Atheists Lose Another ‘God’ in Pledge Battle

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in New Hampshire‘s public schools.

The decision on Friday by the three-judge panel dealt another blow to atheists who have made several attempts to strike down the pledge and the inclusion of the words “under God” as unconstitutional.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit in 2007 on behalf of two parents whose three children were attending public schools. The parents are atheist and agnostic.

They challenged the New Hampshire School Patriot Act which requires that the state’s public schools authorize a period during the school day for students to voluntarily participate in the recitation of the national pledge. The act allows students who choose not to participate to stand silently or remain seated and to respect the rights of those pupils electing to participate.

After a court dismissed the atheists’ lawsuit, FFRF filed an amended complaint the following year, arguing that the state act violates the Establishment Clause, despite the voluntary nature of student participation in the pledge. The group argues that the schools’ pledge practices are religious because the pledge itself is a religious exercise in that it uses the phrase “under God.”

Chief Judge Sandra Lea Lynch wrote in the opinion that by design, the recitation of the pledge is meant to further “the policy of teaching our country’s history to the elementary and secondary pupils of this state.”

Rejecting the argument that the act is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, Lynch stated, “In reciting the Pledge, students promise fidelity to our flag and our nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church.”

The primary effect of the New Hampshire Act is not the advancement of religion, but the advancement of patriotism, she added.

“It takes more than the presence of words with religious content to have the effect of advancing religion, let alone to do so as a primary effect,” the judge wrote. “The Pledge and the phrase ‘under God’ are not themselves prayers, nor are they readings from or recitations of a sacred text of a religion.

“Here, the words ‘under God’ appear in a pledge to a flag – itself a secular exercise, accompanied by no other religious language or symbolism.”

Forty members of Congress and more than 80,000 Americans filed an amicus brief in support of the state act.

Lauding the decision, the American Center for Law and Justice said the ruling underscores what most Americans understand – “that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance embraces patriotism, not religion.”

“The decision not only upholds the constitutionality of the Pledge, it rejects another fruitless attempt by the Freedom From Religion Foundation to twist and distort the Constitution with its flawed reasoning,” the ACLJ commented.

“This decision regarding the Pledge in NH schools represents a significant and sound decision that sends a message: patriotic, time-honored traditions should be embraced – not targeted for extinction – in our public schools.”

Earlier this year, a similar ruling was made against a lawsuit brought by Sacramento atheist Michael A. Newdow. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is an endorsement of “our form of government” and not of religion.

Courtesy of  http://www.christianpost.com/article/20101115/atheists-lose-another-god-in-pledge-battle/

Preying on the National Day of Prayer

By Chuck Norris

© 2010  

Proof that progressivism is alive and well on planet Earth came again last week via the Wisconsin federal judge’s ruling that the National Day of Prayer, or NDP, is unconstitutional.  

Appointed to the bench by Jimmy Carter, U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb wrote that the government can no more enact laws supporting a day of prayer than it can encourage citizens to fast during Ramadan, attend a synagogue or practice magic. She further gave the rationale, “The same law that prohibits the government from declaring a National Day of Prayer also prohibits it from declaring a National Day of Blasphemy.”

Even more preposterous logic is found in her words: “In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual’s decision whether and when to pray.”

As most know, the first Thursday in May has been honored as a National Day of Prayer since 1952, when its approval flew through the Congress as a way to help separate America as a country with a Godly heritage and to aid her success against atheistic communism. Ever since, presidents have commemorated the NDP. Even President Obama issued a proclamation in 2009 about the NDP, though he did not hold ecumenical and public events with religious leaders as former President George W. Bush had done.

Regarding Judge Crabb’s ruling on the NDP being unconstitutional, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice Jay Sekulow hit the judicial nail on the head when he said, “It is unfortunate that this court failed to understand that a day set aside for prayer for the country represents a time-honored tradition that embraces the First Amendment, not violates it.”

Though this ruling is only one, these skewed judgments permeate nearly every stratum of our society. And they often hinge upon erroneous and ignorant views of America’s Judeo-Christian heritage, and especially the First Amendment and the so-called separation of church and state.

Liberals would have you believe that the First Amendment establishes an impenetrable and impassable “separation of church and state.” But that phrase appears nowhere in the First Amendment, which actually reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The phrase “the separation of Church and State” actually comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists. He told them that no particular Christian denomination was going to have a monopoly in government. His words, “a wall of separation between Church and State,” were not written to remove all religious practice from government or civic settings, but to prohibit the domination and even legislation of religious sectarianism.

The Danbury Baptists had written to Thomas Jefferson seeking reassurance that their religious liberty would be guaranteed, not that religious expression on public grounds would be banned. Proof that Jefferson was not trying to rid government of religious (specifically Christian) influence comes from the fact he endorsed using government buildings for church meetings, signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that allotted federal money to support the building of a Catholic church and to pay the salary of the church’s priests, and repeatedly renewed legislation that gave land to the United Brethren to help their missionary activities among the Indians.

Some might be completely surprised to discover that just two days after Jefferson wrote his famous letter citing the “wall of separation between Church and State,” he attended church in the place where he always had as president: the U.S. Capitol. The very seat of our nation’s government was used for sacred purposes. As the Library of Congress notes, “It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church.” Does that sound like someone who was trying to create an impenetrable wall of separation between church and state?

If all the things the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, and other progressive groups said about the First Amendment were true, Jefferson would flunk their religious-state separation test. Progressives don’t want Americans to know that for the founders, Judeo-Christian belief and practice and government administration and policy were not separated at all. Denominational tests for public office were prohibited, but the idea that Judeo-Christian ideas and practices had to be kept separate from government would have struck them as ridiculous because the very basis for the founders’ ideas were rights that were endowed upon all of us by our Creator.

The ACLU and like-minded groups are not preserving First Amendment rights. They are perverting the meaning of the Establishment Clause (which was to prevent the creation of a national church like the Church of England) to deny the Free Exercise Clause (which preserves our rights to worship as we want, privately and publicly). Both clauses were intended to safeguard religious liberty, not to circumscribe its practice. The framers were seeking to guarantee freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Critics try to oppose the NDP’s constitutionality by saying it didn’t exist prior to 1952 as a national observance. But all one must do is go back to the framers of the Constitution to understand that, whether one looks at Creator-language in such pivotal documents as the Declaration of Independence or the role religion played in establishing ethics and morality even in political arenas, not one justice or government official back then would have agreed with the ruling of Wisconsin Judge Barbara Crabb.

In 1789, after being urged by Congress on the same day they finished drafting the First Amendment, President Washington issued a Thanksgiving proclamation stating, “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”

President John Adams declared that America’s independence “ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”

Ben Franklin was particularly eloquent on the power of prayer in government, as he addressed those who attended the Constitutional Convention:

In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard; and they were graciously answered. All of us, who were engaged in the struggle, must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need its assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, That God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?

It’s a question that needs to ring from the corridors of Congress to the halls of our public schools and homes: “And have we now forgotten that powerful friend?”

To answer for yourself and your household, take a minute right now to sign the official NDP prayer petition.

As the Protect Prayer website says, “U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb needs a history lesson, and we need to send a message to Congress: ‘It’s time that we put a stop to renegade judges who rule with no understanding of our nation’s history. Our Founding Fathers declared National Days of Prayer to be constitutional, and so should you!'”

Most of all, join a group in your local community on this 59th National Day of Prayer on May 6, bow your head in prayer with them, beseech God to forgive and heal our land and demonstrate in action your First Amendment rights!

(See Chuck Norris’ brand new video Patriot Service Announcement about fighting government tyranny at YouTube or BlackBeltPatriotism.com.)

Courtesy of http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=142297

Court Urged to Uphold ‘Under God’ in New Hampshire Schools

A federal appeals court is being urged to uphold the constitutionality of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance recited in New Hampshire schools.

More than 40 members of Congress and 80,000 Americans are calling on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to uphold a lower court’s decision that ruled the pledge should not be removed from the schools because it is an expression of patriotism, not religion.

“There is absolutely no legal reason to strike the words ‘under God’ from the pledge and reject this time-honored tradition,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which filed an amicus brief Wednesday with the First Circuit. “The fact is the federal district court understood the fact that there’s no constitutional crisis in permitting public school students to voluntarily recite the pledge – an expression of patriotism.”

“We’re urging the appeals court to uphold the very sound decision reached by the federal district court.”

ACLJ submitted the amicus brief – a document filed in a court from a party not directly involved in the case – in response to the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s appeal. The FFRF is a group that promotes separation of church and state and educates the public about atheism, agnosticism and non-theism.

Last fall, Chief Judge Steven McAuliffe rejected an FFRF complaint after the court reviewed the phrase “under God’ in the context of the rest of the pledge rather than in isolation, keeping with Supreme Court precedent.

The court declared, “The New Hampshire pledge statute has a secular legislative purpose. It was enacted to enhance instruction in the Nation’s history, and foster a sense of patriotism. It’s primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion. It does not foster excessive government involvement with religion.”

