I Pledge Allegiance To The Frat...

[khaosworks]

Judges uphold ban on Pledge of Allegiance

A federal appeals court refused to reconsider its June decision to ban the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools Friday, reaffirming that the phrase "under God" is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

Federal officials said they expect the U.S. Department of Justice will appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The Justice Department will spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag," said Attorney General John Ashcroft. "We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism through the time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the pledge."

Friday's ruling denied a Bush administration request for an "en banc" rehearing by a full panel, or 11 of the 9th Circuit's 24 judges.

The original ruling was decided by a three-judge panel, with two of the three overturning Congress' 1954 addition of the religious phrase.

What is noteworthy is that the decision is limited to public schools - which is fine, really, since private schools, not being government funded (unless of course the school voucher lobby has its way) are therefore not bound by the constitutional separation of Church and State. However, the following quote is mildly troubling to me:

Circuit Judge Diarmuid R. O'Scannlain, in a dissenting opinion joined by six colleagues, said the court made a mistake in not allowing a full 9th Circuit panel hear the issue.

"Most assuredly, to pledge allegiance to flag and country is a patriotic act," O'Scannlain wrote. "After the public and political reaction last summer, it is difficult to believe that anyone can continue to think otherwise."

While I would agree that to pledge allegiance to flag and country is a patriotic act, O'Scannlain, with all due respect to His Honor, seems to be missing the point here - no one is saying you shouldn't pledge allegiance to flag and country - it's the phrase "under God" that offends the Constitution.

Secondly, his remark that about the political and public reaction suggests that decisions as to what is patriotic should be shaped by popular opinion. Patriotism comes in many forms, and in any case should not be a dynamic concept, defined by what the public or the majority thinks. That way leads to the same kind of thinking that produces black-or-white statements like, "If you're not for us, you're against us." The lack of sophistry in such thinking in a jurist is quite disturbing.

Comments

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

What annoys me about it all is that there are several jurists who aren't paying attention to the merits of the case and aren't even arguing about the merits of the case, just the politics. They're supposed to be discussing the merits.

[sdelmonte]

Here's an interesting take on the subject from Roger Ebert, writing a rare piece of political commentary:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-edt-ebert05.html

[sdorn.livejournal.com]

I never have had the uncomfortable experience of having someone else pray to their God while staring at me. But I now know what I'll say, if someone does: If you're saying a prayer to your God, why does your expression say I'm supposed to respond?

[osj.livejournal.com]

What I found interesting was how recently the words 'under God' were added in the first place. I had always assumed that they were always part of the pledge...

I agree that, on the law, the words are probably unconstitutional...

[adamselzer.livejournal.com]

thanks for the link to the Ebert essay....his political essays are always terrific.