Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Appeals Court says 'Under God' Not a Prayer
The federal court that touched off a furor in 2002 by declaring the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to be an unconstitutional endorsement of religion took another look at the issue Thursday and said the phrase invokes patriotism, not religious faith.
The dissenting judge, Stephen Reinhardt, said statements by members of Congress who added "under God" to the pledge in 1954 show conclusively that it was intended to "indoctrinate our nation's children with a state-held religious belief." The daily schoolroom ritual is not a prayer, but instead "a
recognition of our founders' political philosophy that a power greater
than the government gives the people their inalienable rights," said
the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in a 2-1
ruling.
"Thus, the pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect."
The dissenting judge, Stephen Reinhardt, said statements by members of Congress who added "under God" to the pledge in 1954 show conclusively that it was intended to "indoctrinate our nation's children with a state-held religious belief."
In a separate ruling, the same panel upheld the use of the national motto, "In God We Trust," on coins and currency. The language is patriotic and ceremonial, not religious, the court said. Reinhardt reluctantly joined the 3-0 decision, saying he was bound by the court's newly established precedent in the pledge case.
Atheist sued
Both suits were filed by Michael Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who has brought numerous challenges to government-sponsored religious invocations. He said he would appeal the rulings to the full appellate court and the U.S. Supreme Court, but was not optimistic.
The rulings sent two messages, Newdow said: "To be a real American, you believe in God, and the judiciary unfortunately sometimes can't be trusted to uphold our constitutional rights when you're a disenfranchised minority."
Former Justice Department lawyer Gregory Katsas, who represented the Bush administration in the pledge case when the court heard it in 2007, heard a different message: that "one nation, under God" suggests a government that "is limited and bound to respect individual rights."
Swift reaction
Newdow first challenged the Pledge of Allegiance in 2000 on behalf of his daughter, a student in a Sacramento-area elementary school. The appeals court ruled in June 2002 that the addition of "under God" was religiously motivated and sent "a message to nonbelievers that they are outsiders," in violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.
Congress reacted furiously, passing a resolution with virtually no dissenting votes that denounced the decision. The court put its ruling on hold until the case reached the Supreme Court, which sidestepped the constitutional issue and ruled that Newdow could not represent his daughter's interests because her mother had legal custody.
Newdow then refiled the suit on behalf of the parent of a kindergartner in the Sacramento suburb of Rio Linda. He won the first round before a federal judge in 2005, but a new appeals court panel issued a 193-page ruling Thursday upholding the pledge.
Pledge isn't prayer
In the majority opinion, Judge Carlos Bea acknowledged that "the words 'under God' have religious significance," but said they do not "convert the pledge into a prayer."
The 1954 law that added those words at the height of the Cold War was meant to convey the idea of a limited government, "in stark contrast to the unlimited power exercised by communist forms of government," said Bea, joined by Judge Dorothy Nelson. "Congress' ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism."
Reinhardt, a member of the 2002 panel that found the language unconstitutional, said Thursday's majority ignored overwhelming evidence of religious motivation by the 1954 Congress.
He cited statements by numerous lawmakers denouncing atheistic communism and declaring a belief in God to be part of the American way of life. Reinhardt also pointed to President Dwight Eisenhower's signing statement that millions of schoolchildren would now proclaim "the dedication of our nation and its people to the Almighty."
During the same period, Reinhardt said, Congress adopted "In God We Trust" as the national motto, ordered it inscribed on paper money and established an annual National Prayer Breakfast.
By inserting religious language into the pledge, Reinhardt said, "we abandoned our historic principle that secular matters were for the state and matters of faith were for the church."
The ruling can be viewed at links.sfgate.com/ZJJF.
105 Comments so far
Show AllAny time I see a coin, I think of Matt. 22:21 and 6:24 and wonder whether it is even possible to be both a Christian and a US citizen.
Exactly how I feel, Nobody. Not to mention the throwing out of the money changers and the story of how hard it is for a rich man to get into heaven, Jesus repeatedly teaches that earthly riches are an impediment to moral virtue and heavenly rewards. But maybe those parts aren't in the "Cliffs Notes" version of the Bible that some folks seem to be using.
Irregardless of you original intent, you might not want to lean too heavily on the money changers fable. There is an alternative interpetation of the story's intent that clears up some glaring incongruities and makes far more sense in it's historical context, significantly altering it's lesson.
