"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Nope, only the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals can do that.

This judge chose to edit the wrong part of the Pledge. We haven't been "One Nation" since November 2000. Since then we've been the Red States (Red-neck, Bible Thumpers trying to impose our own version of Theocracy on the American people while supporting illegal wars and restricting the freedoms of law abiding folks under the Patriot Act) and the Blue States (the objective, intellectual, Progressives who just want what's best for America and are struggling to free the country from the evil, capitalist Bushies).

That's what HuffPo, Kos, and DU tell me.

Posted by Scott at September 14, 2005 06:57 PM

I don't have time to look this up, but doesn't this go back to that guy who was using his daughter, whom didn't live with him, to further his anti-God cause? He said that she didn't like the pledge, even though she never said that and she believed in God. The wacky 9th Circuit out of SF gleefully went along, and then Congress started getting involved and the Supreme Court wasn't going to go along, so, the appeals court decided to back off, partly because the Dad had no legal basis to speak for his daughter. The court crawdad'd away and did not enforce its original ruling resulting in a moot issue and Congress not having to act. Then, this judge comes around and relies on a ruling that was abandoned and uses that as his justification. Some of my facts may be off, but I think that the gist of the story is correct.

What a crock! This judge might as well have relied on rulings in other countries or international law to make such a stupid decision that will be overrruled. California might as well be some other country.

Someone go pull out that Red Skelton audio explaining the pledge and about having "under God" added. It would do this judge some good.

Posted by Woody at September 14, 2005 09:10 PM

Amen bro, Michael Newdow can kiss something else besides my Grits though. I am going to laugh when a newly constructed Supreme Court!
yes Woody Mr. Newdow was a party to this suit. Big surprise huh?

Posted by Squamata at September 14, 2005 10:00 PM

I meant when the Supreme Court strikes down the ruling. Damn itchy Enter finger. Bad...bad Enter finger. Ok I think I have control over it now. When I try to finnish a sentence it always cuts me o

Posted by Squamata at September 14, 2005 10:03 PM

Just to play devil's advocate here...why is it so important to have the added words in the pledge? I'm not religious, but please don't think I'm asking this to mock you guys...I'm just interested in what you say.

Posted by jim hitchcock at September 14, 2005 10:35 PM

Jim, from a historical context, I would like to see the discussions when the words were added. I think it was around 1956 or 1957, when Eisenhower was president. Back then it was okay to express public faith in God, and the soldiers who fought in our wars weren't hesitant to do that. Don't forget about our coins and the prayers when Congress and the Supreme Court convene.

Posted by Woody at September 14, 2005 11:13 PM

Interestingly, `In God We Trust' first showed up on the two cent coin (?) in 1864, gold coins in 1902, and paper money in 1957.

Not sure what you mean about the soldiers remark. Was that a reference to the recent brouhaha at Colorado Springs?

Posted by jim hitchcock at September 14, 2005 11:29 PM

THIS is why there is an argument for judges to be elected rather than appointed (with exception of Supreme Court)... IF that same judge was running for election i bet he would have ruled differently....

Posted by Carla at September 14, 2005 11:38 PM

... and another thing... if these left wingers are "so progressive..so intellectual..so objective..so tolerant and open minded.." why do they shutter at the mear mention of "God".. Why are they so threatened by our "unsophisticated, small- minded, red neck, biased and intollerant racist " faith and acknowledgment of "God" ... Are they afraid that the meer mention of the name "God" by thier children will sabatoge their superior atheistic child rearing practices.???

I mean, I would think they would simoply laugh at us simple minded "superstitious" types and what we believe... Instead they act as if we are waging an all out holywar..they must be scared of something

Posted by Carla at September 14, 2005 11:58 PM

Justice

by Rudyard Kipling

Across a world where all men grieve
And grieving strive the more,
The great days range like tides and leave
Our dead on every shore.
Heavy the load we undergo,
And our own hands prepare,
If we have parley with the foe,
The load our sons must bear.

Before we loose the word
That bids new worlds to birth,
Needs must we loosen first the sword
Of Justice upon earth;
Or else all else is vain
Since life on earth began,
And the spent world sinks back again
Hopeless of God and Man.

A People and their King
Through ancient sin grown strong,
Because they feared no reckoning
Would set no bound to wrong;
But now their hour is past,
And we who bore it find
Evil Incarnate hell at last
To answer to mankind.

