The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.

<<
 a
 >
>>
"The Pledge is constitutional"

Sanity prevails.  America prevails.

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

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who claimed the references to God disrespect his religious beliefs.

"The Pledge is constitutional," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 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."

And what is more...

In a separate 3-0 ruling Thursday, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto "In God We Trust" on coins and currency, saying that the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic, not religious.

So, what did the anti-American athiest zealot have to say about all of this?

Reached on his cell phone, Newdow said he hadn't been aware that the appeals court had ruled against him Thursday.

"Oh man, what a bummer," he said.

Now, send him the bill for all this harassment and see if he still thinks its just "a bummer"!!

  #FridayFun #FactChecking #DailyFodder


Comments:

#1 donkeyrock 12-Mar-2010

Wow, talk about idiot judges. "[T]he phrase is ceremonial and patriotic, not religious"? Adding the word "God" makes it explicitly religious. Is this the quality of the law school grads nowadays? And what was wrong with the original wording of the pledge that didn't have the reference to God in the first place?

Well, I suppose with the weakening confidence in the greenback, we need "In God We Trust" on the money, because there's nothing tangible backing either one.

#2 donkeyrock 12-Mar-2010

Crap, I Yogi Berra'd myself. "original wording" and "in the first place"... it's deja vu all over again.

#3 captainfish 12-Mar-2010

Hello DonkeyRock.  Good to see you again.

I for one see no problem with this ruling.  For one, it does not violate the First Amendment's establishment clause.  The words do not create or honor a single religion (even though it was placed there because of the Christian belief) nor does it create a religion by its presence.

This separation ploy has no basis in reality.  There is no separation because are leaders have their own faiths.  They make rules, decisions and proclamations based upon their beliefs.  What the Right does do is protect us against the STATE forcing a religion upon us.  It prevents the State from giving a preference to one religion over another.

What that Right does NOT do is keep all religion at bay.  It does not stomp on all religious expression.

Powered by Snarf ยท Contact Us