Come on, Steve. As of 1954 we have a government-sponsored definition of this secular nation as "The Godfearing Republic", to be recited by children in public.

The original Congress that poached on the First Amendment were not "idiots". They were oathbreakers to the Constitution, and their transgression ought to have been struck down in 1955.

This is not some cross hanging up on the principal's office, to which Kyle's mom may or may not take offence. This is an inequity that requires redress.

Mouth the two words, cross your fingers, take a goddamn stand and face the other way.

But take it to court?

Take a Valium.

Gotta say I agree with you Stephen (and mentioned such, if you don't mind).

I still find it interesting that the country adopted what was originally a socialist phrase, and are now beating chests about alterations of it. We appropriate stuff from all over, and it takes on a new meaning. It was a mistake to alter it in the first place, and the bother kicked up about it now is just a waste of time. Is this father really contending that his daughter is more influenced by one utterance than the time he spends with her at home? If he can't provide a child with a moderating influence to something he doesn't agree with, there is something more troubling to be considered.

Hell, let people mouth the word "Zeus" or "Zoroaster" or "Allah" or whatever they feel like. The important part is the flag, and even then, I refuse to measure someone's patriotism by how they address it.

Can't we all just get along?

Just make sure none of you at the RMBB knock my Fat Tire draught or you are SCREWED.

BUT, in the grand scheme of things, I would like to offer Melissa a great big hug of human kindness. And maybe a kiss too if she's up for it, and doesn't mind my being married (of course, I'll run it by the wife first).

Wait - me... wife... Melissa... I'm thinking adult home videos, kids!

Any takers? Place yer orders! Step right up!

Right on, Stephen. Don't we have more important things to worry about nowadays than this tripe? Wait, I'll answer that: yes we fucking do. What a complete waste of time. David: "an inequity that requires redress?" Jeez, man, lighten up.

I'll redress her inequity. Heh, heh.

The guy filed the suit before 9/11 but didn't have clue enough to drop it when sh*t happened? Sugar on top, with nuts and a great big maraschino cherry.

A screen and a half of telling people to "lighten up"?

A Senate that rushes right off to take a meaningless vote about it?

A few weeks of religious conservatives telling us on national TV that if we drop these two words it's a sign of the entire country going to hell?

Yeah, I know which side needs to "lighten up"; when it takes a screen and a half to say it, it really means "shut up and take it"; which is bad advice whenever it is issued. If there are a lot of words on the Constitutional side of this issue this time, it means we feel pretty seriously about it; and if you watch closely, we're not the uncivil ones in this debate. Just watch how many times the guy who brought the suit is attacked, or the court that made the decision is attacked. Why, you don't even have to leave this weblog to find that. Why, you don't even have to leave this page.

Ok fine. I'll grant you all your points. Everybody should lighten up and the timing was a travesty (unless you're a republican needing an election issue) but, bad law IS bad law. I agree that the harm here is only philosiphical. Isn't the law/constitution ultimately about inclusivness. I believe in every word of the pledge except those. Am I now supposed to break the law and not recite them. Most folks here agree that it should never have been included in the first place. Well it was. Good for the judge to actually act like a judge and say so out loud. It absolutly won't change anything but at least we can talk about the emperor having no clothes. NOW lets get on to flag burning.... ;-}

There is no "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution. It was a phrase Thomas Jefferson wrote to Danbury Baptists in 1802 to convince them that the United States would never establish a national nomination - 11 years after the First Amendment was ratified.

The First Amendment says only that Congress shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Meaning that Congress shall not establish a religion or prevent you from practicing one. But the words "under God" do not do that, they are not denominationally monotheistic.

The problem for those who argue that it does is contradiction - That the same men who created the Constitution and supposedly wanted a "separation of church and state" also put "In God We Trust" all over our federal currency. On the same day that the founding Congress past the First Amendment - September 25, 1789 - the same approved a resolution asking President George Washington to enact "a day of public thanksgiving and prayer." And it was President Thomas Jefferson, as head of the District of Columbia school system, who made the Bible and Isaac Wyatt's hymnal a pair of mandatory readings.

This court system is banning a pledge "under God" when the First Amendment says the power is limited to Congress, not state and local governments. These are not federal schools.

The Declaration of Independence mentions "natural God," and "that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

This is nothing more than knee-jerk ultraliberal legislation in the People's Republic of San Francisco. It won't hold up.

