AmericanWannabe
Registered Users (C)
Does it make any difference in the natualization ceremony in the
states covered by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals?
Wed Jun 26, 3:24 PM ET By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - For the first time ever, a federal appeals court
Wednesday declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of
the words "under God" added by Congress in 1954.
The ruling, if allowed to stand, means schoolchildren can no longer recite
the pledge, at least in the nine Western states covered by the court.
In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ( news - web
sites) said the phrase amounts to a government endorsement of religion in
violation of the Constitution\'s Establishment Clause, which requires a
separation of church and state.
"A profession that we are a nation `under God\' is identical, for
Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that 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," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel.
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.
"We are certainly considering seeking further review in the matter,"
Justice Department ( news - web sites) lawyer Robert Loeb said.
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 ( news - web sites).
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.
"I\'m an American citizen. I don\'t like my rights infringed upon by my
government," he said in an interview. Newdow 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 wrote
that "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 court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said students cannot hold
religious invocations at graduations and cannot be compelled to recite the
pledge. But when the pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who
objects is confronted with an "unacceptable choice between participating
and protesting," the appeals court said.
"Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the
pledge, 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 court said.
states covered by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals?
Wed Jun 26, 3:24 PM ET By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - For the first time ever, a federal appeals court
Wednesday declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of
the words "under God" added by Congress in 1954.
The ruling, if allowed to stand, means schoolchildren can no longer recite
the pledge, at least in the nine Western states covered by the court.
In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ( news - web
sites) said the phrase amounts to a government endorsement of religion in
violation of the Constitution\'s Establishment Clause, which requires a
separation of church and state.
"A profession that we are a nation `under God\' is identical, for
Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that 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," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel.
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.
"We are certainly considering seeking further review in the matter,"
Justice Department ( news - web sites) lawyer Robert Loeb said.
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 ( news - web sites).
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.
"I\'m an American citizen. I don\'t like my rights infringed upon by my
government," he said in an interview. Newdow 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 wrote
that "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 court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said students cannot hold
religious invocations at graduations and cannot be compelled to recite the
pledge. But when the pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who
objects is confronted with an "unacceptable choice between participating
and protesting," the appeals court said.
"Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the
pledge, 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 court said.
Last edited by a moderator: