Court: 'Under God' In Pledge Is Constitutional

[Danube]

I was wondering if the atheists are disappointed by the decisions (especially the 9th) or considered the decision inevitable and hardly worth pursuing?

"The words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an appeal to patriotism, not religion, and do not violate the separation of church and state, a federal appeals court ruled today - the same court that declared the pledge unconstitutional in 2002.
​

In a separate ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in San Francisco upheld the placement of the national motto, "In God We Trust," on coins and currency. The language is patriotic and ceremonial, not religious, the court said.


Both suits were filed by Michael Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who has filed numerous challenges to government-sponsored religious invocations.
His previous suit against the Pledge of Allegiance reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004. Without deciding the constitutional issue, the court said Newdow lacked legal standing to challenge the pledge on behalf of his daughter, because the child's mother, Newdow's former partner, had legal custody.


Newdow then refiled the suit on behalf of parents who had custody of their children and objected to the daily schoolroom recitals of "under God," which was added to the pledge by a 1954 federal law."




​

 

[Danube]

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

 

[Kirby]

Of all the issues that are facing this nation, this one is at the bottom of my list.

 

[Sclamoz]

I'm disappointed by it, especially considering the history of it but its not something worth worrying about IMO.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Of all the issues that are facing this nation, this one is at the bottom of my list.

Yeah, pretty much this.

I have a hard time trying to understand how "under God," specifically, is an "appeal to patriotism," though. Seems like the judge doesn't know what the terms "god" and "patriot" mean.

 

[LumbergTech]

of course it is disappointing..

i have no problem with people having religious crap in their office etc , even if its a government office...but i don't think that preference should be shown to belief systems

 

[her209]

It would be funny if someone lead a campaign to add the the words "or lack thereof" after "under God".

 

[StageLeft]

I am kind of surprised by this.

 

[Harvey]

I was wondering if the atheists are disappointed by the decisions (especially the 9th) or considered the decision inevitable and hardly worth pursuing?

"The words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an appeal to patriotism, not religion, and do not violate the separation of church and state, a federal appeals court ruled today - the same court that declared the pledge unconstitutional in 2002.
​

In a separate ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in San Francisco upheld the placement of the national motto, "In God We Trust," on coins and currency. The language is patriotic and ceremonial, not religious, the court said.

Both suits were filed by Michael Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who has filed numerous challenges to government-sponsored religious invocations.
His previous suit against the Pledge of Allegiance reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004. Without deciding the constitutional issue, the court said Newdow lacked legal standing to challenge the pledge on behalf of his daughter, because the child's mother, Newdow's former partner, had legal custody.


Newdow then refiled the suit on behalf of parents who had custody of their children and objected to the daily schoolroom recitals of "under God," which was added to the pledge by a 1954 federal law."​

That's a crock of shit. I know the Declaration of Independence says, "... all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...," but last time I checked, there were no religious symbols or other references to any deity in the flag or the Constitution, the actual LAW of the land.

The thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents sold their lies in the name of their ooga booga deity as justification for their crimes.

Likewise, the Israelis and the various Islamic and Arab states and groups claim justification for their eternal stupidity for the same reason, as have many nations, tribes and non-nation groups, yet they all have different ideas of what their alleged deities are and the meaning to be derived from the words and actions of their respective religious leaders and icons.

AFIC, they're all as wrong. Religion is a pathetic attempt to avoid the responsibility for thinking. I do NOT pledge my allegience to ANY flag or ANY nation that claims to derive its legitimacy or base its actions on anyone's fictional mystery being.

All the forces of war were compelling,
And blacker than Colin, the Knight,
And the lies they were telling, they sell in the name of their savior.

AndWho's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You?
Tell me who's telling who's telling you what to do what to do?

 

[StageLeft]

EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers

 

[PottedMeat]

Is there anyone that recited the pledge in school and thought it was anything more than just something you memorized at the end of the morning announcements?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Is this the most retarded court in the country? Not from this ruling, but from this ruling plus the previous ruling that found the whole pledge unconstitutional? Talk about some logical inconsistency.