And since when do we have a right not to be offended or to not to feel isolated. That happens to me daily. Who do I get to sue?

Either way, you're right, it's not the end of the world. But, frankly, I get sick and tired of this nonsense. It's like the environmentalists. They twist and warp everything to achieve their version of utopia.

The Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

As an atheist, I wish that the pledge had not been modified, but it is hard to argue that the founders saw no place for God in our secular government.

I think that if you are going to hold minority opinions and beliefs, you must be prepared to be in the minority. Being different from the majority entails...being different. Maybe kids should get used to that as part of their education. How can we expect them to grow into adults who can think independently if they are always protected from difference?

Two (more) cents worth.... If the constitution is seen as an umbrella of liberty, then the more you attach it to god/religion, the more you close the umbrella.

I don't think religion will be hurt in any way (quite the contrary) if the govt stays out of it.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, nor law. It was an appeal to revolution from the colonial rebels. As such, it was ladden with emotional appeals to (at the time) radical notions of human rights. Most of the framers of the delcaration were not Christian, they were Deists. But they framed the declaration with religiosity in order to rally the people around their cause. Once the nation was established, neither the Articles of Confederation nor the Constitution included similar appeals to God. There was no need for it. Those documents were now legal frameworks for the nation, and that framework included language ensuring that the government couldn't establish an official religion nor apply religious litmus tests. Jefferson's subsequent writings simply clarified the clause that he himself had authored.

So what the Declaration of Independence says about the "creator" is irrelevant as a matter of law. This decision was a good decision, if coming at an inopportune time. But nothing in this decision prohibits anyone from pledging allegiance to the flag, nor from otherwise being patriotic and loving the nation.

But if this decision leads to a Constitutional Amendment officially erasing the wall between church and state, then it would truly be tragic.

How can you expect elected officials to put aside their natural religious beliefs. Human nature won't allow that. Not to mention, they have to think of what the majority wants if they ever want to get elected again. And the majority (a really LARGE majority) have no problem with the pledge and see this whole mess as radical and anti-American. Even the liberal Democrats are speaking out against this decision.

When I first heard this, I as shocked, mad, and disappointed. With all that is going on in the world today, this seems like such a trival thing to be wasting time and money on, especially when you can almost guarentee it won't stand on it's own merit.

As for the pledge being law...it's NOT a law, you cannot be arrested for NOT saying the pledge, or NOT saying it the way it is written. That's the whole point...the government is NOT mandating religion just because the word God appears in the pledge, any more then it is with God Bless America, or In God We Trust on money.

I was raised and baptised a Roman Catholic. I don't consider myself a practicing Catholic though, at least in the eyes of the Church of Pedophilia formally know as the the Roman Catholic Church of Rome. But I do have a belief in a higher power then us, what that is, I don't really know, and probably won't till I die. If I die and there is no afterlife and it's all been a lie...am I gonna care? Of course not..I'll be worm fodder. But at least while I live, it gives me something to comfort me in those times where I need something other then words. I don't deny the athiest their right NOT to believe that we are nothing but a biological blunder, etc, but I really feel that they are missing the whole point at times. Man is a spiritual creature by nature, and no law, no rulings, and no government is going to change that.

Personally, I always thought having a pledge at all was a little weird, but so what? I grew up saying it, and after about the 817th repetition, it no longer had any meaning, and I was occupying my time by saying things like "...one nation, underground, with leprosy and pustules for all." As indoctrination goes, it's a pretty feeble effort.

Sean,

You're right and you're wrong. You're right that they can't actually make you say it. Of course they can't. You're wrong about the legality of what the official pledge is. The words "under god" were added to the "official" pledge as a matter of law by congress in 1954 (I believe). This is the official and legal pledge as far as our government is concerned. Our government is taking an official and legal (though not binding) position in regards to relegion. As a side note, it is intended that it be recited by minors on a daily basis. It's still a bit of indoctrination (although admittedtly a very week one).

