 0]

The freedoms that we enjoy as Americans did not come easy. Many brave Americans have fought and died to win the freedoms that we now enjoy. These hard won freedoms include the right to be an atheist, and the right of the atheists to freely express their views. Right now, the attempt by some atheists to remove "under God" from the American "Pledge of Allegiance" is in the news. If and when they achieve this goal, their plan is to also remove "IN GOD WE TRUST" from all American coins and currency!

 

Many interviews are currently being conducted with these vocal atheists. Here are some questions which are not being asked, but which probably should be:

 

1. Are you willing to fight and die to defend your country?

 

2. Statistically, what percentage of atheists are willing to fight and die for the defense of our freedoms, including the right to be an atheist?

 

3. How does this compare to the percentage of Christians willing to fight and die for the right to be a Christian?

 

4. The same for Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

 

5. How many famous cases of people giving their lives for the defense of freedom here in America involved atheists?

 

6. Is there even one such case?

 

7. This country is currently being attacked by people who are obviously willing to die for their beliefs. Are the atheists, as a group, willing to die for defending against these attacks, or are they simply looking for a free ride?