I'm wondering if "In God We Trust" (which is supposed to be on all monies)
will be next?

Ray Shahan

"Life is what happens while you're busy making plans", John Lennon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wirt Atmar [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 4:06 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      OT: Red meat for the group :-).
>
> From the Associated Press (posted at 1524 EDT):
>
> =======================================
>
> SAN FRANCISCO (June 26) - 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 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 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.
>
> 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.
>
> =======================================
>
> Wirt Atmar
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *