Court: 'In God We Trust' constitutional
A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments on Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state, the Associated Press reports.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who claimed the references to God disrespect his religious beliefs, the AP reports.
"The Pledge is constitutional," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 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."
The same court ruled in Newdow's favor in 2002 after he sued his daughter's school district for having students recite the pledge at school.
That lawsuit reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, but the high court ruled that Newdow lacked the legal standing to file the suit because he didn't have custody of his daughter, on whose behalf he brought the case.
So Newdow, who is a doctor and lawyer, filed an identical challenge on behalf of other parents who objected to the recitation of the pledge at school. In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento decided in Newdow's favor, ruling that the pledge was unconstitutional.
"I want to be treated equally," Newdow said when he argued the case before the 9th Circuit in December 2007. He added that supporters of the phrase "want to have their religious views espoused by the government."
In a separate 3-0 ruling Thursday, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto "In God We Trust" on coins and currency, saying that the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic, not religious.
Reached on his cell phone, Newdow said he hadn't been aware that the appeals court had ruled against him Thursday.
"Oh man, what a bummer," he said.
Comments
Oh, the irony.
These flat-out endorsements of religion by our nominally secular government are given a pass by the Court ... because they aren't religious. So...by extension, the Pledge and the Motto mean nothing more than "bombs bursting in air," for example. "God" is indeed a bumper sticker.
As long as I know that, when I read "In God We Trust" above the speaker's podium in the House of Representatives and on the nickles in my pocket, it's just meaningless bombast ... according to the Ninth Circuit Court.
Posted by: BankStreet | March 11, 2010 6:43 PM
The phrases are very religious, as well as patriotic.
Posted by: Clay | March 11, 2010 10:36 PM
To you, perhaps, Clay, but according to the Ninth Circuit, they're just pretty words ... decoration, if you will.
Posted by: BankStreet | March 12, 2010 8:08 AM
Clay - Given Christ teachings on money do you honestly think God cares if His name on our currency? Bankstreet's comments are correct,
Posted by: ravensfan | March 12, 2010 10:27 AM
I've been thinking a lot about this ruling.
While a seemingly clear defeat for those of us who resent the manifestation of a State Religion, the actual ruling has to be something of a Pyrrhic victory for the religionists. I'm just not sure they will see it that way...and, in fact, will trumpet it as proof that the US is a "Christian Nation" (again).
Funny how those folk love an "activist court" when the ruling goes their way (or at least seems to).
Posted by: BankStreet | March 16, 2010 8:13 PM
BankStreet - I'm sure conservative right wingers are jumping for joy right now. They will consider it validation for the Christian Nation concept.
I've never met anyone who didn't love the court when the decison their way or rip it when it didn't.
Posted by: rino | March 17, 2010 1:02 PM
BankStreet - Not all of believers see it as a victory. Speaking only for myself I don't see it as a victory. Considering the original words written by Francis Bellamy, a a Baptist minister, and a Christian socialist, did not contain the words "under God". I'm puzzled why the court didn't simply return the pledge to its original 1892 format.
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
While I do trust in God, I've always been a bit uneasy about it being on money given Christ's words about serving two masters.
Posted by: ravensfan | March 18, 2010 11:43 AM
I may be mistaken, but I'm not sure it was within the Court's power to dictate the phrasing of the Pledge.
It is interesting to note, though, that "under God" was added in 1954, at the height of the Cold War, merely to "demonstrate" the nation's religiosity in comparison to the "godless Communists." It never was about religious faith, or even identity ... just global politics.
Personally, I have enough problems with a loyalty oath, without it including a religious reference... but that's a whole other story!
Posted by: BankStreet | March 18, 2010 2:38 PM
BankStreet - You are probably right about that. It's unfortunate that more people don't know how the words got placed in the pledge in the first place. I think I'll pass on discussing loyalty other than to say I'm not big on forcing or requiring them in general.
Posted by: ravensfan | March 19, 2010 1:14 PM
In 1954, the accursed unconstitutional phrase was added to our paper money for the exact reason BankStreet said above. It was added to our coinage as a propaganda ploy during the Civil War to show that we were "more godly" than the Rebels, when it fist appeared on the 1862 2 cent piece. It should not have been allowed then, or in 1954, or now.
Posted by: Robert Littel | March 19, 2010 5:58 PM