For agony and spoil
Of nations beat to dust,
For poisoned air and tortured soil
And cold, commanded lust,
And every secret woe
The shuddering waters saw --
Willed and fulfilled by high and low --
Let them relearn the Law:

That when the dooms are read,
Not high nor low shall say: --
"My haughty or my humble head
Has saved me in this day."
That, till the end of time,
Their remnant shall recall
Their fathers' old, confederate crime
Availed them not at all:

That neither schools nor priests,
Nor Kings may build again
A people with the heart of beasts
Made wise concerning men.
Whereby our dead shall sleep
In honour, unbetrayed,
And we in faith and honour keep
That peace for which they paid

1918

Posted by Carla at September 15, 2005 12:31 AM

Carla, you didn't cite the source of the Kipling poem. I thought I'd let the other readers know that Mustang posted Justice on 9/11.

Woody, before you hyperventilate further on the Pledge decision, please check out Eugene Volokh's posting Precedential Effects of Reversed Decisions, which explains the legal issues of the case.

GM, I highly recommend you add The Volokh Conspiracy to your blog roll.

Finally, for those of you who have always wondered whether baseball significantly intersects with politics, read this posting connecting baseball umpiring with the John Roberts hearings.

Posted by civil truth at September 15, 2005 04:11 AM

CT, done, I thought I had as I read it all the time. Then I found that I had it on MY favorites, not on my BLOGROLL... Thanks for the heads up.

Jim, the "under God" part was added in the 50's as congress's response to "Godless communism." As such, it has attained "historical precident." That is to say, it has been around a long time.

I'm old enough to remember having to "relearn" to say the pledge with "Under God" in it, but I would be willing to bet that the MAJORITY of people in this country are not.

The USSC has already established the historical precident angle as a valid reason to keep/maintian religious expression (on our coins, prayers at the beginning of congressional sessions, chaplins in the military, etc.) so the USSC overturning the so far single judge in the 9th Circut won't be unusual. However, I would bet even money (or donuts) that the 9th Circut En Banc will overturn it with no problem.

Posted by GM Roper at September 15, 2005 06:42 AM

My apologies CT.. Thought I had included the link to Mustang on the poem. As it was relevant to 9/11 I thought it was relavant to this issue as well ... Thanks for watching my back.

Posted by Carla at September 15, 2005 07:39 AM

In 1951 the Knights of Columbus in NYC added the words "Under God" when they would recite it at the beginning of their meetings (by resolution).

In '52, Florida, South Dakota, New York and Michigan pettitioned Congress to make the ammendment official (this would have been actually before Eisenhower). Eisenhower signed the Congressional resolution on flag day, 6/14/1954.

It fits perfectly with the traditions of the country, referring to God on our currency, daily invocations in both Houses of Congress (and most if not all State and local legislatures), and even the 10 Commandments on the ceiling of the SC building.

Even Jefferson, who so many Libs now like to quote in referrence to the separation of church and state, included referrences in the Declaration of Independence to "Nature's God" and the "Creator" (bringing up an additional point of why such staunch opposition to ID being taught in school).

If an individual's beliefs (or lack of) cause them to be offended by the phrase "under God," leave them out when reciting the pledge.

This is the best thing that could have ever happened to the Roberts nomination; another example of a judge legislating from the bench, ignoring long standing precedent. This time doesn't bother me much, because there's no way it holds up.

*Thanks to http://www.glennbeck.com/news/06272002.shtml for the history of the Pledge.

Posted by Scott at September 15, 2005 09:52 AM

This judge was appointed by Jimmy Carter--the gift that keeps on giving.

Posted by Woody at September 15, 2005 01:51 PM

Civil, thanks for the link providing the legal explanations. From where I stand, it looks to me as if the original ruling by the 9th Court of Appeals should never have been made. Once done, it should have been vacated rather than reversed--which might have been an intentional and underhanded mananeuver on the part of those judges.

There was a procedural problem in that the father was filing a suit on behalf of a daughter who did not live with him and who does not agree with him. It's like illegal procedure in football. Even though the play might have been run, it doesn't count and must be replayed--but five yards back. Someone needs to send the father back--to his shrink or mommy.

I had to laugh at an interview with the girl's mother talking about this head case and how he likes to think that he is a constitutional lawyer. He really seeks attention. She also mentioned that her daughter likes Sunday school. That was well thought out.

Posted by Woody at September 15, 2005 02:02 PM

"This judge was appointed by Jimmy Carter--the gift that keeps on giving."

