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

[swmartin.livejournal.com]

The way I see it, if the specific words in the Pledge of Allegiance are just ceremonial utterances, devoid of any real meaning, then we have to apply the same reasoning to phrases like "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", and "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me". No one's expected to take those words SERIOUSLY, they're just traditional things you say at trials, inaugurations, and enlistments! As a bonus, think of all the legal fees we'll save by eliminating perjury trials, impeachments, and courts martial.