9th Circuit Affirms "In God We Trust," and "under God"

I wonder if Obama will pick a fight with the 9th Circuit, on top of his attacking the Supremes? Elections have consequences. A Bush appointee wrote the majority opinion.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who said the references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs.

Judge Carlos Bea, who was appointed by Bush in 2003, wrote for the majority in Thursday's 2-1 ruling.

"The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded," he said.

Bea noted that schools do not require students to recite the pledge, which was amended to include the words "under God" by a 1954 federal law. Members of Congress at the time said they wanted to set the United States apart from "godless communists."

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who was part of the three-judge panel that ruled in Newdow's favor eight years ago, wrote a 123-page dissent to the 60-page majority opinion.

Comments

[BR]

"The policy of the emperors and the senate, as far as it concerned religion, was happily seconded by the reflections of the enlightened, and by the habits of the superstitious, part of their subjects. The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord."

~ Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. I, ch. II.

[Live Free Or Die]

"...infringe on his religious beliefs.", Said the Atheist. One would need a religion in order to have his/her religious beliefs infringed upon. The religion of 'There Is No Such Thing As God' continues to attempt to push their religion on those that are of a different faith. Call the ACLU!

[buckjohnson]

Live Free or Die..Do you really believe that, or is that just some lingo you are spouting. Because that motto's history is based on religious freedom, not religious dogma. A truly religious person does not need writing on a bill to affirm their belief.

[ghostx]

http://www.quincynews.org/local-news/pledge.html

You should send that ruling to these Sen Durbin funded asshats

[SacTownMan]

Bucky, Bucky, Bucky, always with the negative waves!!

I met Newdow a couple of years ago in a Sacramento area grocery store. I recognised his sorry ass from pictures in the local paper (yea the loser is a local). I told him then that I hoped his "quest" to push his warped assed views on the majority in this country would fail and that he would piss away lots of money doing so.

Payback is a bitch Dr. Moonbat!!

[Live Free Or Die]

buckjohnson, I do not need writing on currency to affirm my faith, I desire to keep the term, 'In God We Trust' on currency because of my lack of trust in Gov't. 'Live Free Or Die' is part of a written toast, by Gen. John Stark, to Bennington veterans hoping he would attend a reunion/commemoration. He sent his regrets, due to aged, poor health, along with the exhortation, "Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils" It was not religious in nature, it was an admonition to beware of the slavery to tyranny, 'the worst of evils'.
Atheists have freedom of their 'religion', but they seek to force it on everyone else via legal challenge in court. Their 'religion' is promulgated vigorously in academia, yet they find faith in God so contemptible, they attack it in court. Losers.

[BR]

Once you start down the road to irrationality, crack-ups are inevitable:

>Tea parties stir evangelicals' fearshttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34291.html

[alwaysfiredup]

I love how the dissent debases itself by asserting that Sarah Palin did not know when the pledge was written.

http://volokh.com/2010/03/11/judge-reinhardts-dig-on-sarah-palin/

That's just pathetic.

[crosspatch]

I don't think people really understand the point of the references to God in our political foundation. The idea is that our rights are not given to us by man, they are given to us by God. Man didn't give us our rights and so man can not take them away. That there is something above which no man can rise is the point.

[buckjohnson]

lfod, I got that quote from Scalia.