You know, for a transplant to Georgia, you could show a little respect for it's favorite son, Woody :)

Posted by jim hitchcock at September 15, 2005 02:03 PM

Damn, I long for the days when the biggest news story was the MLB playoff race and NFL's opening day.

Never again, I guess.

Posted by Scott at September 15, 2005 02:15 PM

Matthew 5:33-37 (King James Version)

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Jesus would never have recited the Pledge of Allegiance, neither before and certainly not after the addition of the words "under God."

Posted by WWJD? at September 16, 2005 07:20 AM

Usually I find that people who quote scripture to conservatives aren't even religious (in the traditional senses), yet profess to know the correct interpretation and application of words that experts still debate--just to say that if you're conservative, then you must be Christian (right wing, at that), and you have to follow the words of Christ as we present them or you're a hypocrite, and that makes you bad. Now, I don't know WWJD's personal beliefs, but I think that my experiences, from people that I do know and from what they have done, accurately reflect and support the observation above-and, possibly and likely reflects the true views of WWJD.

I would rather people tell me what they believe and back it up rather than just throw out quotes from other sources with no indication as to if and why they accept them. Otherwise, I'm debating a source who isn't even posting here, and I don't think that I've seen an IP address in comments that came from Heaven.

The Bible is God's message to Christians, and if you're not a Christian and you try to interpret the Bible, then you might have problems--because you're reading someone else's mail. It takes some faith to present scripture in political commentary and apply that scripture from its different historical context to the Pledge issue today. It takes a HUGE leap of faith to say with absolutely certainty what Jesus would do in this case.

I think some people are better sticking with saying what Satan would do in certain instances, because they might identify better with him, (and, he does know scripture well and misapplies it well, as we know from his tempting of Christ.)

Now, what would Christ say about abortion, Hollywood, the acts of a certain former Democratic president, drugs, the ACLU, etc., etc., that the left defends? I'm not going to speak for Him, but I think you know the answer.

Posted by Woody at September 16, 2005 09:07 AM

"The Bible is God's message to Christians"

Or, maybe it's just a book.

And, to be blunt, Woody, your last two paragraphs are what most people find so scary and distasteful about fundamentalists...the self righteous zeal and presumption that only YOU have a lock on morality.

Posted by jim hitchcock at September 16, 2005 01:42 PM

Jim, not directed at you, but someone shouldn't try to tell me what the Bible means when he doesn't share my religion, doesn't accept my faith, and doesn't believe that our "manual" is really God's word.

You or others might believe that the Bible is "just a book," and that makes sense if that's all you get out of it. For others who see it as God's messages, it is more than a book; and, it must be more than a book because of the hope and life changes it has proven that it gives to people in need--unlike any other.

Regarding morality vs. immorality, sometimes you have to state the truth and the obvious, even if some people get upset. I think that abortion is immoral. I think that Hollywood if full of immorality. Bill Clinton committed immoral acts. These things should be obvious. If someone accepts that taking drugs and infidelity can be considered moral, then they need to get a new definition of the word.

Yes, sometimes one group of people are more moral than another group--but, that doesn't stop someone who isn't a believer from being moral himself. It just isn't as likely and might be based on what's relative, which is a moving target.

In any event, it shouldn't be scary or distateful. Having people who have high moral values should be something that you welcome, even if their faith is different from yours.

Posted by Woody at September 16, 2005 02:14 PM

I'll be darned if I see anyone promoting drug use and infidelity as moral behavior. It's more a nature of mankind argument. That `Hollywood' holds a mirror up to that nature could hardly be construed as promoting it.

Hey, I loved Ozzie and Harriet as a kid, and I may have truly bought into the moral lessons that the Beav learned fron Ward, but I wouldn't say they taught me everything I needed to knowabout the world.

The drug use thing is more complex. I've always found the hypocrisy of a society that promotes the use of alcohol and tobacco and decries drugs we've made illegal as `evil' to be quite interesting. I'm not for a minute saying drug abuse (or alcohol abuse) isn't bad, bad, bad...just that our laws regulating the use are more than a bit perplexing.

As an interesting sidelight, I once heard a comment by Dr. Ronald Siegal, a highly regarded drug researcher at UCLA, where he made the claim that during the Vietnam War, the water buffalo started eating opium poppies in great quantities, and after the war, stopped. In other words, they self medicated (xanax for water buffalo?). I found that comment fascinating.

Posted by jim hitchcock at September 16, 2005 03:08 PM