I am shocked by it.

SAN FRANCISCO (June 26) - 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.

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 of Allegiance 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.

The case was brought by Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who objected because his second-grade daughter was required to recite the pledge at the Elk Grove school district. A federal judge had dismissed his lawsuit, which named the school district, Congress and then-President Clinton.

Newdow, a doctor who holds a law degree and represented himself, called the pledge a ``religious idea that certain people don't agree with.''

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.

I don't believe that it would hurt if those words were removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

~Manny.
An American Original.

I fully understand the concept of rallying to a flag on the field of battle, and the importance of holding that flag upright, but off the battlefield the flag is, in the words of the patriarchs, "a graven image."

Worshipping a flag instead of taking the effort of trying to comprehend the greater concept of government is at best a misinformed shorthand, and at worst a weakness that undermines the very concept of an informed and effective electorate. Kids would be much better off being taught this rather than blind obedience to fabric.

The pledge was a required exercise in school when I was growing up. We could not "opt out" or stand quietly, so many of us regularly and quietly changed the wording to such things as "in the windowsill" and "Justice for Paul." (I note that many of my subversive co-conspirators are now selectmen and municipal officials.) Check sometime about the legality of contracts signed "under duress" or signed by minors.

FWIW, those who defend the pledge as an peculiarly american sign of individual freedom might be somewhat interested to know that the "pledge" was written in the late 1800s by a socialist, Francis Bellamy. So much for individuality and origins based in the flames of freedom fighter battles.

In contrast, Vermont has a "Freeman's Oath" or affirmation (Quakers and others of strong religious beliefs are not allowed to engage in "oaths.") which dates back to the 1630s. It essentially states that as a voting citizen, the person agrees to uphold the interests of the state. The current version is:

You solemnly swear (or affirm) that whenever you give your vote or suffrage, touching any matter that concerns the state of Vermont, you will do it so as in your conscience you shall judge will most conduce to the best good of the same, as established by the Constitution, without fear or favor of any person.

I took the freeman's oath willingly and freely, and I follow the same concept in manners concerning the United States, but I cannot in good conscience pledge allegiance to a flag, nor do I expect any other person to do so.

As for the removal of the "Under God," IMO the court skirts the real issue here; that making kids say pledges of any kind is totally counter to the body of law, and such pledges have no validity.

Although students couldn't be required to say the pledge, under the first amendment to The Constitution, students COULD recite the pledge.

I believe that all citizens should know the pledge and the National Anthem, and what they mean.

Or, you know what, we should all just curl up someplace and stay there, because if we say or do anything it could be offensive to somebody, someplace.

We must re-write our history and everything else connected with it that has anything to do with God! This means The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution... Anything that might offend ANYONE has got to be eliminated. EVEN THE VERY FACT THAT WE'RE HERE OFFENDS SOME!! Do the planet a favor! Kill yourself!

::sighs::

FREEMAN'S OATH 1638
In March 1638, Newport, Rhode Island, Thomas Emons took the oath of a Freeman. To become a Freeman a person was legally required to be a respectable member of some congregational church. This was an important status as only Freeman were allowed to hold office or vote for rulers.

The oath as established by the General Court is as follows:

"I, A.R., being by God's providence an inhabitant and freeman within the jurisdiction of this Commonwealth, do freely acknowledge myself to be subject to the government thereof, and therefore do here swear by the great and dreadful name of the Everlasting God, that I will be true and faithful to the same, and will accordingly yield assistance and support thereunto, with my person and my estate, as in equity I am bound; and I will also truly endeavor to maintain and preserve all the liberties and priveledges thereof, submitting myself to the wholesome laws and orders made and established by the same.

And further, that I will not plot nor practice any evil against it, nor consent to any that shall do so,but will truly discover and reveal same to lawful authority now here established for the speedy preventing thereof.

Moreover, I do solemnly bind myself in the sight of God, that when I shall be called to give my voice touching any such matter of the State, wherein freemen are to deal, I will give my vote and suffrage,as I shall judge in mine own conscience may best conduce and tend to the public weal of the body without respect of persons or favor of any man. So help me God in the Lord Jesus Christ."

Rick http://home.cfl.rr.com/dot/freemen.html

The Student's Bill of Rights
Students have...
...The Right to carry and distribute religious literature. You have the right to carry religious literature including the Bible. You also have the right to distribute religious literature and Bibles to fellow students. School officials can prohibit students from distributing any type of literature on campus, however they cannot prohibit it simply because it is religious.

...The Right to pray and have religious discussion. You have the right to engage in individual or group prayer and religious discussion during the school day. You may read your Bible or other Scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray before tests.

...The Right to express your religious beliefs in school assignments. You may express your beliefs about religion in the form of homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free of discrimination based on the religious content.

...The Right to display religious messages on items of clothing. You may wear Christian T-shirts, buttons, etc. Religious messages may not be singled out for suppression.

...The Right to have prayer and worship services on campus. If the school permits non-curriculum related student clubs to meet on campus, they may not refuse access to your student religious group.

...The Right to publicize religious meetings. You have the right to announce your religious club meetings including using the public address system, the school newspaper, and the school bulletin board just like other student groups.

During my 30 years teaching, I was often expected to lead my classes in the Pledge of Allegiance, but never thought much about it until
students of several religious groups demurred, saying they were taught not to pledge to or show obeisance to anything but the deity.
They objected to the flag as icon. When the words "under God" were added, I objected to the forceful injection of religion into public schools. Teachers were told they could merely permit the students to rise and either recite with the loudspeaker voice, or remain silent.
Still I felt it was not the government's role to attempt to institute belief or non-belief in God. I believe religious faith is a personal matter and should be tolerated but not promulgated by the state.

I agree with the justices of the Court of Appeals that the Pledge violates the constitution.

This is another example of someone suing because they have nothing better to do, and because they do not have enough faith in their own influence as a parent over their child. If someone is worried that their child will adapt a religion because of two words uttered in what becomes a routine, monotonous event at the beginning of a school day, he needs to spend more time with his kid explaining his own beliefs and how to co-exist with others that think differently.

If, and he should never be, successful with the currency, the gov't ought to make as part of the ruling, that the originator of the suit must cover all expenses incurr to create, print, distribute, destroy EACH and EVERY piece of currency that exists before they can claim victory.

Chad, when you say "God does not indicate a specific religion, it is a word chosen to represent the deities of all religions." you miss the point. It was instituted as a strictly Christian addendum, just as the all-seeing-eye on the back of your dollar bill is a Masonic mystic symbol, and the eagle has roots in the heraldry and pagan traditions of Rome. Not all religions have a supreme diety, and not all people follow a religion.
Many people object at least as strongly to saying something against their beliefs as certain citizens who would choke upon being forced to say a phrase like "the nation under Clinton's leadership" or "under Bush."

I personally think that a lot of the original reason for separation of church and state had to do with the way the formation of the Anglican Church consolodated all power in Henry VIII. Given the other checks and balances in the framing documents, I suspect that the real issue was how to avoid a despot claiming divine inspiration usurping the body of law, or a possible future ascension by fiat of a Pope or popelike figure.

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut http://www.muellersatomics.com/