by VorJack
The ninth-circuit court has reversed its 2002 ruling on the phrase “under God” in the pledge of allegiance. From CNN:
The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, California, ruled 2-1 Thursday that the pledge does not represent a government endorsement of religion, prohibited by the Constitution.
“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 and for which we continue to strive: one Nation under God,” wrote the majority. “Millions of people daily recite these words when pledging allegiance to the United States of America.”
I haven’t had the time to get into the court ruling, but just from the snippets it seems that the court has decided that to just chuck everything into the file-drawer of “ceremonial deism”. I tend to think that this goes against the precedents set by previous cases, but many judges have complained about how messy the rulings on establishment cases have been.
For now, I’ll just say that I consider it a stitch that Francis Bellamy’s little secular-Socialist pledge has so many right wing defenders. Just as you can add the name “Jesus” to any love song to create a piece of Christian music, you can add the word God to anything to make it patriotic.
I love stuff like this. “It’s what the Founding Fathers intended! Even though it took roughly 180 years for God to be added, clearly they meant it! This makes sense! Really!”
Honestly I sometimes think that courts at the state level make a ruling that they know to be wrong in order to cover their own arses come election time, safe in the knowledge that the Supreme Court will eventually overturn it.
this is one of the reasons why Justice Ginsberg wants judges to stop being elected to the bench
it may not be an endoresement of any one religion, but it is the endoresement of a diety. Then the question is whose god? I wonder if mohamed would approve.
“Just as you can add the name “Jesus” to any love song to create a piece of Christian music” – I am only reminded of my favorite episode of South Park, Christian Rock Hard. In fact I want to say that is nearly the quote.
The whole thing is crap really. I say lets go back to the original tradition and take it out.
That’s a favorite episode of mine as well.
The best line:
“I want to get down on my knees and start pleasing Jesus! I want to feel his salvation all over my face!”
I laughed so hard when I heard that I had trouble breathing.
A good test is always the Islam test. Next time you have the opportunity to say the pledge (sporting event, school event, etc.) say “…and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, in submission to Allah, indivisible…” I’m totally serious; I dare anyone to start a fight over that. If it’s just ceremonial deism, then we can put in the deity we like the best.
I prefer “one nation, under-insured”…
From what i understand, the judge writing for the majority cited the founding father’s as the source of this language. In fact, the language wasn’t inserted into the pledge until sometime in the 1950s. So much for the intellect of, and adherence to fact by, our judiciary.
Freekin’ morons.
You’re right. It was in reaction to the Red Scare, if I remember. So not only is “under God” exclusionary, it also commemorates McCarthyism. Awesome.
The 9th Circuit often gets overturned by the Supreme Court, just give it time. They tend to be the laughing stock of the other Circuits.
Given the composition of SCOTUS, I wouldn’t bet any money on this one being reversed.
I share your misgivings.
Mmmm…good point. I tend to have a pre-Roberts frame of mind, and sometimes forget how things have changed of late.
I’m 65 years old….. I just leave ‘under ghord’ out when I say the pledge……….. It wasn’t in there when I learn it, and it doesn’t belong in there!
As a child, I thought the Pledge was a mildly amusing way to waste 5 minutes of class time. As a veteran, I can’t understand why children should be made to swear allegiance. Minors have no state secrets, they don’t bear arms, their legal standing is practically null, therefore their allegiance is worthless. So what if they don’t like their native land? What are they gonna do, hitchhike to Canada? In fact, pledges and loyalty oaths are worthless for everyone. Nobody ever thought “Gosh, I can’t desert or give aid to an enemy because I said the Pledge of Allegiance this morning.”
My problem with teaching it to kids as though it should be recited by rote is that by the time any of the phrases in the Pledge might be meaningful to them they have already been shorn of it through mindless repetition.