Free to pledge allegiance

The 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court issued a June 26, 2002 ruling making the current version of the pledge of allegiance, which includes the phrase "one nation under God," unconstitutional. The court's opinion, written by Justice Alfred Goodwin, stated that school districts are "conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when (they) require public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge."\nGoodwin's shocking ruling needs further review.\nFirst, let me make clear that the popular phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. It was actually a phrase pulled out of Thomas Jefferson's letter to a Baptist church promising them its worship would not be regulated by the U.S. government. The only mention of religion, found in the First Amendment, reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." More simply put, Congress cannot regulate religions and cannot prohibit them from practicing. \nGoodwin mistakenly believes that public institutions cannot endorse a religion. On the contrary, those who drafted the Declaration of Independence affirmed that "our Creator" has endowed us with unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, thereby publicly endorsing religion. \nAccording to U.S.A. Today, Michael Newdow, a Sacramento atheist, "sued because his second-grade daughter was compelled to listen to her classmates recite the pledge." Newdow's daughter, like all people, was free not to say pledge of allegiance. Newdow's lawsuit, on the other hand, keeps all people from saying the pledge. By barring everyone from saying the pledge of allegiance, the court has committed a violation of free speech and free worship -- two freedoms explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights.\nThis is also a good example of the judiciary branch overstepping constitutional boundaries. Written in bold letters, the Declaration of Independence says states are to be free and independent. The 9th Circuit Court made a regional decision (this one affecting 9 states) that is contrary to the wishes of the public and their elected representatives. According to The Washington Post, "The Senate unanimously approved a resolution sponsored by its Democratic and Republican leaders that expressed support for the reference to God in the pledge." Even leftist Majority Leader Tom Daschle (S.D.) claimed the court's ruling was "just nuts." Perhaps now he will allow Bush's court nominees to come through for Senate votes.\nPresident Bush declared the court's ruling is "out of step with the traditions and history of America" and according to U.S.A. Today, promised to appoint judges who affirm God's role in the public square. He also justly added, "The declaration of God in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't violate rights, (but confirms) the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence."\nAccording to The Washington Post, Eugene Volokh, a specialist in church-state law at University of California in Los Angeles law school, said, "There is still a very credible argument that at some point you have to stop trying to relentlessly extirpate religious symbolism from the life of a country that is after all very religious."\nCharley Reese, as quoted in The Federalist, wisely said, "Once you consent to the government ignoring the Constitution, you deny yourself the protection of the Constitution." \nU.S. citizens have a right to free exercise of religion, and court rulings are attempting to take that right away. We need some new good justices, and soon.