Do tell.
Gary
"The truth that makes us free is always ticking away like a time-bomb in the basement of everybody’s church."
-- Robert Farrar Capon
Yes please. I'd like to hear how the religious types have spun this tale of Christ into something that allows them to seek the rewards of earthly pleasures.
Nevertheless, once one has expressed a capacity for believing fairy tales and invisible friends, these are strong indicators that believers will believe anything they are told.
I could be wrong here, but as I recall, it wasn't MONEY that Jesus objected to, it was the money that had the image of Caesar upon it entering into the temple. Money was not the impediment you speak of, but rather putting the value of money above the value of service to humanity. Yes indeed, stay away from those "Cliffs Notes".
The words "under God" in the pledge should not bother anyone . too much. What should bother us is whether we are living up to that philosophy in this nation. If we really think that means anything, then we better start cleaning up our society and our government fast.
IMHO you can look at using that phrase in exactly the opposite way you do. It can be equally reasoned that we are one nation under god, so what ever we do is gods will. No need to change anything.
Thats the problem with using god in pretty much anything. If a god does exists he/she/it takes any and all sides in anyones beliefs. God supports both sides in a war, while never saying exactly the same thing to anyone. Heck depending on what culture you were born into you will call him by different names and hold different beliefs on who he/she/it is does or is supposed to do/have done.
How about demolishing the belief that the states are "indivisible" and render this nonsense completely irrelevant?
Actually, the insertion of "under God" did a lot to render "indivisible" moot. It certainly ruined the intent of the author of the Pledge.
The author of the pledge was a socialist Baptist minister.
His intent was to instill blind loyalty to the state - not god.
The man was obviously very confused.
The original pledge, created for a one time celebration, the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus discovery of America (admittedly misguided but hey, it was 1892):
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
You might be overstating just a tad?
nope.
Francis Bellamy was confused.
as was/is the Supreme Court:
In 1940 the Supreme Court, in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, ruled that students in public schools could be compelled to swear the Pledge, even Jehovah's Witnesses like the defendants in that case who considered the flag salute to be idolatry. A rash of mob violence and intimidation against Jehovah's Witnesses followed the ruling. In 1943 the Supreme Court reversed its decision, ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that "compulsory unification of opinion" violated the First Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#History
"His intent was to instill blind loyalty to the state - not god."
This is what I've been reacting to. I don't know where this was coming from. Nothing I've read of his supports this.
I think you're missing my point. The pledge was only meant to be used for one occasion. He lamented seeing it codifed, manipulated, rephrased and misinterpreted inverse to his original intentions.
Thank you for at least saying more than he "was confused". That alone wasn't particularly constructive.
Bellamy was a Christian Socialist - two compatible philosophies.
I maintain that he was confused about the difference between the State and the Community. I can also see the Joe's Witness's point. It is needless idolatry and indoctrination. Allegiance, as respect, needs to be earned.
I was confused as a six-year old immigrant kid in 1954 when they banned prayer in school and added the under-god to the pledge. I wasn't even sure what allegiance meant. I knew about loyalty.
I never took this particular rote recital to heart and mimed it mostly.
I don't need a nationality to know who I am or where my faith and trust lie.
Jesus H. Christ !!
Well put.
What does the "H" stand for, Hussein?
"Holy", I believe :-)
harry.
honky
I thought his name was Jesus F*cking Christ. At least, that was what my old man would yell when he was pissed off.
It should be emphasized, more than this article does, that "under God" and "in God we Trust" are relics of the 1950's red-scare days.
Growing up a Catholic in the 1960's that is the one thing they beat into our heads the most. the nuns would scream: "The godless communists are athiests!" And this, for some reason, was supposed to scare the holy bejeesus out of us - far more than the purported communist's bombs and the duck-and cover drills.
The bombs always scared me a lot more, and for some reason, I feared all the bombs on both sides - a nuclear bomb was a nuclear bomb as far as my 6-year old mind was concerned.
I'm not sure, but I think the "In God We Trust" has a long history on our coinage, going back to LIncoln's time at least. I know there was a hullabaloo in the early 1900's when, for artistic reasons, "In God We Trust" was left off a coin. Eventually it got put back on.