The original 'no establishment of religion' and Jefferson's 'separation of church and state' were intended to combat the formation of a national religion like the Church of England that would be supported by taxes. But, the founding fathers relied heavily on Christian thought and texts in drafting the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and much of the subsequent body of law. How are we supposed to 'separate' the basis of individual worth, equality before the law, and the morals that have been codified from their original source-Christianity/God? Look around at other religions, even those that are monotheistic and nominally based on the same central deity and see what sorts of societies, cultures, and governments they would form. Do we really want to be more like them?
Beyond basing a system of government on one of the other recognized religions, do we really want/ can we actually build a government that would be based on the 'anti-religion' of atheism? That seems to be what this guy, the ACLU, and others are pressing for. They want to substitute their 'beliefs' as the basis of government and have all the rest of us live under it and have our children taught to believe in it at taxpayer expense!
This case may in fact have a legal/ logical leg to stand on and even be 'right' according to the interpretations of the Constitution and law that have been previously established, but it is really just trying to substitute one set of beliefs for another, and at state expense. In this we are seeing some of the fruition of the 'Tyranny of Law' that is divested of morals.
Yes, atheists do have morals, but which ones? Who decides? Is there a common set? What should be legal/ illegal according to such a 'code'? If we are not created by a supreme being for a purpose and with an inherent or revealed moral code, are we not just the most cunning of animals who should be living by the Law of the Jungle/ Survival of the Fittest?
Taken to a real logical/ legal conclusion, atheism/ lack of religious grounding leads to a government that is anarchist/ libertarian. I think we can look at the polling numbers and find out what kind of government 'most' people want to live under.
We are trying to ignore/ avoid it, but most of us really do seem to want to live under a government/ system of laws based on Christian principles and not those of another religion (Vishnu?, Zeus?, Darwin?...Islam/Sharia?!). Now, we don't want the government to tell us to go to church or use our tax money to support a particular flavor of Christianity, but I think we as a society/ country need to recognize that we really do prefer having a government based on Christian principles and just deal with it.

It's inevitable, Kos. The Supremes might overrule the 9th court but that'll just put off the day of reckoning to a later date. Assuming they uphold the 9th court, poster at Pejman's site said that Congress could vacate a Supreme Court opinion; but even if that's true, lower courts will just override Congress's vacation. The only ways out of this impasse are to accept the First Amendment or to repeal it.

But hey, don't bother trying to look two steps ahead in the game. Live for today, lighten up, and if you don't like it go take some drugs (preferably Valium). Isn't that the VP slogan?

Well said Kos. Damn wish I had written that.

It's a tempest in a teapot, agreed. But I think the genius of the Founding Fathers in this regard was that the intersection of religion and politics should take place at the individual level, not at the collective level implied by government endorsement of a religious position (which, pace Greg Buete, above, monotheism is). The Pledge, being by its use in schools and elsewhere a collective expression, violates that understanding.

Anyway, I've long thought the Pledge a bit creepy, even verging on idolatrous. I don't want to pledge allegience to a flag. Any tin-pot dictatorship or tyranny can have a flag. This country is not defined by a flag or any other symbol, but by its fundamental documents: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that, far more than the Stars and Stripes, are the "visible and outward sign" of what distinguishes America from every other country on earth. Much better to pledge allegience to them!

Thomas they weren't Christian values (although many are shared) they were deist, and there is a difference. In fact the US was founded on Masonic principles (which is deistic and favours no one monotheistic religion) hence the Masonic symbols everywhere including the currency, the lay-out of DC etc etc. The whole point of the US was to accepting to all religious beliefs and an effort was made not to favour one or other. At the time of the Constitution there were Jews, Deists, Catholics, Protestants and a fair few other nominally Christian/Jewish sects, no doubt there were a few Muslims, Hindus etc kicking around as well.

I couldn't imagine what mindless lawyer would take that case to the Appeals Court, then I found out that the plaintiff represented himself. Fortunately he lives in CA., where they seem to be more tolerant of blathering idiots. Is Sacramento close to Berkley?

Assuming they uphold the 9th court, poster at Pejman's site said that Congress could vacate a Supreme Court opinion; but even if that's true, lower courts will just override Congress's vacation. The only ways out of this impasse are to accept the First Amendment or to repeal it.

Congress can do no such thing. Even if it chooses to limit the jurisdiction of the lower courts, the Supreme Court would still retain "judicial power" over "Laws of the United States" pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

And then it would soundly thump Congress for attempting to bypass the Separation of Powers.

Am I the only one who's far, far more freaked out about the thought of kinds dutifully lining up and swearing an oath of allegiance to the country every morning?

No, I don't agree with the under God bit, but I don't agree with the Pledge itself in the first place.

First of all, the idea that hearing the words "under God" constitutes an establishment of religion is too idiotic to contemplate. By this "logic," a public official who says "God bless you" when somebody sneezes could be taken to court.

