Fed. appeals court upholds ‘under God’ in pledge
By TERENCE CHEA
Associated Press WriterSAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court upheld the use of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who said the references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs.
The same appeals court caused a national uproar and prompted accusations of judicial activism when it decided in Newdow’s favor in 2002, ruling that the pledge violated the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion. . . .
Judge Carlos Bea . . . wrote for the majority in Thursday’s 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,” he said. . . .
Rory Little, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, agreed. He said the Supreme Court is unlikely to review the case because Thursday’s ruling is the third appellate court decision upholding the pledge.
In addition, Congress passed legislation reaffirming the pledge in 2002, following the 9th Circuit’s ruling that struck it down.
“I think this is the last word on this particular lawsuit,” Little said. “It’s an important ruling.”
In a separate 3-0 ruling Thursday, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto “In God We Trust” on U.S. coins and currency, citing an earlier 9th Circuit panel that ruled the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic and “has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion.”
If you want to read the full article rather than the few excerpts above, go here and do a search for “In God We Trust”.
Needless to say, I am utterly pleased with the court’s ruling. I also like the wording of the ruling in that they have struck a moderate tone of voice that honors history while avoiding the thorny issue of activism in religion, which is precisely what the government is supposed to do. It is a ruling that will not please the extremes in this country, but it is one that is within our common law tradition of interpretation. Unfortunately, there will inevitably be the extreme non-theists who will continue pushing for a secular country in which religion is pushed out of public discourse, despite the freedom of religion clause. On the other side, there will inevitably be the extreme Judeo-Christians who will continue pushing to formally establish Christianity as the religion of the USA despite the establishment clause.
I suspect that most people do not know that, legally, courts have to balance out two separate clauses in the Constitution of the United States of America. One is called the freedom of religion clause, while the other is called the establishment clause. Because both are broadly worded, it is sometimes a difficult balancing act to come up with adequate judicial interpretations. Nevertheless, the establishment clause has been winning all too often in the past thirty years. This ruling is a welcome breath of fresh air pushing back towards the other clause.
A well decided case; and you draw out the complexities nicely. It is easy to be against pluralism, but if there are two people in a room you’ve already got plurality… the question is what to do about it.