"In God We Trust" was on the coins before it became the official national motto in the 50's.
pjd412
Very well said as I went through the same thing during that time period when the penguins attempted [and generally succeeded] to foister their religious beliefs upon myself and other young children who were basically held captive for eight hours by these odd creatures wearing those strange habits. About six weeks ago I became involved in a bizarre discussion. While walking to my car which was parked at a mall in a small Pacific Northwest town, I saw a stocky man about forty looking at my bumper stickers on my car. He said that he liked my anti-government and no war stickers but disagreed about my universal health care sticker. I attempted to explain to him that the United States is the only advanced country in the world where 45,000 of its citizens die because they are unable to obtain adequate health care. But it was what I imagine being on a Fox "News" program might be like as all he kept talking about was how the communists and atheists [supposedly] rule Europe with an iron hand. It was at that point, after the discussion had proceeded for about fifteen long, agonizing minutes, that I finally realized that all intelligent discourse came to a halt regarding this libertarian individual as I was unable to grasp what communists and atheists had to do with universal health care.
Perhaps this is why the leaders of this country are so opposed to UHC as they may somehow fear that if a universal health care system were finally implemented in this country, then the end result would be the take over of the United States by those godless communists. Certainly they would not be concerned with the possibility that their pockets would no longer be lined with donations from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Or could they?
If ever you can watch a copy of Frank Perry's chilling 1963 film "Ladybug, Ladybug", it will remind you of the fear and paranoia you were taught as a youngster.
Alas, though I contend that this film was Oscar material, the movie was quickly buried so as to not upset the carefully crafted menace of communism.
I'll look for the movie.
I especially remember Mrs. Costello - a Cuban emigre' teacher who used to regale us with long tirades on the evil Fidel Castro, who wanted to personally kill us all - the same way fully grown adults told me Saddam wanted to kill me 40 years later.
The Principal, Sr. Rita was the "good nun", and fiery, red-faced Sr. Bernadette was the "bad nun" in their good nun/bad nun tactic to keep the kids in line. They winked Mrs. Costello's behavior.
Layton Hall (public) Elementary School across the road from our school and church, was simply called "the protestant school", and we were discouraged from making friends with any of the kids there.
And oh! I will never forget the weeping and wailing from the entire school staff when the news arrived on that afternoon of November 22, 1963! Kennedy was first and foremost, Our Catholic President.
Of course, I got all this anti-communist ranting from my father when I got home too. When the evening TV news hit about that famous 1964 New York blackout, I remember my father shouting "It's the communists! It's the communists!
I got a similar education in the public school as you did in the Catholic school. There was an Episcopalian school, St. Monica's, down the street from my elementary public school. (That was close enough to Catholic for those of us who were raised in Dallas, Texas in the 1950s-60s). We were urged by our parents and teachers to shun those Catholics, er Episcopalians because they wanted to overpopulate the world so that they could take it over. They all had such big families, you see. :-)
While there was shock when JFK was assasinated, the general feeling about him in Dallas was that he was the pope's puppet and that Nixon was the favored candidate. While historians say he drew a large crowd that November day in Dallas, I don't remember my teachers and neighbors being all that fond of him. Actually, he was bitterly hated by many in that town. I was only 13 years old, but that is how I remember it.
There was indeed some real racism against Catholics in the old days.
There were whole boroughs (incorporated towns) and neighborhoods around Pittsburgh where Catholics were banned. No Dagos, micks, polacks, bohunks, or krauts (catholic southern ones anyway) - only "real" USAns. Still almost no spicks or wets in Pittsburgh. Lots of joooz though...
pjd, I certainly wasn't aware that this (relatively recent addition of God in the Pledge and on currency) was the case. It makes sense when you consider it, though, separating ourselves from communists using God as the divining rod.
How many Americans slog through their miserable lives sustained only be the reward of heaven? How many slaves struggled in the cotton fields singing songs of salvation?
Take away the possibility of rewards in the afterlife and people just might decide to do something serious about THIS life.
I agree with "pjd" that multitudes have wasted their lives believing that something better awaited them as they suffered in silence. How many battered women, underpaid workers, and victims of discrimination might have tried to change their circumstances? How much sooner would civil rights have come to peoples all over the world?
No one believes you when you try to point out that "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. Where I live you would more likely be forgiven for being an ax murderer than an atheist (as long as you ask for the almighty's mercy). Many folks believe that religion makes better people of us but it doesn't hold up. Studies show that church attendees are no more ethical than the rest of us.
