When is atheist Michael Newdow ever going to just hang it up? When is he
going to realize that trying to remove "under God" and "In
God we trust"
from the American conscience is a lost cause?

Of course, while I am glad that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld
previous rulings, I must truly wonder how much the USA still remains a
Christian nation which really believes in and revers God, and which really
trusts in Him as well. As Jesus told the Jews of His day:

". . . Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This
people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." Mark
7:6b, KJV


Fed. Appeals Court Upholds 'under God' In Pledge

By TERENCE CHEA - Associated Press

March 12, 2010


SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court upheld the use of the words "under
God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on
U.S. currency,
rejecting arguments Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of
church and state.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two
legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who said the
references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious
beliefs.

The same appeals court caused a national uproar and prompted accusations of
judicial activism when it decided in Newdow's favor in 2002, ruling that the
pledge violated the First Amendment prohibition against government
endorsement of religion.

President George W. Bush called the 2002 decision "ridiculous," senators
passed a resolution condemning the ruling and Newdow received death threats.

That lawsuit reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, but the high court said
Newdow lacked the legal standing to file the suit because he didn't have
custody of his daughter, on whose behalf he brought the case.

So Newdow filed an identical challenge on behalf of other parents who
objected to the recitation of the pledge at school. In 2005, a federal judge
in Sacramento decided in Newdow's favor, prompting the appeals court to take
up the case again.

Judge Carlos Bea, who was appointed by Bush in 2003, wrote for the majority
in Thursday's 2-1 ruling.

"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," he
said.

Bea noted that schools do not require students to recite the pledge, which
was amended to include the words "under God" by a 1954 federal law. Members
of Congress at the time said they wanted to set the United States apart from
"godless communists."

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who was part of the three-judge panel that ruled in
Newdow's favor eight years ago, wrote a 123-page dissent to the 60-page
majority opinion.

"Under no sound legal analysis adhering to binding Supreme Court precedent
could this court uphold state-directed, teacher-led, daily recitation of the
'under God' version of the Pledge of Allegiance by children in public
schools," wrote Reinhardt, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter in
1980.

Newdow, a doctor and attorney who founded a group called the First Atheist
Church of True Science, told The Associated Press he would ask the appeals
court to rehear the case. If it rejects that request, Newdow said he'll
appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The whole argument that 'under God' wasn't placed into the pledge for
religious purposes is bogus," Newdow said. "I hope people recognize this is
not against God or people who believe in God. It's about the government not
treating people equally on the basis of their lawful religious views."

Newdow said he isn't optimistic the Supreme Court will agree to hear the
case because the justices will likely be reluctant to hear a case that could
invalidate the pledge.

"They don't want to do what's politically unpopular," he said.
"The Supreme
Court will not hear a case that upholds the Pledge of Allegiance. It's very
unlikely at least."

Rory Little, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of
the Law, agreed. He said the Supreme Court is unlikely to review the case
because Thursday's ruling is the third appellate court decision upholding
the pledge.

In addition, Congress passed legislation reaffirming the pledge in 2002,
following the 9th Circuit's ruling that struck it down.

"I think this is the last word on this particular lawsuit," Little said.
"It's an important ruling."

In a separate 3-0 ruling Thursday, the appeals court upheld the inscription
of the national motto "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency, citing
an earlier 9th Circuit panel that ruled the phrase is ceremonial and
patriotic and "has nothing whatsover to do with the establishment of
religion."

Greg Katsas, who argued the case on behalf of the U.S. government when the
appellate court heard the case in December 2007, said the panel made the
right decision Thursday.

"I think these two phrases encapsulate the philosophy on which the nation
was founded," said Katsas, who now works in private practice. "There is a
religious aspect to saying "One nation under God," but it isn't like a
prayer. When someone says the pledge, they're not praying to God, they're
pledging allegiance to the country, the flag and the ideals of the country."



Jeff Snyder, SysOp - Armageddon BBS  Visit us at endtimeprophecy.org port 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Download Center 4 Mac BBS Software & Christian Files.  We Use Hermes II


--- Hermes Web Tosser 1.1