There is a God!
Even the infamously wacky Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had to admit it recently, ruling that saying "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on our money is not unconstitutional.
Well, maybe they're not admitting the existence of God themselves -- but they're at least "allowing" us to!
Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow -- pastor of Our Lady of Perpetual Lawsuits Church -- feels references to God disrespect his own beliefs, so he wants the United States of America to stop saying it. All he wants is his way, doggone it!
Even a three-person panel of the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit told him to go away and let the rest of us believe as we like -- and to express it loudly at the Grand Canyon if we want to.
In Newdow's bizarre and tyrannical view, the First Amendment prohibits all reference to God by the government, and may, for all we know, establish a right to freedom from religion. It says no such things. A grade schooler could point to our founding documents to prove it within a few minutes.
Still, the ruling is all the more remarkable considering that the same court sided with Newdow a few years back in a similar lawsuit -- only to have the case thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court on jurisdictional grounds.
This time he didn't get that far. Let's hope no one ever does again.
It's just fatuous and intellectually dishonest for recreational litigants such as Newdow to claim that allowing the government to acknowledge the existence of God is akin to the "establishment" of a state religion. They know that, but they are stuck with having to split flea hairs in order to create the Godless society they think they're entitled to and we're obligated to.
We can't even deport illegal immigrants, but these people want to kick God out?
If even the Ninth Circuit is convinced God is here to stay, may we now have the country our founders intended and which we have been forced to fight for time and again?
Well, no, unfortunately.
Assaults on traditional American values -- faith, family, individual liberty, limited government -- are ongoing every day, like constant cyber-attacks looking for any and all weaknesses they can exploit in a computer program.
This one was repelled, thank God. But eternal vigilance will ever be our lot.
if the ninth circuit had ruled otherwise, then we would have had to turn all our money back in-- start all over, look on the back, "in god we trust"
Kudos AC! Freedom does not come cheap, or easy, and without eternal vigilance, it is easily lost. I, for one, am absolutely fed up with these crack pots that have nothing better to do than to tie up our judicial system with frivilous lawsuits that have no merit. Our legal system is not the place to experiment with getting your own way. I applaud the decision of the courts in this matter. OOORAH!
Finally, a strong sense of widom coming from the court!
This is the first time the 9th Circuit has suprised me. And what a wonderful surprise it was.
What a shame that The Chronicle wants the government to be involved with religion. As more and more pro-religion rulings and more "faith-based" government program are created, the chance of government interference into religion increases. Usually, The Chronicle wants government to take a hands-off stance on private issues (except sex and abortion, of course). Be careful what you wish for! It's also a shame that The Chronicle (or the court for that matter) doesn't understand that the framers of Constitution did not government involvement with religion, something which any grade schooler could document easily enough. I don't know the court's motivation, but I suspect it probably has to do with practicality and the fact that a different ruling would not survive the conservative Supreme Court. Still, that Congress is prohibited from establishing a religious DOES protect us FROM religion, The Chronicle's protestations to the contrary.
Michael Newdow it is time for you to go and lie down by your dish and stop disrespecting our wishes. If you don't believe in God that will be your problem while us who do are passing through the Pearly Gates while you are burning in Haites. You care about only yourself as many others still pray for you. Even now you don't believe, but in the end you will most likely cry for God's forgiveness as most atheist' do. Thank-you 9th Circuit for getting this one right!!
So then you are standing with a man who advocated the removal of inpirational words from our currency, that have been there since 1864? What damage did those words ever cause you? Amazing. So exactly how are you any less protected FROM religion now, than you were before the ruling grouse? Your logic eludes me. Then to banter on about what the framers of the Constitution wanted, when every aspect of the Democratic agenda today is to bypass, and trivialize those very rules? What nonsense. How about protecting our country from sweeping landmark legislation, that will effect every person in the United States, that currently is being pushed through congress by violating every established historical and procedural rule? How about some protection from that?
In which God do we trust or under which God? To Christians it would be the God of the Bible, to Jews the God of the Torah, to Muslims it would be the God of the Koran and all would be correct according to their personal beliefs.
I wonder why an individual would even consider that his personal prejudice would outweigh the beliefs of so many?
Dominion, I completely agree. It's one thing to have the phrases In Allah We Trust or in Jesus We Trust because those are very specific to one faith/religion or another. When we say In God We Trust we are general enough to include everyone's faith.
Christianity is a TERRIBLE form of government as is Islam. That's because, in order to govern, you must do things that violate the basic tenets of the faith upon which that government is founded. But Jesus never said "Go forth and govern." Faith is an individual thing, personal to each of us.
Having men and women of principle, guided by their Christian beliefs, involved in government is a good thing. But we cannot legislate morality.