Yes, religion is the opiate of the masses, when they aren't watching reality TV. The people who get off their butts and try to improve their government rather than idolize it, are the true patriots.
"Yes, religion is the opiate of the masses"
In all fairness, Marx meant something very different than what is exprssed in this common misquote: Here is what he actually wrote - remember that he was using "Opium" in its common usage of the day as a "painkiller" rather than "harmful addictive substance""
"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."
- Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
I pledge allegiance to the United Sports Utility Vehicle
of Der Father- der Home Land of the Fee
Home Land of Wage Slavery
Land of Tidy White Bestiality
This Land of Pre-Ordained Brutality
This Land of Hyper-Tense Entreprenurial Mentality
===============
The Flag of the Corporate States of America
By Charles Sullivan
...
Far too many Americans are so thoroughly indoctrinated in popular myths and propaganda that they are unable to recognize reality when they see it. They desperately need to cling to the absurd myths conjured by our rulers and deny the most criminal and unethical behavior upon which this nation was founded. Aided by a bogus educational system, we then contort them into virtue. Thus, murderers and robber barons are celebrated as self made industrialists who built America into a world class power. But as Thoreau stated, “Any truth is better than make believe.”
Unlike the majority of my fellow citizens, I do not take pride in the American flag. I do not get choked up when I see ‘old glory’ flapping in the breeze. My understanding of American history does not permit such unfounded patriotic stirrings. Too many atrocities have been committed under the flag for me to see any beauty in it, especially under the Bush regime. Indeed, seeing the flag often flushes me with shame and regret. I refuse to pledge allegiance to any flag. However, I pledge to live by a credo of social justice that does not recognize national borders. We are all one big family.
Historian Howard Zinn wrote, “There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.” I am inclined to agree.
For most Americans the flag stirs elements of sentimentality and reverence. It is celebrated as a symbol of freedom and democracy, the triumph of justice over injustice; good over evil. But symbols of noble ideals vanish into the mist when one critically examines the historical evidence. Millions of innocent people have died under the flag, including those who have carried it into battle in the belief that they were fighting for something nobler than corporate profits (see USMC General Smedley Butler’s 1933 essay “War is a Racket).”
To me the flag symbolizes much that is wrong with America. The flag is used as another clever marketing ploy against the people to manipulate and to control them, selling them a fictionalized version of history. The flag has been used, like the idea of patriotism, to motivate men to commit horrible crimes against earth and humankind. Rather than conjuring images of freedom and peace in my mind, it portrays the darkest side of human nature such as conquest, invasion and occupation. It reveals a litany of crimes against nature and humanity that I cannot dismiss from memory. Critical thinking demands that one weigh the evidence and draw one’s own conclusions based upon the facts, whether they contradict our preconceived notions or not.
...
Every day the madmen who are running the government are planning new horrors, an endless litany of death and mayhem to be committed in our name for corporate profits. So forgive me if I do not pledge allegiance to the flag of the corporate states of America...
Some Comments are worthy of article status, and this (by mcoyote) is one of them.
The real 'article' here, that is, the news it conveys, is offensive to me and probably to any thinking person. If "God" is so ubiquitous as to be part of our patriotism or some cultural commonality, test it by substituting another faith-based entity as in "one nation, under Hobbits" (we all 'believe" LOTR, don't we?) or "In Fairies We Trust" (there was a believed-for-a-while British photograph, after all!).
Belief cannot be compelled anyway; societal pressure can only force external compliance and has the disadvantage of making more hypocrites in a world already full of them. Forcing people into statements and actions regarding belief is, let's face it, rather Inquisitional, isn't it.
Clinging to religious mantras is just one more example of the dishonesty employed by the morally bankrupt governors of this nation to give illusion that the US as a political entity is something other than what it truly is; an expression of capitalist empire.
What "under God" really does is to separate nonbelievers from the rest of Americans. The same with the "In God we trust" nonsense on coins. No, "we" don't trust in God. Nonbelievers are not part of that "we."
All of this is fine with me. I do not connect with other American values of consumerism, dog-eat-dog capitalism, xenophobia, exceptionalism, and militarism, so national piety is just another empty virtue that holds no value. Still, I wonder what impact the "under God" has on young children of nonreligious households who are required to say the Pledge" at school every day. Do they imagine there is something wrong with their family that God-talk doesn't happen? I guess the judge of the case has decided it makes no difference. Plain to see where Judge Carlos Bea comes from.
