http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/11/BAS71CEC9F.DTL&tsp=1

(03-11) 17:32 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The federal court that touched off a furor in 2002 by declaring the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to be an unconstitutional endorsement of religion took another look at the issue Thursday and said the phrase invokes patriotism, not religious faith.


The daily schoolroom ritual is not a prayer, but instead "a recognition of our founders' political philosophy that a power greater than the government gives the people their inalienable rights," said the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in a 2-1 ruling.

"Thus, the pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect."

The dissenting judge, Stephen Reinhardt, said statements by members of Congress who added "under God" to the pledge in 1954 show conclusively that it was intended to "indoctrinate our nation's children with a state-held religious belief."

In a separate ruling, the same panel upheld the use of the national motto, "In God We Trust," on coins and currency. The language is patriotic and ceremonial, not religious, the court said. Reinhardt reluctantly joined the 3-0 decision, saying he was bound by the court's newly established precedent in the pledge case.

Atheist sued
Both suits were filed by Michael Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who has brought numerous challenges to government-sponsored religious invocations. He said he would appeal the rulings to the full appellate court and the U.S. Supreme Court, but was not optimistic.

The rulings sent two messages, Newdow said: "To be a real American, you believe in God, and the judiciary unfortunately sometimes can't be trusted to uphold our constitutional rights when you're a disenfranchised minority."

Former Justice Department lawyer Gregory Katsas, who represented the Bush administration in the pledge case when the court heard it in 2007, heard a different message: that "one nation, under God" suggests a government that "is limited and bound to respect individual rights."

Swift reaction
Newdow first challenged the Pledge of Allegiance in 2000 on behalf of his daughter, a student in a Sacramento-area elementary school. The appeals court ruled in June 2002 that the addition of "under God" was religiously motivated and sent "a message to nonbelievers that they are outsiders," in violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.

Congress reacted furiously, passing a resolution with virtually no dissenting votes that denounced the decision. The court put its ruling on hold until the case reached the Supreme Court, which sidestepped the constitutional issue and ruled that Newdow could not represent his daughter's interests because her mother had legal custody.

Newdow then refiled the suit on behalf of the parent of a kindergartner in the Sacramento suburb of Rio Linda. He won the first round before a federal judge in 2005, but a new appeals court panel issued a 193-page ruling Thursday upholding the pledge.

Pledge isn't prayer
In the majority opinion, Judge Carlos Bea acknowledged that "the words 'under God' have religious significance," but said they do not "convert the pledge into a prayer."

The 1954 law that added those words at the height of the Cold War was meant to convey the idea of a limited government, "in stark contrast to the unlimited power exercised by communist forms of government," said Bea, joined by Judge Dorothy Nelson. "Congress' ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism."

Reinhardt, a member of the 2002 panel that found the language unconstitutional, said Thursday's majority ignored overwhelming evidence of religious motivation by the 1954 Congress.

He cited statements by numerous lawmakers denouncing atheistic communism and declaring a belief in God to be part of the American way of life. Reinhardt also pointed to President Dwight Eisenhower's signing statement that millions of schoolchildren would now proclaim "the dedication of our nation and its people to the Almighty."

During the same period, Reinhardt said, Congress adopted "In God We Trust" as the national motto, ordered it inscribed on paper money and established an annual National Prayer Breakfast.

By inserting religious language into the pledge, Reinhardt said, "we abandoned our historic principle that secular matters were for the state and matters of faith were for the church."

What's your point 'thomas'??? It is still unconstitutional if you imply any relation or endordsement of the 'christian faith'.

Patriotism OK! Christian, or religious faith NO!

Oh that's tasty!As if our founding fathers and the person who put "Under God" was talking about anything other than a Christian God. You guys are so funny sometimes I have to come here for comedy hour when I get bored.


I posted this article as a reference for those people who whine and complain that because God is here and God is there in our government and schools it is unconstitutional and infringing on someone's rights.Well it is not.This Atheist has lost many cases including trying to take off "In God we trust" off the money.