And the idea that this country was founded with the goal of driving religion completely out of public life is unfounded as any detailed examination of history shows. The administration of the deist Jefferson had the Bible printed at federal expense. Christian worship used to take place in the Capitol building. And the Great Seal contains representations of God(for the benefit of Christians, all of these are Jewish)

All that said, I think many on my side(conservative evangelical Protestant) are overreacting to this ruling. Chances are it will be overturned. Even if it is not, we Christians were told by our Lord and Savior to expect this kind of thing. And much worse.

Some perspective is necessary. Here, we are legally prevented from saying certain words in certain places. In the Sudan, Muslims sell our brothers and sisters into slavery. One imagines that Sudanese Christians would love to have our problems.

This is a big deal. This does provide openings for other likeminded arguments relating to "injurious" or "coercive" words uttered in public places. Not only that, it trivializes the establishment clause, and signals a surrender to language.

Newsflash: We control language. And we should be very concern when our control -- which rests in the primacy of intent -- is taken away from us by legal fiat.

When I was in ninth grade, a fellow student and I thought it would be a good idea to remain seated and silent during the Pledge in homeroom. We were both hauled into the Principal's office, where our homeroom teacher--who was also the gym teacher, which was funny because he was a 'person of fatness'--demanded to know whether we were Communists. This was in 1987, mind you. He was upset by our intransigence... couldn't understand it. Of course, we weren't demonstrating any deeply held convictions: we were just being contrary teenager-types.

What happened was this: the other student, who had a 'record' of sorts and was in frequently trouble for this or that infraction, got detention. I--with no 'record'--went unpunished. Big lesson on how America sometimes works, right there.

Finally: from the Washington Post:

"In survey after survey, overwhelming majorities say they believe in God. More than nine in 10 Americans—95 percent—told ABC News polltakers that they believe in God. A Gallup Organization survey for CNN and USA Today last December found much the same thing: Nearly nine in 10—86 percent—said they believed in God, while another 8 percent said they believe in some form of "Universal spirit or higher power."

There's a reason that Congress felt it could get away with inserting those two pesky words into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. And there's a reason it will stay there.

Ian,

It's not the rights of the majority that the constituion protects. It's the rights of the individual. Congress can pass laws tipping their hats to the majority and still be philosophically wrong.

God Schmod.

...don't you think it desperately needs a beat?

I do. Now is the time to set the pledge to music.

And cow bell! J'aime le cow bell!

Steve--

True enough. But the majority doesn't seem to care much about philosophical niceties. By and large, that seems to be the purview of academia and...well, bloggers.

The practical political reality surrounding this issue [whatever one happens to thinks of its (non)importance] can be summed up in two words: "Michael Dukakis."

This isn't "one nation, under God". Teaching children to say that means teaching them a lie. Honest people, in my opinion, should support the Ninth Circuit decision simply on quality-of-education grounds. This is an officially secular nation; we aren't "under God", or "under Satan", or "under the pretty tree spirits", or any other mystical force.

The Pledge should be a meaningful and true statement of what it means to be a patriotic American. Before 1954, it was. The people demanding that teachers lead their students in swearing loyalty to God should be ashamed of themselves. That's not what America is about.

Oh, fine, the Declaration of Independence isn't law. Well, what about the US Constitution. Is that good enough for ya?

Want some more proof of our founder’s intention? Please see Article VII of the – drumroll please – US Constitution:

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

Also, Article 1, Section VII:

If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

“Year of our Lord… Sundays excepted.”

Yeah, they weren't Christians! No, a bunch of athiests I'm sure! Regardless of their denomination or lack thereof you miss the point. Hmmm, I think these guys had no intention of separating church and state. They only believed that government should not interfere with church.

Finally, “Under God,” “In God We Trust,” and similar phrases meet constitutionality because they do not “establish religion.” Let’s remember that the only time the word religion appears is in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

That’s it. That’s all it says. So, do these phrases “establish” a religion? No. They do not adopt a religion or donomination, they do not force me to pray or worship. All the arguments of inclusion and what not are bunk. You have no “right” to inclusion. Find me the Amendment that states that “Congress shall always make sure you are included and feel all warm and cozy and accepted, you multiculturalist, politically-correct, socialist-loving puke you.” Because I’ve yet to find it.

And if you want to argue the Constitution, a better argument is that the Federal government is not empowered to fund a national public school system in the first place – that is a power reserved to the states and therefore a federal court that ruled on state education in the manner they did overstretched it’s powers.

