Court Upholds 'Under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

obeygiant

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jan 14, 2002
4,003
3,762
totally cool
Judge Carlos Bea, who was appointed by Bush in 2003, wrote for the majority in Thursday's 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," he said.

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.

Newdow, a doctor and attorney who founded a group called the First Atheist Church of True Science, told The Associated Press he would ask the appeals court to rehear the case. If it rejects that request, Newdow said he'll appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"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."
AP

I think this is finally settled. Newdow was quoted as saying "Oh man, what a bummer," when told of the ruling.
 

Desertrat

macrumors newbie
Jul 4, 2003
2
706
Terlingua, Texas
Giggle-snort. "First Atheist Church of True Science" is sorta hard to take seriously. But, so was Jim Jones' deal, so what do I know?

Three-quarters of a century, and I still can't figure out how I've been harmed by manger scenes at the courthouse or having the Ten Commandments in government buildings. Or either saying or ignoring "Under God" in the Pledge.

Living's been so easy in this country for so long that way too many folks don't have enough to do to keep their little minds occupied. That leads to that silly career of picking fly-poop out of pepper.
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
Three-quarters of a century, and I still can't figure out how I've been harmed by manger scenes at the courthouse or having the Ten Commandments in government buildings. Or either saying or ignoring "Under God" in the Pledge.
I guess it easy when it's your supernatural sky man there. If it were passages from the Qur'an you'd be screaming bloody murder.
 

iBlue

macrumors Core
Mar 17, 2005
19,174
15
London, England
^ Indeed!


I don't truly care because they're only words; God has no special significance to me. I think it's a stupid addition that should never have been added in the first place. "Separation of church and state"? Don't make me laugh.
 

eawmp1

macrumors 601
Feb 19, 2008
4,130
5
FL
Three-quarters of a century, and I still can't figure out how I've been harmed by manger scenes at the courthouse or having the Ten Commandments in government buildings. Or either saying or ignoring "Under God" in the Pledge.
I guess it easy when it's your supernatural sky man there. If it were passages from the Qur'an you'd be screaming bloody murder.
Yes, but when we in the US, self-righteously get a sense of superiority granted by the supernatural sky man, we've tended to treat those not sharing our beliefs poorly.

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. Even as a minister, his Pledge DID NOT have "under God". In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer. Some separation of church and state.
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,491
OBJECTIVE reality
I'm pretty agnostic these days, and those words are offensive to me. They not only assume for me that there is a God, but that he's the Christian one.

(And thanks to the tea party, we're not that indivisible any more either.)
 

scottness

macrumors 65816
Mar 18, 2009
1,370
3
Room 101
It's so easy to offend people these days. To be offended by a "pledge" that we probably don't have to hear every day... is kinda sad.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,364
UK
I'm pretty agnostic these days, and those words are offensive to me. They not only assume for me that there is a God, but that he's the Christian one.
Quite. Having a pledge of allegence at all is frankly bizarre. If you have to prove you are a patriot you probably aren't.
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
Native Americans, you remember, the people who were here before Christians came over on their little boats, have their own religions. I'm assuming that the phrase "under god" wasn't meant to tell them that their belief in multiple deities was WRONG, or that their gods were wrong because they don't happen to live in the sky above us. No, that would be kind of mean to put in our pledge of allegience something that could be interpreted very easily to be the State telling you your religion was WRONG.

The traditional Inuit (Eskimo) culture is similar to those found in other circumpolar regions: Northern Russia and the Northern Scandinavian countries.

Their religious belief is grounded in the belief that anua (souls) exist in all people and animals.

An underwater Goddess Sedna or Takanaluk is in charge of the sea mammals. She is part human and part fish... There is an corresponding array of deities who release land mammals; these are Keepers or Masters, one for each species.
Native religions in (Eastern Subarctic, Eastern Woodlands, Plains and Southwest Cultures) share some similarities, and differ significantly from Inuit culture described above. Tribes also differ greatly from each other. Spiritual elements found in some (but not all) non-Inuit native religions are:

Deity: A common concept is that of a dual divinity: a Creator who is responsible for the creation of the world and is recognized in religious ritual and prayers & a mythical individual, a hero or trickster, who teaches culture, proper behavior and provides sustenance to the tribe.

