New York Times
Half a century ago, at the height of anti-Communist fervor, Congress added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. It was a petty attempt to link patriotism with religious piety, to distinguish us from the godless Soviets. But after millions of repetitions over the years, the phrase has become part of the backdrop of American life, just like the words "In God We Trust" on our coins and "God bless America" uttered by presidents at the end of important speeches.
Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in California ruled 2 to 1 that those words in the pledge violate the First Amendment, which says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The majority sided with Michael Newdow, who had complained that his daughter is injured when forced to listen to public school teachers lead students daily in a pledge that includes the assertion that there is a God.
This is a well-meaning ruling, but it lacks common sense. A generic two-word reference to God tucked inside a rote civic exercise is not a prayer. Mr. Newdow's daughter is not required to say either the words "under God" or even the pledge itself, as the Supreme Court made clear in a 1943 case involving Jehovah's Witnesses. In the pantheon of real First Amendment concerns, this one is off the radar screen.
The practical impact of the ruling is inviting a political backlash for a matter that does not rise to a constitutional violation. We wish the words had not been added back in 1954. But just the way removing a well-lodged foreign body from an organism may sometimes be more damaging than letting it stay put, removing those words would cause more harm than leaving them in. ...
Most important, the ruling trivializes the critical constitutional issue of separation of church and state. There are important battles to be fought virtually every year over issues of prayer in school and use of government funds to support religious activities. Yesterday's decision is almost certain to be overturned on appeal. But the sort of rigid overreaction that characterized it will not make genuine defense of the First Amendment any easier.
Washington Post
In the many battles over how high the church-state wall should be, there has always been a certain category of official invocations of God that has gone untouched. Legislative prayer has been upheld by the Supreme Court, for example. Court sessions begin by asking that "God save this honorable court." America's national motto says "In God We Trust." And the Pledge of Allegiance, since 1954, has described this country as "One nation under God, indivisible." At least it did until yesterday -- when a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the words "under God" as an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment.
If the court were writing a parody, rather than deciding an actual case, it could hardly have produced a more provocative holding than striking down the Pledge of Allegiance while this country is at war. We believe in strict separation between church and state, but the pledge is hardly a particular danger spot crying out for judicial policing. And having a court strike it down can only serve to generate unnecessary political battles and create a fundraising bonanza for the many groups who will rush to its defense. Oh, yes, it can also invite a reversal, and that could mean establishing a precedent that sanctions a broader range of official religious expression than the pledge itself. ...
As Judge Ferdinand Fernandez pointed out in dissent, the establishment clause tolerates quite a few instances of "ceremonial deism": Is it okay to sing "God Bless America" or "America the Beautiful" at official events? Is American currency unconstitutional? The answer must be, as Judge Fernandez argues, that in certain expressions "it is obvious that [the] tendency to establish religion in this country or to interfere with the free exercise (or non-exercise) of religion is de minimis." Amen.
San Diego Union-Tribune
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has issued any number of outrageous rulings over the years, but none more so than its declaration yesterday that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.
It came in a case brought by a Sacramento atheist, Michael Newdow, who objected that the school district in which his second-grade daughter was enrolled encouraged students to recite the pledge.
If the ruling by a three-judge panel is allowed to stand, if it is not nullified by either the U.S. Supreme Court or Congress, schoolchildren may no longer recite the pledge in California and the eight other states covered by the court.
Reaction to the ruling was almost universally critical, with Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives questioning the 2-to-1 decision. ...
The appeals court, based in San Francisco, objected to the pledge because the phrase "one nation under God" was added by Congress in 1954. In the two-judge majority's tortured wisdom, the phrase amounts to a government endorsement of religion, in violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state. ...
The ruling by the 9th Circuit panel may be cheered by Newdow and others who would remove any hint of religion from the public arena. But we suspect most Americans -- religious and not so -- find the appeal court's decision too extreme to their liking.
San Francisco Chronicle
Common sense was trumped by to doctrinaire thinking in a court ruling barring the Pledge of Allegiance from including the phrase "under God."
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco wants the 31-word pledge trimmed of the two-word mention of God, which was added to the pledge by Congress in 1954.
Because the deity is mentioned, even generically, the pledge crosses the line separating church and state, the appellate court declared.
"None of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," wrote Judge Alfred Goodwin, who saw no distinction, for example, between the phrase "one nation under God" and "one nation under Jesus" or "one nation under Vishnu."
We disagree. This country's founders were wise to build a wall between church and state. No set of religious beliefs should have sway over others in a democracy built on the values of pluralism.
But the appellate court exceeds the bounds of rationality. Its proscription of the pledge because of two words -- cast in an amorphous way -- makes a mockery of the very serious issue of encroachment of religion on public policy in this nation. ...
Constitutional rights, while sacred, are not absolute. They provide room for reason. The First Amendment does not offer a right to shout ""fire!'' in a crowded theater. And the separation of church and state should not preclude Americans from reciting the pledge of allegiance.
Portland Oregonian
A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a firecracker on Wednesday, well in advance of the Fourth of July. It ignited a predictable blaze of protest across the country.
To understand the outrage -- cries of "Absurd! Ridiculous! Unbelievable!" -- just think of it this way: The court, in effect, declared that America's own Pledge of Allegiance is unAmerican.
The pledge, which many Americans go years without reciting, or mangle when they try, is not innocuous enough to please the panel. OK, that's not entirely fair. The court ruled that the pledge violates the Constitutional separation of church and state. It's contaminated by one toxic reference to God.
That reference to one nation, "under God," was inserted into the pledge in 1954 as a symbolic swipe against godless communism. ...
The court held that to recite the pledge was to profess allegiance to "unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and (since 1954) monotheism." Really?
This will come as a surprise to most Americans who have recited the pledge recently. ...
For the moment, this ruling has provoked some political mischief, an entertaining history lesson and more reverent reciting of the pledge than the pledge has seen in years. It's been interesting to watch. But we predict it will be about as lasting and significant in its effects as a July 4th sparkler.
Los Angeles Times
A panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled 2 to 1 that the Pledge of Allegiance -- you know, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America ... " -- is unconstitutional. And the reason? Because of the phrase "under God" inserted by Congress 48 years ago.
The court said an atheist or holder of non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see these words as an endorsement of monotheism, even though students can opt out. ...
It's a fundamentally silly ruling, which deserves to be tossed out ...
The appeal should come swiftly. God willing, it will.
New York Post
Where's a San Francisco earthquake when you really need one?
That's what most Americans must have been thinking yesterday, when a panel of judges on the notoriously -- nay, outlandishly -- leftist 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, sitting out by the Golden Gate Bridge, declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.
If the ruling stands, schoolchildren in the nine western states of the 9th Circuit won't be reciting the pledge again.
Naturally, the problem revolves around those two words "under God," which Congress added to the pledge back in 1954.
And that, says Judge Alfred Goodwin, writing for a 2-1 majority, "impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God."
Oh, please. ...
The Pledge of Allegiance is an easily digested version of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution -- which in turn proceed from the great documents, ideas and traditions of Western civilization, tracing back to the ancients.
There are people who hate and fear those ideas -- who, indeed, hate and fear America -- and they have done very well for themselves in American courtrooms in recent decades.
This speaks well of America.
Because, for example, it is impossible to imagine the culture with which America is now at war tolerating a comparable assault upon its iconography. Radical Islam deals swift death to unbelievers.
In that light, we hope this obnoxious court finding is overturned on appeal.
But if it isn't, America will survive.
Just kidding about the earthquake, by the way.
(Compiled by United Press International)
