Federal 9th Circuit says "Under God" and "In Goid we Trust" are not religious

[crazyfingers]

Court: 'Under God' in Pledge is constitutional (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/11/BAS71CEC9F.DTL&tsp=1)

(03-11) 11:36 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an appeal to patriotism, not religion, and do not violate the separation of church and state, a federal appeals court ruled today - the same court that declared the pledge unconstitutional in 2002.

In a separate ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in San Francisco upheld the placement of the national motto, "In God We Trust," on coins and currency. The language is patriotic and ceremonial, not religious, the court said.




Spineless Weasels spin nonsense to avoid an uproar.

Ruling: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/11/05-17257.pdf

[Shake]

Well, that just brings me down.

[BioBeing]

What? How the fuck does that jive with old Amendment Numero Uno?

[crazyfingers]

Over at FRDB Toto found the dissent.

At least Reinhardt has a dissent Were this a case to be decided on the basis of the law or the Constitution, the outcome would be clear. Under no sound legal analysis adhering to binding Supreme Court precedent could this court uphold state-directed, teacher-led, daily recitation of the “under God” version of the Pledge of Allegiance by children in public schools. It is not the recitation of the Pledge as it long endured that is at issue here, but its recitation with the congressionally added two words, “under God” — words added in 1954 for the specific religious purpose, among others, of indoctrinating public schoolchildren with a religious belief. The recitations of the amended version as conducted by the Rio Linda Union and other school districts fail all three of the Court’s Establishment Clause tests: The recitation of the Pledge in its historic secular version would not fail any of them. Only a desire to change the rules regarding the separation of church and state or an unwillingness to place this court on the unpopular side of a highly controversial dispute regarding both patriotism and religion could explain the decision the members of the majority reach here and the lengths to which their muddled and self-contradictory decision goes in order to reach the result they do.

To put it bluntly, no judge familiar with the history of the Pledge could in good conscience believe, as today’s majority purports to do, that the words “under God” were inserted into the Pledge for any purpose other than an explicitly and predominantly religious one: “to recognize the power and the universality of God in our pledge of allegiance;” to “acknowledge the dependence of our people, and our Government upon the moral direction and the restraints of religion,” 100 Cong. Rec. 7590-91 (1954); and to indoctrinate schoolchildren in the belief that God exists, id. at 5915, 6919. Nor could any judge familiar with controlling Supreme Court precedent seriously deny that carrying out such an indoctrination in a public school classroom unconstitutionally forces many young children either to profess a religious belief antithetical to their personal views or to declare themselves through their silence or nonparticipation to be protesting nonbelievers, thereby subjecting themselves to hostility and ridicule.

[DMB]

As a small crumb of comfort, they reiterated that saying the pledge is voluntary, but that is not much help for a child victimised by its peers for abstaining.

[halii]

the en banc panel will probably reverse it and then the supreme court will reverse it back.

[Worldtraveller]

Where's that reasonable observer test?

Does not the exploding demoguogery from the religious fucknuts every time this is challenged in court put the lie to this 'finding'?

[Ray Moscow]

I suppose we're all free to say "under Dog" instead of "under God", but then how would Ceiling Cat feel?

[DMB]

Ceiling Cat knows it is superior to any bloody dogs, and so wouldn't be bothered if we choose to be under a stupid mutt.

[crazyfingers]

Where's that reasonable observer test?

Does not the exploding demoguogery from the religious fucknuts every time this is challenged in court put the lie to this 'finding'?

I guess that reality doesn't matter. It's all about mental gymnastics to arrive at the decision that they wanted.

[Bleaker]

Hail, Satan!

[espritch]

The words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an appeal to patriotism, not religion, and do not violate the separation of church and state,

If "under God" isn't a religious statement, nothing is. If it were about Patriotism, it would be "One nation under the Constitution...". But I guess this court isn't very familiar with that particular document.

[Garnet]

Well, actually, given the history of when "under God" was put in the pledge, it actually was intended to show patriotism. It's a hold over from McCarthyism and it's my understanding that the intent was to weed out those dirty atheist commies who wouldn't say "under God." It's a shameful legacy.

[Eudaimonist]

It may very well be patriotic, and even ceremonial, but that doesn't exclude it from being religious.

I wonder how he had defined "religious". Perhaps he figured that there was no intent to spread religion, therefore it's not covered by the intent of the First Amendment.

This is disappointing, however. I don't like to see any wedges left around that can be used to argue for more religion in government.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[crazyfingers]

It may very well be patriotic, and even ceremonial, but that doesn't exclude it from being religious.

I wonder how he had defined "religious". Perhaps he figured that there was no intent to spread religion, therefore it's not covered by the intent of the First Amendment.

This is disappointing, however. I don't like to see any wedges left around that can be used to argue for more religion in government.


eudaimonia,

Mark



But of course spreading religion was the intent.

The coercive effect of the Act is apparent from its context and legislative history, which indicate that the Act was designed to result in the daily recitation of the words “under God” in school classrooms. President Eisenhower, during the Act’s signing ceremony, stated: “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.”

9th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 26, 2002

[Worldtraveller]

Have you read the decision yet, cf? It's nuts. The court complains in the first few pages, about the plaintiffs ignoring the historical context of the whole pledge, and not just the words 'under dawg'. Then they go on to ignore the historical context pre-1954. :rolleyes:

Worse, the court says that the words (as you quoted above) of the legislators at the time, and during the historical revisionism in the first Newdow case, can't be used as evidence, only the secular reasoning actually put into writing! That's outrageous! They just gave all the legislators carte blanch in their district to say they are doing it all for gawd, but as long as they don't put it in writing, it's secular.

Talk about mental gymnastics!! Reading that pisses me off, and I'm barely 1/3rd of the way through.....

[crazyfingers]

Have you read the decision yet, cf? It's nuts.


I started as you did but got real pissed off and quit. You probably got farther than I did.

I suppose I should flog though it. It will just make me mad how they purposely miss the point in order to rule as they did. Nuts and dishonest.

[Worldtraveller]

I recommend skipping to page 61 (in the pdf) and read the dissent. :D It's a thorough dismantling of the decision, which is why it's twice as long as the original decision. I haven't finished it all yet, but it's a good read.

[crazyfingers]

I recommend skipping to page 61 (in the pdf) and read the dissent. :D It's a thorough dismantling of the decision, which is why it's twice as long as the original decision. I haven't finished it all yet, but it's a good read.

Good advice!