What a difference 8 years makes.

[essentialsaltes]

2002: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules 'under god' in the Pledge unconstitutional
(2004): The Supremes nullify it, saying Newdow doesn't have standing.
2010: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules the Pledge constitutional. (200 page decision)

'Under god' is "a reference to the historical and religious traditions of our country, not a personal affirmation through prayer or invocation that the speaker believes in God." And the Pledge is an optional patriotic exercise.

[Similarly, 'In God We Trust' on our coinage is "of a patriotic or ceremonial
character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental
sponsorship of a religious exercise." (only a 15 pager!)]

I'm not really torqued about this. Especially since the courts keep reminding us that these are merely ceremonial utterances that don't really mean anything other than 'Yay America!'

Comments

[jimkeller.livejournal.com]

The good news is, even though this was a devastating reversal, it's still a 2-1, which means there are still plenty of judges who do get it. And from a strictly legal point of view, precedent is on the side of the majority (even though the precedent is clearly wrong), making judges who don't want to get overturned leery of doing the right thing. Since the current Supreme Court is unlikely to see this as an establishment issue anyway, I think we should concentrate on thanking the judges who get it and educating the public about the history of "under God" (yes, it was intended to reinforce Christian morality) and how it alienates and harms atheists and non-Judeo-Christians.