Resources Delivered

Cited: AP

The use of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” on US currency have been found to be constitutional and not a violation of the separation of church and state.  The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in San Francisco rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who claimed the references to God disrespect his religious beliefs.

“The Pledge is constitutional,” Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. “The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon, which our Republic was founded.”

The same appeals court caused a national uproar and prompted accusations of judicial activism when it decided in Newdow’s favor in 2002, ruling that the pledge violated the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion.

The same court ruled in Newdow’s favor in 2002 after he sued his daughter’s school district for forcing students to recite the pledge.

President George W. Bush called the 2002 decision “ridiculous,” senators passed a resolution condemning the ruling and Newdow received death threats.

That lawsuit reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, but the high court said Newdow lacked the legal standing to file the suit because he didn’t have custody of his daughter, on whose behalf he brought the case.

Bea noted that schools do not require students to recite the pledge, which was amended to include the words “under God” by a 1954 federal law. Members of Congress at the time said they wanted to set the United States apart from “godless communists.”

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who was part of the three-judge panel that ruled in Newdow’s favor eight years ago, wrote a 123-page dissent to the 60-page majority opinion.

“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,” wrote Reinhardt, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1980.

So Newdow, who is a doctor and lawyer, filed the challenge on behalf of other parents who objected to their children being required to recite the pledge. In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento decided in Newdow’s favor, ruling that the pledge was unconstitutional.

“I want to be treated equally,” Newdow said when he argued the case before the 9th Circuit in December 2007. He added that supporters of the phrase “want to have their religious views espoused by the government.”

In a separate 3-0 ruling March 18, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto “In God We Trust” on coins and currency.

“The whole argument that ‘under God’ wasn’t placed into the pledge for religious purposes is bogus,” Newdow said. “I hope people recognize this is not against God or people who believe in God. It’s about the government not treating people equally on the basis of their lawful religious views.”

Newdow said he isn’t optimistic the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case because the justices will likely be reluctant to hear a case that could invalidate the pledge.

“They don’t want to do what’s politically unpopular,” he said. “The Supreme Court will not hear a case that upholds the Pledge of Allegiance. It’s very unlikely at least.”

Rory Little, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, agreed. He said the Supreme Court is unlikely to review the case because Thursday’s ruling is the third appellate court decision upholding the pledge.

In addition, Congress passed legislation reaffirming the pledge in 2002, following the 9th Circuit’s ruling that struck it down.

“I think this is the last word on this particular lawsuit,” Little said. “It’s an important ruling.”

In a separate 3-0 ruling March 18, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto “In God We Trust” on U.S. coins and currency, citing an earlier 9th Circuit panel that ruled the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic and “has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion.”

Greg Katsas, who argued the case on behalf of the U.S. government when the appellate court heard the case in December 2007, said the panel made the right decision on March 18.

“I think these two phrases encapsulate the philosophy on which the nation was founded,” said Katsas, who now works in private practice. “There is a religious aspect to saying “One nation under God,” but it isn’t like a prayer. When someone says the pledge, they’re not praying to God, they’re pledging allegiance to the country, the flag and the ideals of the country.”

An online survey asked this question:

Should the motto “In God We Trust” be removed from U.S. currency?

11% answered yes, it’s a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

89% answered no, the motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion.

————————————-

My Take: I am one of the 89%!  Our country was founded by people who immigrated here because of religious persecution.  It is part of our history!  Both the Pledge of Allegiance and the motto “In God We Trust” represent the how and why this country was created and nothing more.  It the parents of a child are raising their children not to believe in God or to believe in a different God, all they have to do is instruct your child not to say the phrase “under God” when saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school or not to even say the pledge.  That solves the problem.

That’s almost as bad as people saying state flags should not be flown with the American flag.  Ridiculous!  I can understand if you’re flying Betsy Ross flags and not a current US flag, but that is even pushing it.  Some people can just be so petty about little things it is really ridiculous.

It’s just like a friend of mine who was looking for some specific hobby tools.  She was looking for one that is not manufactured anymore, but there is one that is exactly like it but more modern.  It would not do.  A modern tool that did the same thing that the old tool did was not doing.  She said it had to be that tool because she was working on fixing an antique model train.  She was just being picky as this guy was about the Pledge of Allegiance.

He must be afraid of something to demand this.  Sure, I can understand he wants equal treatment for his religion, but that has nothing to do with the Pledge of Allegiance or US currency.  He needs to talk to somebody to overcome fear.  Or maybe he just wants to become a keynote speaker to speak out against religion and government mixing things up.  God only knows!

————————————-

Other Resources

Free Movie Downloads

You will find network has almost every movie in the world available, as well as top TV-shows, music videos, and much more. Your free movie downloads are completely legal and legitimate.  They do not link to other sites, but rather, provide the software to download in order to access your free movies online and be part of the revolution changing the way movies are being watched.  Join now and get a movie download of your choice like “Cop Out” or even “Alice in Wonderland“.

Remodeling Your Garage

Is it time to clean out your garage?  Is your garage floor stained with oil and dirt?  Then you might consider redoing your garage floor.  You could possibly recoat and paint it.  Or you could install a garage floor mat.  A mat would make it much easier when you need to clean up that oil and dirt the next time.  It would also make your garage look nice!