Ruth I am having a hard time finding how endorsing Christian faith is unconstitutional in the Constitution.As a matter of fact I didn't read anything about Christianity in the Constituion.There is a matter of "Separation of church and state" which was put there for the protection of Christianity in case the United states became a dictatorship and wanted the official religion to be something other than what the people wanted.The separation of church and state also does not BAN religion and Government nor does it say the Government can't be involved with religon.It simply says it shall not endorse any type of religion which it does not(you will find no mention of Christianity in the bill of rights or the Constitution and thus it is not endorsed).


As far as the Government getting involved and doing things related to Christianity.I could spend hours listing examples but here are a few.

Christian prayers in Congress before meetings.
Ten commandments in many courthouses all over America.
Christmas trees and lights in all cities across America at Christmas.
Crosses,statues of Jesus,at military graveyards.
Churches on all Military bases.
Christian chaplains on military boats and morning prayers.
Priest and churches in prisons.
Church service on Sundays in some high schools.
Swearing in on the bible for Judge,Senator jobs,Presidential jobs.

These are all run by out Government!You say the Government and Christianity are unconstitional.Good luck getting Christianity out of those places listed.

the way it was always explained to me is that , in these cases, 'God' is supposedly a generic term that could apply to anyone, or anything and doesnt specifically endorse anyone's religion.

Seems odd to me because that is not my definition of God, but I aknowledge that it could indeed be just a generic term to many people who use it. I would be nervous if anyone were FORCED to say such a pledge though and just as nervous if the push to remove even the mention of 'God' from ANYTHING national(from a non mandatory pledge, to very necessary money) actually was successful.

Yes that is the case indeed Ms harmony.It is a nice little loop hole for the courts to keep God into our Government functions.God can mean anything to anyone.However as I said before we all know what God both our founding fathers,and the person who put "One nation under God is talking about".It wasn't Mohammad it wasn't Buddist.It was Christ.Of course as long as these legal battles keep waging Christ will never be a issue as he is not mentioned in important legal Governments but God is.As many Christians already know they are one in the same so as long as we have God we have Christ.

And as long as he isn't, it also means fanatical Christians won't be able to push other faiths or agnostics/atheistist out of the republic, prevent them from practicing what their conscience tells them or keep them asserting their due process rights under the law.

Some Christians think they 'know' an awful lot when it comes to the law, yet they still sometimes can't fathom what Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in one of his opinions deciding a First Amendment Establishment Clause case:

"No law means _no_ law."

Besides, I don't think ultra-conservative Catholics would much like having a Republic with a Pope like Obama serving for life after being elected once. :)


-Kerry O.

Under god? that would be great if this were the 15th century.

Under Ahura Mazda!

there is nothing in the Constitution about a separation of church and state. All it says is that Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of church or denying such either

the concept of separation of church and state comes from a letter that Jefferson wrote after he was president

Correct. That letter was to the Danbury Baptists because they feared religious persecution.

The Constitution says there's to be no religious test in one's ability to serve in public office...then why today is one's religion an issue at all? Where does it say that "under god" refers to a Christian god? It's up to one's personal interpretation of what "god"....or is not. To myself and many we think Eric Clapton is god but we're not wanting a statue of him on the capitol lawn...yo.

