Pledge Ruled Unconstitutional
Posted by: henriqueps <henriqueps@...>
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 27 June, 2002.
Hi,
Although, I´m brazilian Christian, I read the USA´s news below and I thought it would be
interesting if you made some commentaries.
God bless you all
Rev. Henrique P. Senra
Pledge Ruled Unconstitutional
Wed Jun 26, 7:35 PM ET
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Stunning politicians on both the left and right, a federal appeals court
declared for the first time Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public
schools is unconstitutional because of the words "under God" inserted by Congress in 1954.
Photos
AP Photo
Slideshows
AP Photo
Pledge of Allegiance Controversy
Audio/Video
U.S. Court Rules Pledge Unconstitutional (AP)
The ruling, if allowed to stand, would mean schoolchildren could no longer recite the pledge,
at least in the nine Western states covered by the court.
Critics of the decision were flabbergasted and warned that it calls into question the use of
"In God We Trust" on the nation's currency, the public singing of patriotic songs like "God
Bless America," even the use of the phrase "So help me God" when judges are sworn into
office.
In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ( news - web sites) said the phrase
"one nation under God" amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the
separation of church and state.
Leading schoolchildren in a pledge that says the United States is "one nation under God" is
as objectionable as making them say "we are a nation `under Jesus,' a nation `under Vishnu,'
a nation `under Zeus,' or a nation `under no god,' because none of these professions can be
neutral with respect to religion," Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote.
In Canada, where President Bush ( news - web sites) was taking part in an economic summit,
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer ( news - web sites) said: "The president's reaction was
that this ruling is ridiculous."
"The Supreme Court itself begins each of its sessions with the phrase `God save the United
States and this honorable court,'" Fleischer said. "The Declaration of Independence refers to
God or to the creator four different times. Congress begins each session of the Congress each
day with a prayer, and of course our currency says, `In God We Trust.' The view of the White
House is that this was a wrong decision and the Department Justice is now evaluating how to
seek redress."
The ruling was also attacked on Capitol Hill, with Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle,
D-S.D., calling it "just nuts."
After the ruling, House members gathered on the front steps of the Capitol to recite the
Pledge of Allegiance en masse ? the same place they defiantly sang "God Bless America" the
night of the Sept. 11 attacks.
And senators, who were debating a defense bill, angrily stopped to unanimously pass a
resolution denouncing the decision.
The government had argued that the religious content of "one nation under God" is minimal.
But the appeals court said that an atheist or a holder of certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs
could see it as an endorsement of monotheism.
The 9th Circuit covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon
and Washington state. Those are the only states directly affected by the ruling.
However, the ruling does not take effect for several months, to allow further appeals. The
government can ask the court to reconsider, or take its case to the U.S. Supreme Court ( news
- web sites).
Congress inserted "under God" at the height of the Cold War after a campaign by the Knights
of Columbus, religious leaders and others who wanted to distinguish the United States from
what they regarded as godless communism.
The case was brought by Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who objected because his
second-grade daughter was required to recite the pledge at the Elk Grove school district. A
federal judge had dismissed his lawsuit, which named the school district, Congress and
then-President Clinton ( news - web sites).
Newdow, a doctor who holds a law degree and represented himself, called the pledge a
"religious idea that certain people don't agree with."
The appeals court said that when President Eisenhower signed the legislation inserting "under
God" after the words "one nation," he declared: "Millions of our schoolchildren will daily
proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our
nation and our people to the Almighty."
The appeals court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said students cannot be compelled to
recite the pledge. But even when the pledge is voluntary, "the school district is nonetheless
conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school
teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge."
The ruling was issued by Goodwin, who was appointed by President Nixon, and Circuit Judge
Stephen Reinhardt, a Carter appointee.
In a dissent, Circuit Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez, appointed by the first President Bush,
warned that under his colleagues' theory of the Constitution, "we will soon find ourselves
prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings."
"`God Bless America' and `America the Beautiful' will be gone for sure," he said, "and while
use of the first and second stanzas of the `Star-Spangled Banner' will still be permissible,
we will be precluded from straying into the third."
Fernandez said the same faulty logic would apply to "In God We Trust" on the nation's
currency.
Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., was one of many lawmakers who immediately reacted in anger and shock to
the ruling.
"Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political
correctness run amok," Bond said. "What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God'
from the pledge taken by new presidents?"
Harvard scholar Laurence Tribe predicted the U.S. Supreme Court will certainly reverse the
decision unless the 9th Circuit reverses itself. "I would bet an awful lot on that," Tribe
said.
The 9th Circuit is the nation's most overturned appellate court ? partly because it is the
largest, but also because it tends to make liberal, activist opinions, and because the cases
it hears ? on a range of issues from environmental laws to property rights to civil rights ?
tend to challenge the status quo.
The nation's high court has never squarely addressed the issue, Tribe said. The court has
said schools can require teachers to lead the pledge but ruled students cannot be punished
for refusing to recite it.
In other school-related religious cases, the high court has said that schools cannot post the
Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.
And in March, a federal appeals court ruled that Ohio's motto, "With God, all things are
possible," is constitutional and is not an endorsement of Christianity even though it quotes
the words of Jesus.
More from > Top Stories
Next Story:
Kunar Mountains May Be Al Qaida Base
Thu Jun 27, 1:43 AM ET - (AP)