When I was in 10th grade I thought it daring, immediately after the Murray decision (outlawing school prayer), to refuse to participate in the daily prayer at my Texas high school. Looking at the issue now I find it equally absurd to believe that school prayer is either oppressive, on the one hand, or of any particular benefit, on the other.
I think that in the greater scheme of things, whether the phrase "under God" is part of the pledge or not is a supremely trivial issue. That being said, I think the decision is a defensible interpretation of the very unsound extension of the prohibition against establishment of religion to include actions which cause someone (anyone) to feel "pressured." This puts us all at the mercy of the most hyper-sensitive cranks in our society. There is not, and should not be, a constitutional provision that no one ever feel uncomfortable.

I pledge allegiance to the logo of Microsoft, and to the Coorporation for which it stands, one Company, under Bill Gates, with Windows and Internet Explorer for all.

Now, imagine saying that daily as part of the end-user license agreement for any MS software. Except the US government has a somewhat greater market-share than Microsoft, and slightly more power to enforce it. Case in point - can ANYONE here (at least any US citizen) make the claim that they have never been placed in a situation where they had to recite the pledge or face negative consequences (and I mean other than ostracization)?

On one aspect, I agree with most here - "under God" is a pretty flimsy rationale for ditching the pledge. And, unfortunately, it entirely misses the point; if the ruling holds, congress will just excise those two words.

I have nothing constructive or insightful to add here. However, I would like to encourage all of you to take one of the judges at his word, and say "one nation, under Zeus," or "under Vishnu," or "under Thor," or the old favorite, "under Pants," whenever the opportunity presents itself.

That is all.

Commentary on the Pledge of Allegiance

As a schoolboy, one of Red Skelton's teachers explained the words and meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance to his class. Skelton later wrote down, and eventually recorded, his recollection of this lecture. It is followed by an observation of his own.

I - - Me; an individual; a committee of one.

Pledge - - Dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self-pity.

Allegiance - - My love and my devotion.

To the Flag - - Our standard; Old Glory ; a symbol of Freedom; wherever she waves there is respect, because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts, Freedom is everybody's job.

United - - That means that we have all come together.

States - - Individual communities that have united into forty-eight great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose. All divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that is love for country.

And to the Republic - - Republic--a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people; and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.

For which it stands

One Nation - - One Nation--meaning, so blessed by God.

Indivisible - - Incapable of being divided.

With Liberty - - Which is Freedom; the right of power to live one's own life, without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.

And Justice - - The principle, or qualities, of dealing fairly with others.

For All - - For All--which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.

And now, boys and girls, let me hear you recite the Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: Under God. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools, too?

Red Skelton

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

--Former Pres. George Bush Sr.

I'm glad the 9th Circuit ruled the way they did, but overall this is going to be bad for the left wing. 1) People are basically ignoring that the Supreme Court ruled it's okay for public schools to give vouchers a.k.a. the government can pay for religious education 2) Conservatives will be able to get lots of funding and support thye wouldn't have otherwise by rallying around this issue 3) The 9th Circuit ruling, though correct, is probably going to be overruled by the illogical majority.

What about the Supreme Court going for "One Nation, Under a Groove" ?:)

"...Looking at the issue now I find it equally absurd to believe that school prayer is either oppressive, on the one hand, or of any particular benefit, on the other...."

I was born and raised in TX. I also lived there for the past 10 yrs. There are still schools in Texas mandating specifically Christian prayer during school hours. There are still Jewish students refusing to say them (saying "in Jesus Christ's name, amen" is idolatry in our religion - very much not okay). There are still Jewish students getting beaten up and ostracized. Last case I heard about was about 2 yrs ago.

Anyone who claims that the phrase "under god" doesn't establish a religion is simply wrong. They seem to believe that simply saying "god" renders the term non-denominational, thereby rendering it inoffensive. Wrong, wrong, wrong. To atheists, the word & concept "god" IS religion; the fact that it doesn't necessarily specify "which god" makes it no less religious or offensive. FWIW, to you pinheads who seem to believe that atheists are socialists/communists/satanists/etc, wrong again. I'm a proud member of the military, with values, standards, and morals at least as "high" as my christian (or other) friends. I am firmly pro-capitalist, pro-American, pro-liberty. How anyone can equate atheism with communism is beyond me.

You have a very thorough site. You are to be commended for all of the information you have made available to us the searchers. I didn't find any info on my ancestors, but I still enjoyed looking around