jlowder

Has anyone else seen this? Commented on it?

<a href="http://www.aclj.org/resources/patdisplays/pledge/phrases_supct.asp" target="_blank">http://www.aclj.org/resources/patdisplays/pledge/phrases_supct.asp</a>

scigirl

The last one has an interesting comment:
The pledge does in a way make me feel like an outsider, so if this was the litmus test used, than I say, remove the god reference. However, perhaps I'm just not being a reasonable atheist.

scigirl

Krieger

Scigirl, if you don't believe in God you're anti-American. Get back to your cave in Afghanistan, now!



Seriously though, the "under God" line is obviously offensive to 99% of Atheists. However, since this country is filled with bigotted fundie morons, the line will be in there for a long time to come.

Just wait until the christian-fundies start murdering judges that support the separation of church and state. How many judges will support it then, do you think?

Buffman

About the same as the number of doctors still willing to provide legal abortion services after the murder of their colleagues.

Autonemesis

Looks to me like the usual tap-dancing to avoid the real issue: that it is the broad interpretations of the 14th Amendment which, if the 9th's decision stands, would prevent a teacher from leading a recitation of the pledge. The 1st says nothing about a public employee leaving their rights at the door when they arrive at work. That comes from rulings and precedents based in the 14th.

You think the judiciary is hostile to church/state separation, try to get them to overturn some consequences of 14th Amendment rulings. No freakin' way. That would weaken federal authority. We can't have that. Better to weaken the 1st than the 14th.

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

Buffman

jlowder

The Pat Robertson ACLJ has demonstrated that it understands the value of public advertizing as a means of pre-conditioning a jury to its own venue/agenda. They have had an increasing number of successes in the Church-State arena. They are more than adequately bank-rolled and motivated. Though they might take umbrage with my label, they are the New Wave of Christian Fundamentalist Intellectuals. They do their homework and know that about which they speak well. Very well indeed...and gaining in power and influence by the day.

Much to may own sadness, they seem to have the ACLU on the run.

(URL added)

<a href="http://www.aclj.org/about/abouta.asp" target="_blank">http://www.aclj.org/about/abouta.asp</a>

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Toto

Mainly because Bush has been able to stack the courts with conservative-minded jurists.

Buffman

Not without Congressional approval. That's what he, and his handlers, are bitching about. However, they are going to pile on the pressure using the 9th Circuit issue. I suspect that the anti-Bush forces are trying to save themse;ves for the Supreme Court nomination battles which are probably less than a summer away. Those will be critical to the future of a constitutionally secular America. I sincerely hope that all those minority religious organizations recognize what will be in store for them if they support Bush's nominees with most of the old review safeguards already removed by Bush, and handpicked "Yes" men placed on any that remain.

hezekiah jones

Sekulow scribbles:

He cites the following specific references to the Pledge:

In Engel, he cites Stewart's lone dissent. This dissent merely makes a statement of historical fact without substantive comment on its constitutionality.

Sekulow also cites a footnote to Douglas' opinion in Engel which again simply acknowledges the fact Congress had added "God" to the Pledge.

Clearly neither of these citations are dispositive of the issue that may find itself before the Supreme Court.

In Abington Goldberg does not mention the Pledge. Instead Sekulow quotes him making a rather general statement about the establishment clause's strictures. Big deal.

Sekulow then quotes Brennan as follows:

[emphasis added]

Note Brennan uses the word "may," an extremely important legal distinction. Furthermore his analogy is arguably specious because the language of the Gettysburg Address, unlike the revised Pledge, was not legislated by an Act of Congress.

Sekulow cites Lynch, which again contains a statement that "under God" was added to the Pledge, but makes no comment on the constitutionality of that specific Act of Congress. And again the Court equates the addition to the Pledge with other government activities that were not directly legislated by Congress, such as the display of paintings featuring religious themes in national art galleries.

In Marsh Sekulow cites Brennan claiming "under God" has "lost any true religious significance." Is this what the fundies are going to argue? That would be pretty entertaining.

The next two dissents Sekulow cites apparently predict the 9th Circuit's decision. In fact the 9th Circuit did use Wallace and Lee but, importantly, relied upon the holdings of the majorities rather than the dissents.

While the use of dissents in cases of first impression is often helpful, Sekulow's use of several dissents and footnotes is not terribly compelling because they all merely reiterate historical facts without offering substantive commentary on the constitutionality of same.

It's crucial to this discussion that while Sekulow's citations are accurate they are essentially irrelevant because the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge. Nothing Sekulow cites is dispositive whereas Judge Goodwin's 9th Circuit opinion cites a dissent whose legal reasoning is much closer to the subject at hand rather than a mere historical acknowledgement.

Finally Sekulow cites Kennedy's dissent in Allegheny, on which the 9th Circuit did indeed rely. However the 9th Circuit's use of Kennedy's remarks concerning the Pledge's effect on atheists is directly related to the issue at hand.

The reason Goodwin uses this dissent is because the Supreme Court has not heretofore had occasion directly to address the constitutionality of the phrase and is thus far more compelling than any of Sekulow's citations.

Furthermore there are numerous precedents cited by Goodwin in support of the the 9th Circuit's reasoning that Sekulow completely ignores.

So, back to the drawing board, Jay Sekulow.

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiah jones ]</p>

Buffman

H.J.

Thanks. Great run down. Timely and deeply appreciated.