Hmmmmm.
If the “under God” clause in the Pledge of Allegience is not really a substantive assertion of state-sponsored religion, but just relatively meaningless “ceremonial Deism,” then why are its supporters so upset about the Ninth Circuit Court ruling?
If people feel so passionate about the text being included, doesn’t that justify people feeling passionately about it being excluded?
80 view(s)
Historically the phrase was inserted for neither of the reasons listed. Rather, it was an attempt by the Eisenhower administration to contrast the United States with “godless Communism” [play scary music here] 🙂
People can have intense opinions one way or another. But to have a lawsuit you need standing and you need to be damaged. The plaintiff in the case was being used by the father who has no custodial rights (he was never married to the mother) and the daughter did not feel uncomfortable with the words. Now, I not that upset because there is about a 99.9% chance that the Ninth Circuit will get reversed.
If this were merely about custodial rights and standing, there would be rather muted discussion/posturing about the case. Ditto if we were talking about simply rescinding a bit of Cold War propaganda, few people would be likely to object.
What seems clear is that the majority of the non-legal critics of the Ninth Circuit’s decision see it as a personal attack on their religious beliefs — which to me is a prima facie case that the Ninth Circuit’s decision was correct (so far as it goes) that the Under God clause is, in fact, state-imposed religion.
Yes, it will probably be reversed, though one can always hope that reason will prevail.
The results have been stayed by the Ninth Circuit:
SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court on Tuesday stayed enforcement of its ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional when recited in public classrooms, pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Judge Alfred T. Goodwin issued the order in response to a request from the Elk Grove Unified School District near Sacramento. The daughter of the man whose suit led the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to find the pledge unconstitutional attends school there.
Not surprising, with something like this. I’ll be interested to see how the case goes before the Supremes.
I scanned the opinon. What was surprising is how the plantiff who is a lawyer by trade made really bad mistakes. For example, he asked the judicicary to order Congress to change the law and the President likewise. The court basically says well we can declare it unconsitutional but — uh — we don’t have jurisdiction to dictate legislation. It was refreshing to see the oftentimes wacky Ninth Circuit constrain themselves in this way.
An interesting article on the “under god” problem by Roger Ebert.
I like his concept of “vertical” verses “horizontal” prayer. Got to make sure there aren’t any godless commies anywhere near me. And St. Roseanne sounds like the Nun’s I knew while growing up
“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”
— Matthew 6:5-6
An interesting analysis on public prayer and Jesus is here. Another one is here.
Wow…
The second site is very in depth, and does a good job of looking at all view points.
Kudos ***Dave!
As for horizontal versus vertical prayer: A relative of a friend of main is a White House page. When this page stepped into the Oval Office he found the President alone, face on the carpet, praying.
Are you sure it wasn’t because of a Pretzel?
Sorry Rich
Easy straight line…
Felt compelled to take it…
LOL. No problem. During these tense times it is good to have a laugh.