Ninth Circuit Upholds “Under God” in Pledge of Allegiance
Take that haters! After the Supreme Court reversed its idiotic ruling that the phrase “Under God” was unconstitutional, the Ninth Circuit of San Francisco was forced to take another look at the issue.
In its opinion, the Court ruled the “Under God” phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t violate the Constitution’s establishment clause. It also reversed an injunction banning students from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in the district’s schools and ruled in a separate case that the “In God We Trust” motto on U.S. currency is also constitutional.
Now, what is even more “neat-o”, if you’ll forgive the term, is what the Ninth Circuit in fact said about Under God in American life.
There are two arguments for using “God” in phrases and standards in American life. One is that it is nothing more than Ceremonial Deism.
This theory holds that there have been many references to God in our nation’s history, but that over time, through rote repetition, these sorts of references have lost their religious meaning—indeed, all meaning whatsoever—and are therefore harmless.
The other argument is that the phrase is neither ceremonial nor meaningless, but part of a political philosophy. Namely that our rights do not come from the state, but from a higher power. And they cannot be taken away by the state.
Not something Progressive statists like to hear. They want to be sure everyone knows they are under the thumb of government. Otherwise, why, they’d be individuals. And we can’t have that!
The legal brief before the Ninth Circuit was a tour de force.
… tracing the idea that government is limited because it is “under God” from the writings of Bracton and Coke in the 13th and 17th Centuries, to Blackstone and the Founders in the 18th, to Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, and to the present day. Men are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,” said the Declaration of Independence; “[t]he fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army,” said General Washington of his troops; and the Civil War was fought “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom,” said Lincoln’s Gettysburg address. Thus, as the Becket Fund said, “From this history, it is incontestable that since even before the Declaration of Independence, it has been an important part of our national ethos that we have inalienable rights that the State cannot take away, because the source of those inalienable rights is an authority higher than the State.” To strike down “under God” would not only be historically wrongheaded, but would also rule anathema the very political philosophy of limited government on which this country was founded.
And the Ninth Circuit adopted the argument.
“The phrase “under God” is a recognition of our Founder’s political philosophy that a power greater than the government gives the people their inalienable rights. Thus, the Pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect.”
Contrary to what oversensitive atheists would have us believe, it is not unconstitutional for the government to refer to this political philosophy, even when using its traditionally theistic terms. Thus, this ruling safeguards not only the Pledge, but many other traditional references to God in the public square.
Champions of limited government everywhere should be celebrating this ruling for enshrining their most important philosophical point in the nation’s most liberal court.
As a reader of the Qu’ran, the Upanishads, the Book of Mormon and the Tibetan Book of the Dead, I applaud the humanity of the ruling.
To add fuel to the fire for the haters, the Freedom OF Religion clause is NOT Freedom FROM, nor is it atheistic license to crowd out the public square. Just like Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Assembly, its Freedom FROM government interference. Where religion pokes its nose under the tent, government is obliged to move aside. NOT vice versa.
If the logic of the haters were to abide, Freedom of Speech would mean speech as long as it didn’t interfere with whatever government wanted to do, or Freedom of the Press, as long as it didn’t interfere with government.
Wouldn’t be much freedom would it? Go crazy nutters!
LOL. Could you have picked a new subject that is FURTHER down on the priority list for most Americans? I think not.
I agree Terry, time for a new subject! How about this:
http://caivn.org/article/2010/03/20/orly-taitz-brings-controversy-california-secretary-state-election
“Birther” Lawyer Orly Taitz has qualified to run for California Secretary of State, giving Debra Bowen new competition for her position. Taitz, a USSR native and naturalized U.S. Citizen, has gained notoriety for her numerous legal challenges to the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency.
…
Convinced that Obama is not a natural-citizen – that he is in fact a native of Kenya, Taitz has brought several lawsuits against the president. At least three of them have been dismissed. On March 15, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $20,000 sanction against Taitz, claiming she willfully violated rules of civil procedure. Taitz continues to appeal the original order from a Georgia federal court, stating it was simply an act of intimidation by the administration.
Seemingly prompted by Judge Clay Land’s 43-page order in the Georgia case, the State Bar of California is currently investigating Taitz for professional misconduct. Taitz has said that the California Bar is requesting that she respond to Judge Land’s order.
Nah… I think I’m happy with the old subjects. In fact we were kicking ass.
Do you have any idea how stupid you look after all this misinformation you spewed regarding health care reform? Then the morning after a 100 year effort of trying to get this passed, you think we need a new subject?
You are now the official “Emily Litella” of the GOP………(Gilda’s lil’ol’ lady on SNL)…NEVERMIND!
Hey just started listening to that Red Skelton video, where he commentates on each word of the Pledge of Allegiance (not sure I can get through the whole thing, and what’s supposed to be “politically incorrect” about it anyway?)
But I had to stop in amazement when he got to the word “pledge” which he defined as “dedicate all my worldly goods to give without self-pity [to America.]”
Did you even listen to this Crowley? This guy is a flaming socialist! No wonder they called him Red. I don’t think even I, Far Left Vern, would be up for 100% tax. Let alone you “conservative” whining self-pitiers.
What a bunch of scumbags. Turning a beautiful little lesson about the pledge of allegiance into a vehicle for your hatred of America and self.
I know the words Under God made you shrink from the light. You wouldnt try to distort the “pledge” to mean “giving over at the demand of collectivists” instead of “pledging to defend” otherwise. You wouldn’t know what it is to defend this country. You don’t believe in it. Take that scum suckers!!! Roll over and go back to sleep!
What a hoot you guys are! Looking forward to “repeal and replace!”
There are a lot of smart non-religious people in America, approx. 20%, yet they can not hold public office, due to the stranglehold religion has on our people and government. If 20% of all politicians were non-religious, that would make our divided government a bit more reasonable and manageable.
AMEN TO THAT !
I just looked at the date of the original post. We are still fighting about the same issues. My post from last week ….Lancaster allowed to pray at cc meetings…and the court says so. I sure hope I’m not called to testify anytime soon, cause I’m not putting my hand on no stinking Bible and the judge won’t want to hear why. Hope Greg or Vern will take my “free get out of jail call”