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 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."
First question--what changed? If the court decided in 2002 that the words "under God" were unconstitutional, why would they now be seen as not preferential to religion? (My bet: what a difference a few Republican judicial appointments make!)
Second question, and nearer to my heathen heart--exactly how is "under God" supposedly an invocation of patriotism, not faith?
If the words were, "One nation, which is completely awesome," that would be patriotism. But "One nation, under God," presupposes two religious claims right off the bat. It maintains that there is a God, which probably most but not all Americans would agree with (and some would put in for there being possibly several). And also, if we assume that "under God" means something like "which God approves of," that, my dears, is another theological argument entirely, which has been questioned by such illustrious pastors as Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps. And some even less illustrious pastors, too, but you'd have to beat the bushes for them.
But "under God" doesn't seem to mean "which God approves of". It would seem, by using the preposition "under", that the US is subject to the rule of God, and asserts that one God as if all US citizens are also subjects of that God.
It seems to me like expecting someone to go along with the statement that this country is under God might be troublesome for both nonbelievers, and some believers, just by virtue of being a definite statement about the nature of this country with respect to a possible deity. I don't find this ruling an especially good call. I also have my doubts about the "In God we Trust" on our currency. In God I don't! In the Federal Reserve, perhaps we should, if we're using cash.
I personally recite the pledge without saying "under God", myself. I'm loyal to a certain democratically formed federal republic--not a theocracy.
2 comments:
Apparently "under God" was added in the 50s to distinguish America from the godless commies. Given that it was an addition, I don't see why it can't be removed. And you're right, that argument about it not being religious is ridiculous.
Yeah, this was a headshaker. As you suspect the lead judge, Carlos Bea, was appointed by GW Bush in 2003 and was not around during the 2002 ruling. The other two, one concurring and one dissenting, were appointed by Carter.
This is just a panel ruling, not the complete court. That will come in a year or so, assuming Michael Newdow files an appeal as he said he will and he is very tenacious.
After the full court rules it will set up an interesting case for the Supreme Court, because both sides will likely appeal whatever the full 9th says. After the 2002 ruling the SCOTUS punted, ruling that plaintiff did not have standing rather than address the issue.
It will be fascinating to see if the so-called "strict constructionists" find submission to a god in the Constitution; they certainly wanted no part of that question the last time.
Post a Comment