There are also spirits which control the weather, spirits which interact with humans, and others who inhabit the underworld. Simultaneously the Creator and the spirits may be perceived as a single spiritual force, as in the unity called Wakan-Tanka by the Lakota and Dakota.
-http://www.religioustolerance.org/nataspir3.htm
 

imac/cheese

macrumors 6502a
Jun 7, 2007
555
1
As a Christian, I find it strange that other Christians would want to pledge their allegiance to a country in the first place.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
I guess it easy when it's your supernatural sky man there. If it were passages from the Qur'an you'd be screaming bloody murder.
You're damn right he would. Which is exactly why the rest of us are angry.

It's so easy to offend people these days. To be offended by a "pledge" that we probably don't have to hear every day... is kinda sad.
It's offensive that we even have a pledge in the first place, but that "God" is included makes it worse.

Gives meaning to their otherwise meaningless lives.
And making such ridiculous posts obviously is what gives your life meaning.
 

obeygiant

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jan 14, 2002
4,003
3,762
totally cool
Right, I'm sure they wouldn't have a problem with "one nation, under Allah" :rolleyes:
If we were all in Saudi Arabia I'm sure I wouldn't have a problem having that on a flag or the currency. I wonder if the atheists in that country are filing lawsuits against having "(There is) no god but Allah. Muhammad (is the) messenger of Allah" on their flag.
 

Denarius

macrumors 6502a
Feb 5, 2008
690
0
Gironde, France
Good for the courts. Pressures to change these fundamental traditions are subversive to a nation's basic culture and should not be tolerated. Particularly when there are elements of other religions that are attempting to do this. I've seen documentaries about UK council's that have demonstrated that they have essentially become Islamic fundamentalist councils.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
If we were all in Saudi Arabia I'm sure I wouldn't have a problem having that on a flag or the currency. I wonder if the atheists in that country are filing lawsuits against having "(There is) no god but Allah. Muhammad (is the) messenger of Allah" on their flag.
This isn't Saudi Arabia, nor is it a theocracy.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
Good for the courts. Pressures to change these fundamental traditions are subversive to a nation's basic culture and should not be tolerated. Particularly when there are elements of other religions that are attempting to do this. I've seen documentaries about UK council's that have demonstrated that they have essentially become Islamic fundamentalist councils.
This isn't a fundamental tradition at all. The original pledge had no mention of god. It was added sometime in the 1950s because a bunch of pussies in Congress were scared of the commies and thought adding "under god" would show the world that we're a bunch of god fearing capitalists.

Removing "under god" would be going back to fundamental transitions.
 

Desertrat

macrumors newbie
Jul 4, 2003
2
706
Terlingua, Texas
To get away from the "under God" thing for a moment: The pledge is to the flag, to its symbolism of hope as expressed in the original documents. It's the symbolism of liberty, of equality of opportunity and all that sort of virtue.

That it has all been abused and misused has nothing to do with the intent of the symbolism. The flag is the symbol of this nation, not of any Administration or Congress, regardless of how any of them try to wrap themselves within it in their hypocrisy.

Nobody's perfect. No system is perfect. The whole idea is to figure out ideals and strive to achieve them. (We got rid of slavery, right? Women have the vote, right? Other examples abound.) Whether you as an individual or the whole 300 million of us, we're supposed to try to be better, tomorrow, than we were yesterday.

That's what the flag represents to me. It's all about striving, I guess, while knowing we'll never get there. Me, I'm not a quitter.

So "under God" was inserted because of the Cold War and godless Communism. That oughta appeal strongly to Islamics, for sure. This country is predominantly Christian and always has been. So, the word "God" makes sense. If I'm AmerInd, I can easily translate "Manitou" or "Great Spriit" or whatever. If I'm Jewish I can think "Yahweh", I guess. "Allah" for Islamics. "Buddha", whatever. And on and on. Damfino: "Creator" for the non-denominational?

Atheists are statistically insignificant, like it or not. There are a lot more sorta/maybe-agnostic types, of which I'm one--for all that I lean toward "Probably is". One thing for sure about life itsownself: You can't please everybody. I quit worrying a long time back, about being pleased...

'Rat