Never thought I would see the day when the Pledge of Allegiance was banned from public school. But not really surprised, I guess. I wonder if that bacteria of an opinion will eat its way Eastward and consume the rest of the country, which until today at least, has always been "...one nation under God...."

Wonder what classification of crime it will be if a third grader brazenly rises from his or her seat and pledges their allegiance to the United States of America? Perhaps such a wicked person could claim mental retardation, though, and everything would be fine.

A.P., could you favor us with the source of your information?

Article on MSNBC -- Opinion from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, opining that those two words, can't repeat them here, (might offend somebody), are "unconstitutional."

Every US bill has the motto: "In God We Trust." I wonder if the 9th Circuit will require the govt. to scratch out that offensive word. (Maybe the more "moderate" members of that court will agree that the bill's motto need only be modified to read, "In God Some of Us Trust." How can anyone disagree with that Solomanic solution?)

Also: W may be the last President to take the oath of office, or at least an oath that swears before God. As far as that goes, I guess the feds, and all backward states like Texas need to modify their witness oaths so they sound like the New Mexico witness oath: "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, on penalty of perjury?" (Wow!!!--that's a real threat!)

Right, and along with U.S. currency, we might as well throw out that old, worn-out broadside with the horribly offensive phrase included in its first few paragraphs. Forgive me for including it here, I'm only doing it to illustrate my point; I'm really not trying to shock anyone's conscience, but I'm referring to that phrase, "...endowed by their Creator...."

Any such document referred to in a public setting, most especially the National Archives, (separation of church and state, you know) surely must go. And, evidently California school kids will never be able to discuss, read or learn what it says, at least in the classroom. Funny, if wasn't for that piece of paper and the sacrifices made by its drafters and legions of others, those learned individuals on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would probably not even be there to make such an asinine ruling.

Terry: I am sorry to have to break the news to you, but the Texas witness "oath" has already been modified (under the "free exercise" rather than the establishment clause). Even the "on penalty of perjury" part is gone. I am not sure how this affects enforcement of sec. 37.02 of the Penal Code. Think I'm kidding? See Scott, No. 10-01-169-CR (6/12/02).

Seer idiocy. This (apparent) ruling provides further legitimacy to the comment made by a keynote speaker at a TDCAA Legislative Update said several years ago (though he was referring to the OJ Simpson debacle): "Who cares what happens in a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY like California".

Actually, A.P., the "under God" language wasn't always there. It was added during the Cold War following a lobbying push by the Knights of Columbus. While the nation may be founded on Judeo-Christian principles, let's not forget that we orginally got here, at least in part, to avoid religious intolerance.

If you believe in God, fine. But don't exclude those who don't. Or be prepared to have it be one nation, under God, Vishnu, or any other particular deity or worshipped shrub.

My belief in God doesn't entitle me to proclaim a religous state under which all must agree to my terms of eternity as applied to government. If that's how you feel, join the Taliban.

Incidentally, before anybody decides to label me with any number of stock epithets for those of a tolerant and apparently opposing viewpoint, I'm Catholic and do have a belief in God. But I also have a faith in the ability of a nation to flourish in tolerance.

Isn't tolerance really kinda like the "Emperor's New Clothes?" All the "cool" people saw the wonderful new clothes. The little boy saw the naked guy.

The Constitution provides for Equal Protection and Free Exercise.... but tolerance? I know it may be a question of semantics, but what are you willing to tolerate? Some of us may be more tolerant than others, but does that make the less tolerant "intolerant?"

Maybe those who don't like to acknowledge "their Creator" are the ones who should join the Taliban! Many of the rest of us are willing to let them believe what they want to believe, that's their choice. Why should their choice be imposed on us? Could it be that they are not "tolerant" of our views and beliefs?

Way to go, A.P.!

Dan,

If you think my opinion as a citizen of the United States, a veteran of the U.S. military, a lifetime spent serving the people of Texas as a peace officer, a father, husband, taxpayer and recipient of the grace and mercy of Almighty God, puts me in the same classification as those who murdered over 2,000 people on September 11, then I hope you share that view with every venire member of every jury panel you speak before. Make sure, when you're looking for folks to hear your cases, to tell the citizens that you think God-fearing people are murderous, radical, hate-mongering terrorists.

Yes, In God I trust. Unashamedly.

[This message was edited by A.P. Merillat on 06-28-02 at .]

This is probably my favorite comment that I've seen on this issue:

"[I]f you treat minor passing references to God as rendering government acts unconstitutional. Article VII of the Constitution itself�which makes the document operative as a proposal for ratification�concludes "done in Convention � the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." If "Year of Our Lord," like "under God," can make something unconstitutional, then the Constitution itself is unconstitutional and the court's decision a nullity. In fact, without the Constitution, the 9th Circuit doesn't legally exist. So we are in a logical trap!"

The focus has moved away from the historical purpose for the separation of church and state, to avoid a religion mandated by the government, and has instead been turned into a witch hunt for the slightest mention of anything pertaining to the Christian religion.

Someone needs to explain why a citizen's right to outwardly pledge allegiance to his country (i.e. his freedom of speech guaranteed to him/her by the First Amendment) is subservient to the rights of the person who says that hearing it may offend them. I don't remember reading anything the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision stating that any student was forced to participate or even forced to remain in the room during the saying of the pledge.

