Our readers can be certain that one of our loyal commenters, “leftfield” will have some editorial from the bush on this one. It will be difficult to vilify the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court for being too liberal. But then the last time I looked, God is pretty liberal in the care and love for the people under that Flag.
Knights of Columbus wins Pledge of Allegiance case in Federal Appeals Court
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds constitutionality of “under God” in Pledge
(SAN FRANCISCO, CA) — The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that he words “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance “do not violate the Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The Knights of Columbus led the campaign to add the words “under God” to the Pledge in the early 1950s, and the trial court agreed to allow the Knights of Columbus to join the present case as defendants when it was originally filed in 2005.
“This decision is a victory for common sense,” Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson said. “It is also a welcome reversal of the Ninth Circuit’s 2002 decision in a similar case that was ultimately thrown out by the Supreme Court on technical grounds. Today, the Court got it absolutely right: recitation of the Pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious prayer. Best of all, the Court said that the words ‘under God’ add a ‘note of importance which a Pledge to our Nation ought to have and which in our culture ceremonial references to God arouse.’Every reasonable person knows that, and today’s decision is a breath of fresh air from a court system that has too often seemed to be almost allergic to public references to God. This is a very good day for America,” Anderson concluded.
In today’s ruling, the Court noted that, “Among the ‘self-evident truths’ the Framers believed was the concept that all people are entitled to certain inalienable rights given to them by the ‘Laws of Nature and Nature’s God’ and that the purpose of government should be to “secure those rights.'” Such beliefs provide the context in which the words of the Pledge must be understood, the Court said.
The Knights of Columbus and several individual Knights and their families were defendant-intervenors in the case, and the court’s 2-1 decision incorporates many of the arguments presented to the Court by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty a public interest law firm that represented the Knights in the case. Oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit panel had been heard in December 2007. Other defendants in the case included the United States government and a Sacramento-area school district.
It will be difficult to vilify the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court for being too liberal.
Actually they reversed their previous decision as a result of Bush appointing a new judge.
God is pretty liberal in the care and love for the people under that Flag.
You have to be joking – the Knights of Columbus liberal ?
The court decided that “god” wasn’t “religion” – good politics, bad law.
Certainly another loss for religious freedom, but then in a country where the Congress has to get its laws vetted by the Conference of Catholic Bishops, it is no surprise.
But then the last time I looked, God is pretty liberal in the care and love for the people under that Flag.
Didn’t say the Knights were liberal. Of course they are not. I said God is liberal… which was sort of satirical. The word liberal is from the Latin root “liberare” meaning to free oneself of oppressive forces. That would be God’s job. And his spokesman, Jesus did not care much for politics either.
I have news for you – Jesus didn’t celebrate putting his name in the Pledge of Allegiance either, forcing non-believers to violate their conscience or be unpatriotic.
I realize that this bigotry isn’t something either veterans or Catholics understand, but it is unpleasant to the rest of us every time we are subjected to it.
I
I have never in my life witnessed anyone being “forced” to use the word God. Only a conscience can violate a conscience. So this is a solipsistic argument. And all solipsistic arguments are basically a form of reverse bigotry.
P.S. – Last time I heard from the Knights of Columbus they were contributing $50,000 to take away the rights of gays to marry in Maine.
Their God isn’t that liberal.
This is a test post.
Can’t seem to post here, Mike. There is one short pasted paragraph in my reply; perhaps that is why.
Hey Tipster: Isn’t that the City Flag of San Francisco that you’re using these days? I hope that you got permission from Gavin Newsom.
Yer pal, Ferrari Bubba
Specious arguments are easily identified. Simply by observing who the ultimate benefit goes to reveals the motive. Either the argument is for the self or for others. Those that try to appear to argue for the other while being the one who benefits makes me sad.
Is this what the right is talking about when they scream about “judicial activism” and “legislating from the bench”, or is that only when the decision doesn’t go their way?