[wordup] Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional

[Adam Shand]

Unless you've been living under a rock you've already heard.  I have to
admit I think it's hilarious that it was deemed unconstitutional and yet
again gives me reason to hope for the old USA. Hrm of course on the
other side of things I guess it means that we're willing to waste a
whole lot of breath and resources on something that's basically
frivilous and stupid ... but hey, that's the American way right?

Anyway I think it's odd that everyone gets their panties in a twist over
"under God" being removed, but no on blinked when it was *added* in
1954.  Just think of it as a 48 year lapse of judgement.

Finally I think this, once again, proves the second rule of
"sysadmin-ing".  Always balk at providing new services.  They'll never
miss it if they've never had it, but once you give it to them they'll
bitch up a storm when you take it away.

Adam.

Via: Simondo <simondo at paradise.net.nz>
From: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/06/26/national1451EDT0725.DTL

Federal appeals court rules Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because
of words `under God'
 
DAVID KRAVETS
Associated Press Writer 
Wednesday, June 26, 2002
 
 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.
 
 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.
 
 The case was brought by a California man who objected to his daughter
 being compelled to listen to her second-grade classmates recite the
 pledge.
 
 In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 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 was taking part in an economic summit,
 White House spokesman Ari Fleischer 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 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.
 
 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.
 
 Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento atheist, sued his daughter's Elk Grove
 school district, Congress and then-President Clinton in 2000, calling the
 pledge a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with." A federal
 judge had dismissed his lawsuit.
 
 Newdow, a doctor who holds a law degree and represented himself, said
 Wednesday he was trying to restore the pledge to its pre-1954 version,
 saying no one should be forced to worship a religion in which they don't
 believe.
 
 "Many people who are upset about this are people who just don't
 understand," he said. "People have to consider what if they were in the
 minority religion and the majority religion was overpowering them."
 
 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.
 
-- 
"The first casualty, when war comes, is truth." -- Senator Hiram Johnson