Justice, I think the spin is that the Ninth made an apparently intelligent decision. Everyone's surprised. I'm not certain it's happened before.
Grouse: You are wrong about the framers' intent. The framers did not want a state sponsored religion or the state to favor one religion over another. The Courts have taken this basic principle to its illogical exteme thru the years.
I didn't know God ever left. People have been trying to get rid of God for centuries. Guess what? They are gone. He is still here. Good example is Voltaire. He predicted Christianity would be dead within his generation. After he died, his home served as a Bible printing office.
Americafirst: I am not wrong, but this ruling is contrary to even what you state. My allowing "God" to continue on in the pledge, etc., the "state" is favoring Christianity/Judaism over other religions.
To be more accurate it's providing free advertising to monotheism over polytheistic or atheistic faiths (since even atheists have to work without proof on faith-based issues).
this ridiculous editorial completely misses the whole point. the new generation of americans need a brand new motto-- "in video games, i-pods, blackberries" we trust.
Grouse, it is abundantly clear that you disagree with the decision of the 9th circuit. We got it. We clearly understand your feelings. Please, for God's sake, let it go. Ooops.. Sorry. I mentioned Him who must not be named. My apologies. Please, I did not mean to offend you. Just let it go.
The christian-taliban scored a small battle with the help of the Ninth Circuit. I write "small" because the court's decision still doesn't imply that anyone of us---man, woman, or child---can be forced to mouth the words "under god" as we recite the pledge of allegiance to our country (not to your god). As to the coin of the realm, the only way I can reject "in god we trust" is to use credit cards, checks, and barter; all coins and bills that come my way are spent with great haste in order to rid myself of the vile words I so detest. (Smile) But, watch out folks, the American christian-taliban is just on the horizon. Be afraid, be very afraid, be SO VERY AFRAID! GGpap
The AC editorial writers and many of the mis-informed commenters here obviously failed to read the majority's opinion or Judge Reinhardt's dissent from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and oddly enough justus4 is more well versed on this than the masses on here. The masses incorrectly yet predictably view this as a "victory" for their religious beliefs to be forced upon other. It is an amusing take but yet another incorrect one.
The AC said, "the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit told him to go away and let the rest of us believe as we like".......huh? That is exactly what the lawsuit is about. The Court told him to believe as the majority believes. Can you be any more hypocritical than that?
The AC said, "If even the Ninth Circuit is convinced God is here to stay, may we now have the country our founders intended and which we have been forced to fight for time and again?" Uhhh.....where did the Court say God is here to stay? The founders of America nor the Drafters of the Constitution intended for America to be a Christian nation or a nation where Christianity is promoted by the government.
Since the masses are obviously uneducated and the AC is trying to spin this into a rallying cry for the oppressive, tyrannical religious nutbags let me provide some actual knowledge.
About the Pledge of Allegiance: The 9th Court ruled that "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded." The 9th Court's majority opinion also stated "the pledge is indeed a patriotic exercise, and the words "under God" must be viewed in that context." If that isn't an insult to any non-Christians then I don't know what is. You see the good ol' boys in Congress added the words "under God" to the pledge in 1954, at the height of McCarthyism as they wanted to remind everybody how much better we were than the "godless communists." Congress also reaffirmed the pledge with the "under God" in 2002 proving once again there has no been lack of ignorance in Congress in the last century. Judge Reinhardt in his dissent made it clear that the rest of the pledge could surely pass constitutional muster, but forcing atheist children to stand mute while their classmates recite "under God" is a violation. The majoirity's opinion acknowledged the uncomfortable situation for those children, but maintained the pledge to be a patriotic exercise, not a religious one. Go figure. Schools can not require students to recite the pledge as this was ruled unconstitutional in the 1943 Barnette ruling by the SCOTUS yet many school systems still to this day try to enact unconstitutional statutes and punish kids in clear violation of the Barnette ruling.
About the US coin and currency issue: The Court ruled that the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic, not religious when they made their ruling about "in God we trust" on US currency in a unamimous ruling. It was kind of a moot point after the Pledge ruling now wasn't it? The Court has just copped out by referring to any religious connotation that is historical as being ceremonial or patriotic. I guess the Constitution and the Bill of Rights be damned if it is gonna rock the boat of the weak-minded majority. Why not make a new tradition by inscribing currency with "in Gods we trust" or "in Allah we trust" or "in Buddha we trust"? After all it isn't religious now is it??? Hogwash.
It is too bad Mr. Newdow and Judge Reinhardt have received numerous death threats the past few years. Then again intimidation, hostility, and an oppressive nature is what Christians do best when trying to force their religion onto everybody else. Hypocrisy will live for another day.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