Robert DuBoise

The point to be made is not whether you love your family, your country and your God. It is whether, as a nation, we allow for those who don't love the same God. Do I want righteous, morally centered people on my jury? Yes. Do I care if they are Druids? Not particularly.

The thing about a state that mandates a certain belief is that it foments an intolerance (yes, there's that awful word again) against all that is different. At some point you begin to criminalize thoughts, and that is dangerous and wrong. It is in those places that we couldn't be having this discussion. And do we really want that?

I believe the distinction that has been drawn in these types of cases is that grade-school aged children (as contrasted with college aged students) are more susceptible to religious messages and more likely to feel singled out if they don't agree with the religious message.

Perhaps that premise could stand being retested. Having three kids (ages 7, 10, and soon to be 13), I find they are not so easily influenced and oppressed by the opinions of others. On the other hand, I do impress upon them the need to be sensitive to the opinions of others (even those they see as contrary to our religious beliefs).

Pledging allegiance to the flag hardly "proclaims a religious state under which all must agree to (your) terms of eternity as applied to govt." The pledge doesn't establish a religion. It simply makes a statement, "one nation under God," which is in keeping the the oldest traditions and core beliefs of this country. No one is required to say the Pledge. When I was a kid, there was always a kid or two who sat thru the daily pledge because they were Jehovas Witnesses or some other fancy religion. If you didn't want to make such a show, you could always stand, and never say the words. I never knew a kid who received any grief whatsoever for refusing to take the Pledge.

Goodness knows that we have been in the business long enough to know that some peoples "God" is their next fix, six pack, theft, scam and the like. God means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I personally take no offense if someone of a differing religious viewpoint takes the pledge, but REALLY means their God instead of mine. I just know that, as a mom, we have to give our kids something to believe in, to stand for, and to be proud of. If our country isn't the best, then WHY is everyone trying to get here to live the "American Dream". Our Pledge of Allegiance is part of a vision of the dream, and deserves historical as well as present day recognition in it's entirety as our commitment to the principles upon which this country was founded. Our kids deserve that, and so do our grandchildren and every future generation. It's just so peculiar that the "one nation, under God" is now divisible because we begin by saying "one nation under God".

I honestly don't believe we would have had this dilemma when I was a kid. Any normal thinking adult, in that day, would have immediately called for the Judge to get off the bench, retire, whatever it took. He would have been branded as unamerican. What is happening to America? Is it possible to vote California out of the United States?

The Constitution only prevents the establishment of a govt. imposed religion, not a totally securlized govt. that renounces any recognition of God. So, sure, if the govt. of some screwy part of the US--probably far from Texas--were to require its students to pledge "to the Sun God Ra," "self-righteous Christians," (to an atheist, is there any other kind?) would strongly object.

And we'd have every right to, because it is promoting a certain religion. But merely stating that the USA is "under God," hardly promotes a state religion. Clearly this was the original understanding of the Constitution since the founders in their official papers constantly made reference to God.

To read the ruling judge's comments, go to:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1024078927419

Did you know the plaintiff previously lost a similar lawsuit in Florida? See the details:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1024078923948

[This message was edited by John Bradley on 06-29-02 at .]

Patrick: Rev. Dr. Newdow said that the reference to our country being under God serves to exclude atheists from being able to express their patriotism. Those who understand why this country was formed and the thoughts of its founders understand that, like it or not, it is a country under God. Now one could be patriotic toward or love the country because of that quality (which with its precept of tolerance and separation between church and government serves to protect non-believers or "fancy" believers) or one could seek to establish a country where not only is no religion established but there is truly a demand that there be no religion. This is not that country and in my book God will cause it to fall long before it reaches that stage. You need not believe in God to believe in this country, but you must still acknowledge that this country was founded on certain beliefs and standards derived therefrom or you cannot feel very much patriotic toward it. Does the pledge or statements on our money really require some personal affirmation that the person saying the pledge or passing a dollar bill believes or trusts in God? Maybe that's why you don't feel you are being forced by the State to personally accept the truth of the words being spoken, and maybe that's exactly as it should be.

This 9th Circuit ruling is yet another example of political correctness being taken to the nth degree. If you're going to have views that are outside of the mainstream, then you should prepare to sometimes be offended. Why should everyone else in society adapt to you (Mr. Newdow)? The idea that society should adapt so that no one, no matter what their ideals or views are, is offended, results in ridiculous outcomes. Oh, no, we can't single out Middle Eastern men traveling alone on a Jordanian passport with a cash, one-way airline ticket for more intense inspection of their luggage. That wouldn't be politically correct, and might offend somebody! Oh, no, we can't call a capital murderer who beats a teenage girl to death and shoves a broomstick in her genitals "trash" because it might offend him! Sometimes life is offensive. Deal with it. I'm sure that we, as prosecutors, see offensive things every day. That doesn't mean that I'd rather live in a eutopian society where we all hold hands and die of boredom because no one is allowed to say anything that might offend someone else. Maybe we should quit calling Mr. Newdow an "athiest" and instead, call him "spiritually challenged." I'm sure he'd find that offensive, too.