# Courts finally get it right, re: the pledge **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 26, 2002, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-finally-get-it-right-re-the-pledge/116087 "2002-06-26T19:06:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Opus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/858c86/32.png) [@Opus1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Opus1)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-finally-get-it-right-re-the-pledge/116087/1 "2002-06-26T19:06:22Z")
So, I see on the news that some appeals court has just ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion due to the phrase “under god.” About time! Ceremonial deism, my ass. If the pledge were to say “One nation, under Jesus Christ,” there would be no doubt whatsoever that it’s unconstitutional. I guess some judges have finally realized that just because “under God” allows Jews and Muslims to say the pledge with a clean conscience doesn’t mean it’s any less exclusionary or less of an official endorsement of religion that my hypothetical “under Jesus.” Of course, I fully expect the conservative Supreme Court to overturn this in a heartbeat, but at least someone has some common sense. ---
**Author:** ![Opus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/858c86/32.png) [@Opus1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Opus1)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-finally-get-it-right-re-the-pledge/116087/2 "2002-06-26T19:12:09Z")
Crap! Meant to put this in GD. Here are some gratuitous cusswords to make this pitworthy: So, I see on the news that some appeals court has just ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion due to the phrase “under god.” About time! Ceremonial deism, my **goatfelching** ass. If the pledge were to say “One nation, under Jesus Christ,” there would be no **fucking** doubt whatsoever that it’s unconstitutional. I guess some judges have finally realized that just because “under God” allows Jews and Muslims to say the pledge with a clean conscience doesn’t mean it’s any less exclusionary or less of an official endorsement of religion that my hypothetical “under Jesus.” Of course, I fully expect the conservative **cuntnuggets** on the Supreme Court to overturn this in a heartbeat, but at least someone has some common sense. ---
**Author:** ![SisterCoyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@SisterCoyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SisterCoyote)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-finally-get-it-right-re-the-pledge/116087/3 "2002-06-26T19:13:49Z")
Why is this in the pit? Seriously. I don’t disagree, although what SCOTUS needs to do is just throw out the phrase “under God.” After all, it wasn’t added until the McCarthy era anyway, and we don’t need it. And let’s work on the money while we’re at it. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-finally-get-it-right-re-the-pledge/116087/4 "2002-06-26T19:15:06Z")
[Helpful link to Yahoo! news.](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20020626/ap_on_re_us/pledge_of_allegiance_4) Finally, a court with some authority recognizes what many people have been saying for years: > [@](#): > > “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. Should this reach the Supreme Court, I don’t expect them to agree (although one never knows – they surprised me with the two recent death penalty rulings), but it’s nice to hear someone say it anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-finally-get-it-right-re-the-pledge/116087/5 "2002-06-26T19:16:42Z")
Agreed. Please see my response to the other thread on this subject [in the thread ivylass beat you by approx. 20 minutes to starting](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=122535). ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-finally-get-it-right-re-the-pledge/116087/6 "2002-06-26T22:17:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Should this reach the Supreme Court, I don’t expect them to agree (although one never knows – they surprised me with the two recent death penalty rulings), but it’s nice to hear someone say it anyway. Were I to bet, I’d bet they’d agree with the ruling. The 1954 addition of “under God” does not have any of the non-religious “ceremonialism” or historical usage that excuses some other mentions of God in the government context. Further, the _Newdow_ opinion (the Ninth Circuit opinion OGRE is talking about), sets forth the legislative history, which makes it clear the intent of the addition of “under God” _was_ to advance religion. I would only add that the ruling dealt specifically with the phrase “under God” and specifically did _not_ rule on the constitutionality of a pledge of allegiance that omitted that phrase, as the original version of our pledge did. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-finally-get-it-right-re-the-pledge/116087/7 "2002-06-26T22:23:37Z")
So any word on the “In God We Trust” crap that currently defaces our currency? That’s always irked me more than the Pledge. Hmmm… why does it not surprise me that this was a Ninth Circuit ruling? Of corse, that’s a strike against being upheld by Rehnquist et al. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2002, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-finally-get-it-right-re-the-pledge/116087/8 "2002-06-26T23:54:15Z")
Hang on, folks, I’m about to move this thread, cuss words and all. Lynn ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2002, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/courts-finally-get-it-right-re-the-pledge/116087/9 "2002-06-27T02:30:13Z")
[Moderator Hat ON] Locking this since we already have one thread on the PoA. Please continue your discussion here: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?&threadid=122540](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?&threadid=122540) [Moderator Hat OFF]