 

[Kadarin]

I would prefer there were no "under God" in the Pledge, but the issue is so unimportant that I don't bother wasting energy thinking about it.

 

[bfdd]

"Under God" has never offended me and I've pretty much been an atheist for as long as I can remember.

 

[Craig234]

Less, not more, mingling of nationalism and religion are needed.

Constitutionality aside, it's a bad idea for it to have been added in the 1950's Republican government IMO (apparently for misguided cold war motives).

Freedom of religion by the individual and the separation of church and state are the principles to follow, not trying to make the state more religious.

I do think this is an important issue.

 

[Zargon]

to me separation of church and state means I am not getting forced to do anything religious, (like attend the church of england), but they can put allah on coins for all I care

 

[PrinceofWands]

Is there anyone that recited the pledge in school and thought it was anything more than just something you memorized at the end of the morning announcements?

Yes, and I refused to say it, and was ostracized, ridiculed, and even beaten by other students because of it.

It's an EXTREMELY disappointing ruling. While there are larger direct issues, the underlying cancer of religious involvement in government is about as important as any other problems we're facing.

 

[Danube]

"Under God" has never offended me and I've pretty much been an atheist for as long as I can remember.

I'm not an atheist but never felt that passionate about pledges and stuff (aside from fact its often anti-American groups like ACLU trying to change things to depress people).

Indeed there is biblical text that holds "deliver unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's (spoken with regard to taxation) so its debatable if it's even "kosher" religiously to have God on money - not that I wouldn't feel better with God in control instead of the Fed lol.

 

[theeedude]

You can always define "God" as nothing, and then the pledge makes a whole lot more sense.

 

[JSt0rm]

as an atheist I dont give a fuck where you put god or the 10 commandments. Just leave science alone.

 

[bfdd]

to me separation of church and state means I am not getting forced to do anything religious, (like attend the church of england), but they can put allah on coins for all I care

pretty much been my take on it. they try to make the case that saying "under god" some how forces religious beliefs on someone, but if you don't believe in god, then it's really meaningless so who gives a fuck? it doesn't even define a God. It doesn't say "One nation under the God of Israel" it doesn't say "One nation under the God Zeus." Hell how many fucking atheists have you heard say "jesus christ" or "oh my fucking god" a goddamn shitload including myself.

 

[ebaycj]

I was wondering if the atheists are disappointed by the decisions (especially the 9th) or considered the decision inevitable and hardly worth pursuing?

"The words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an appeal to patriotism, not religion, and do not violate the separation of church and state, a federal appeals court ruled today - the same court that declared the pledge unconstitutional in 2002.
​

In a separate ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in San Francisco upheld the placement of the national motto, "In God We Trust," on coins and currency. The language is patriotic and ceremonial, not religious, the court said.


Both suits were filed by Michael Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who has filed numerous challenges to government-sponsored religious invocations.
His previous suit against the Pledge of Allegiance reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004. Without deciding the constitutional issue, the court said Newdow lacked legal standing to challenge the pledge on behalf of his daughter, because the child's mother, Newdow's former partner, had legal custody.


Newdow then refiled the suit on behalf of parents who had custody of their children and objected to the daily schoolroom recitals of "under God," which was added to the pledge by a 1954 federal law."




​

Could not care less, as long as children are not "forced" to say it in the pledge (i.e. they may omit "under god" if they so desire with no negative consequences of any kind).

 

[ebaycj]

You can always define "God" as nothing, and then the pledge makes a whole lot more sense.

I guess this is not such a terrible mindset, either.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I'm agnostic, and I've never really cared that God appeared in the pledge or on currency. I am shocked at the stupidity of the rationale of the court in this case however; God is an appeal to patriotism? That is fucking absurd. Just say that having God in the language causes no harm and can be used secularly since it is not defined as a God of any one specific religion. Trying to argue that the word God itself is patriotic... ridiculous. That's a judge that ran out of justifications.

 

[Modelworks]

Doesn't matter to me what the courts decide. Unless they have replaced the judges with omnipotent beings they will always only be opinions of the people presiding.