Christians do NOT own America. Atheists and others have very right to oppose an idealogy that promotes their way over another's...or religious over the non-religious. It's these nutcases that think one has to have a god to be moral that keep pushing their religion onto everyone else....all that results in are divisions...I think many are tired of the "divide and conquer" from the religious extremists...not on my watch.

~~~

It's called equal representation...deal with it, it's "our way of life"...want to live in a theocracy then move to Iran. America is a free nation dispite the efforts of idiots to say otherwise.

I love facts...

For those whom cherish all the facts:

'... The phrase "separation of church and state" became a definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S. (1879), where the court examined Jefferson's involvement with the amendment and concluded that his interpretation was "almost an authoritative declaration" of its meaning...'.

'... Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.[1] The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise...'.

Respectfully... that this country was founded on principles of the "Christian god" is inescapable at least to me. History shows us clearly that the “founding fathers” were clearly Christian (whether or not they were good Christians is another story). For 150+ yrs the population of the US has been predominately Christian. The vast majority of immigrants who came to this country had Judeo-Christian backgrounds. Even ppl brought here as slaves and the ppls living on the continent at the time were quickly converted to Christian beliefs... (Though often forcibly, many of their children today still willingly hold to those beliefs). The point being, we HAVE BEEN living in a pseudo-theocracy for the bulk of our existence simply because "Christian" is what everybody was. So Christians did sorta' "own" America. It’s a numbers thing, coupled with a seeming lack of empathy to “others”… and that’s a discredit to our forbearers although in a spirit of fairness I’d like to think (pretend) that it wasn’t done maliciously. (Though, I know that much of documented history won’t back me up on that.)
The changes in, or clarification of, the definition of what “separation btwn church and state” actually means doesn’t negate history, it is simply evidence that times and mindsets are changing... and has been over a number of years. The population is much more diverse than it was and we are in the process of change. We all know that change is difficult especially when it doesn't go our way. These types of shifts in paradigms take time, for some it’s obviously taking too much time and that would be a fair argument IMO. Whether or not that change is a good thing is each person's own opinion but isn’t it only natural that there are gonna' be a lot of hurt/angry feelings in this country as the change occurs? Shouldn’t we as a adults expect that those feelings to occur? Many Christians are just gonna have to accept that the change is going to happen… period. Still, non-Christians might want to consider how paradigm-shifts have affected themselves in their lives when dealing angry Christians. In my little delusional head I’d like to see caring individuals on both sides be a little more sympathetic and tone down the rhetoric.
As to sticking with the topic at hand I have a question, the bill of rights lays down principles that ppl have “inalienable rights” as mentioned in the article above. Specifically, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These rights were phrased this way for two reasons: 1) to tell England that the Colonists had justification to succeed. 2) To tell the future Gov’t that it has limits. It’s the old, “since it’s mandated by God, who are you to say no?” ploy. You might not agree with it, but it has been effectual.
So, if we take God outta the constitution what do we have to base these inalienable rights on? I’m just asking… I’m all for the change in thinking but “…endowed by my science book” just doesn’t sound like it carries the weight and I don't want to lose those rights...

..i think people should quit worrying about such trivial things and go and enjoy life..seeings that most of the things they find to upset themselves with would never infringe upon their happiness if they didn't let it..whose god,what god ..is there a god? a christian god..or who ever we want considering religion is left to ones own interpretation..personally the way i view it is for those who don't want to say under god..don't ..
..and press on ..does it have to become such an issue,only if you let it..if it bothers them that much ..then move to another country..but the one thing i will say about the good ole US of A..there is always plenty of government cheese to go with that whine...

I like that... Still, it is important to some and I respect that too... most of all I like friends who aren't the same as me, as it seems to help feed my head.

"Oh, do not cry. Be good children, and we shall all meet in Heaven... I want to meet you all, white and black, in Heaven."

-President Andrew Jackson's last words

I just as repectfully ask you to square what the First Commandment of the 'Christian God' says with what the First Amendment of the Constitution says.
One says there shall be no other gods allowed, the other says the government isn't allowed to enforce on We the People a State religion as the Church of England tried to do to those same Founding Fathers.

I just as repectfully point out that it's dishonest intellectually to say that the British weren't Christians, therefore the Revolutionary War saw Christians killing Christians. What kind of 'Christian Principle' was in play there?

Do you contend that Thomas Jefferson wasn't a Founding Father? You might after reading these quotes:



I can go on and on. The miracle of modern search engines allows me to dig up these sorts quotes right from the proverbial Horses' Mouths all day, complete with attributions and sources.


-Kerry O.

The most ironic thing about this is that the pledge was written by avowed socialist Francis Bellamy, and "under God" wasn't added till after WWII (specifically 1948). Thus, removing "under God" wouldn't change the original meaning of the text (contrary to the conservatives' claim).

It's all a bunch of nationalist cheauvanist BS, but it makes me laugh that people get in such a tizzy over it.