Plain to see where Judge Carlos Bea comes from
---------------------
Born in Spain, grew up in Battista's Cuba, appointed by BushCo. Dollars to donuts he's another RC fundy.
"The 1954 law that added those words at the height of the Cold War was meant to convey the idea of a limited government, in stark contrast to the unlimited power exercised by communist forms of government," said Bea, joined by Judge Dorothy Nelson. "Congress' ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism."
These nonsequiturs are typical of the religious-fanatic right wing in Amerikkka where nonsense and circular arguments rule the day.
If god is omnipresent, then how is it possible that we can be under him/her/it? Sorry, but as long as we are commenting on absurdity, i am compelled to remain on topic.
God is an absurdity.
I'm inclined to agree, but then I think in wonder at the stunning improbability of a universe arising with physical laws that allow the existince of, say, kitty cats (like my dearly departed Buddhi) and other things too.
Sure there is the "Anthropic principle", but somehow this tautological explanation doesn't quite hack it with me.
Why is it improbable?
Theoretical physicists have always remarked that at the instant of the big bang, the universe had to have "picked" only one of 10^(10^123) possible states (i.e a 1 with 10^123 zeros after it - far more zeros than all the subatomic particles in the universe) to be in the live-supporting thermodynamic state that we see it in. (Penrose, 1989)
One way to explain this is the "weak" anthropic principle, which just says that if it were any different, we wouldn't be existing to ask the question why the universe is so configured as to allow us to exist. This certainty explains it, but in a rather unsatisfying tautological way. But, saying a supreme being directed it seems unsatisfying too.
"...why the universe is so configured as to allow us to exist"
I think you may be holding on to the wrong end of the rope here. It's a common problem with these kinds of arguments. Consider this; we exist because the universe is so configured. An alternate universal state might create a very different life concept which might also have the capacity to revel in the mystery of it's uniqueness.
I don't mean to sound condescending. I imagine this has occurred to you.
But even if we presume the multiverse theory (which I quite like), we're still stuck with the question: where did they all come from? The theoreticians' answer "that's a meaningless noise, they just *are*" is as unsatisfactory as any mediaeval scholastic's "God dunnit".
This is surely something we don't want to get into in depth, especially here. I just want to be clear on these points you bring up and then I'll leave you alone.
I wasn't, and I don't believe the OP for this thread were referring to or needed to refer to simultaneous universes (appealing to me too) as necessary to make the point. We could merely exist on a vector that, for the sake of argument, may be all there is. If this vector had taken a different direction...
Physics is no longer claiming "it just is". There is more evidence developing about "something from nothing". Don't fall into the cause and effect trap. That concept is becoming more and more difficult to support.
As you say, this is probably not the best thread to get into this, but I was struck by your last para:
--------------------
Physics is no longer claiming "it just is". There is more evidence developing about "something from nothing". Don't fall into the cause and effect trap. That concept is becoming more and more difficult to support.
--------------------
If an acausal "something from nothing" isn't a repackaging of "it just is", possibly with more shiny bits to appeal to our jackdaw-brains, I can't imagine what it could be.
This is an older book (10+ yrs) that, at the time, could only begin to touch on newer revelations but I remember it being accessible (it's been quite a while). I'm not claiming this covers everything we've been dealing with but it may be a place to start if your interested.
The Matter Myth: Dramatic Discoveries That Challenge Our Understanding Of Physical Reality / Paul Davies and John Gribbin.
At my public library. Hope it's at yours.
Gone for good. The End (depending on your belief system).
We exist because the universe is so configured.
Exactly, you are just stating a variation of the weak anthropic principle - which still remains rather circular and tautological.
And the that one in 10^(10^123) that Penrose speculated on does not refer to possible alternate universes with different fantastical physical laws, but just a consideration of ordinary thermodynamics and entropy. Live can exist today because the big bang exhibited extraordinary low levels of entropy which allowed energy to be in a useful form for the long evolution of stars and life. it is similar to the the old talk about the extremely low but nonzero probability of all gas molecules released into a corner of a room staying in that corner of the room.
In humorous form, this was the basis of Douglas Adam's "infinite improbability drive" for starships, and the presence of the highly improbable babelfish being the clinching proof of the non-existence of God.