Backing ACLJ’s latest amicus brief are 42 members of the 111th Congress, including Sens. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Reps. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.). More than 80,000 Americans have also signed on to ACLJ’s Committee to Protect “Under God” in the pledge.

“These words (one Nation under God) echo the sentiments found in the Declaration of Independence and recognize the truth that our freedoms come from God,” the amicus brief states. “These words were placed in the Pledge to reaffirm America’s unique understanding of this truth. The United States is different from nations who recognize no higher authority than the State.

“While the First Amendment affords atheists freedom to disbelieve, it does not compel the federal judiciary to redact religious references in every area of public life to suit atheistic sensibilities.”

The New Hampshire case comes just a month after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of references to God in the pledge and on national currency.

Judge Carlos Bea of Appeals the Ninth Circuit decided, “the Pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect.”

“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 and for which we continue to strive,” Bea wrote in his opinion.

Courtesy of Christian Post at http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100408/court-urged-to-uphold-under-god-in-n-h-schools/index.html

Vote for marriage? You’re on a hit list

By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

 A battle is set to begin in the U.S. Supreme Court, as backers of traditional marriage hope to fend off a law that would make their names and addresses public and, therefore, make them prime targets for homosexual activists intent on bullying them into silence.

 The case calls into question whether voters have protected free speech and anonymity rights in signing petitions and ballot initiatives or whether states must release signatories’ names and addresses as a matter of public record.

 With reported cases of bullying, organized boycotts and threats of violence against the signers of traditional marriage initiatives in several states already – and homosexual activists pledging to make lists of signatories public and searchable online – lawyers at the American Center for Law and Justice are concerned that voters may grow fearful of reprisal should they sign a petition seeking to restrict marriage to one man and one woman. That fear, the ACLJ is arguing in a brief filed this week before the Court, is exactly the kind of political and voter intimidation that the Constitution should protect against.

 “The right to secret ballot safeguards citizens from the historic evil of voter intimidation,” the ACLJ brief argues. “Similarly, the right to anonymity in signing referendum petitions is no less essential in safeguarding signers from reprisal or intimidation.”

 As WND has reported, those who have dared to sign or vote for traditional marriage in state petitions and referendums have faced backlash. In Maine, homosexual activists targeted churches with IRS complaints, and following California’s passage of the controversial Proposition 8, supporters of the measure limiting marriage to one man and one woman were fired from their jobs, subjected to vandalism, bullied by angry mobs and threatened with violence.

 Churches that rallied in support of Proposition 8 were targets of particular wrath on Internet sites and blogs:

 See how Americans and their Constitution have been betrayed by judge-made law

 “Burn their f—ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers,” wrote “World O Jeff” on the JoeMyGod blogspot within hours of California officials declaring Proposition 8 had been approved.

 On another site, Americablog, “scottinsf” wrote, “Trust me. I’ve got a big list of names of Mormons and Catholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. … As far as Mormons and Catholics … I warn them to watch their backs.”

 “If you’re planning a heterosexual wedding in California … be prepared for picketers. Designate someone to watch the parking lot … You’re going to have lots of unexpected expenses. Add $500 to your budget for security,” stated another threat. “Be afraid. Be very afraid. We are everywhere.”

 “Californians have been shocked by the aggressiveness of radical homosexual activists,” states Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, on the group’s website. “These tactics of fear and intimidation in retaliation for supporting a lawful ballot measure are completely unacceptable.”  

The current case before the Supreme Court has arisen over similar fears among voters in the state of Washington, but with ramifications that could affect the entire nation.

Last fall, 138,000 Washington voters petitioned to put on the ballot Referendum 71, which challenged the state’s recently expanded domestic-partnership law granting benefits to homosexual couples.

And while the measure failed in the general election, an organization called WhoSigned.org, along with its national partner KnowThyNeighbor.org, has asked for the names and addresses of the petition’s signatories under the state’s public-records act. The plan is to post them on a searchable website.

Protect Marriage Washington then sued to block release of the names, saying the state’s public disclosure law “chills free speech … particularly when it is reasonably probable that those exercising their First Amendment rights would be subjected to threats and harassment.”

The charges of potential harassment have long been dismissed by KnowThyNeighbor.org, which has already posted similar lists of names and addresses for four other states: Arkansas, Florida, Massachusetts and Oregon.

“Such claims are irresponsible, incendiary and totally untrue,” wrote Aaron Toleos, co-director of KnowThyNeighbor.org, in 2007. “There is no organized plan to confront petition signers. In fact, we have never advocated for this and don’t think it’s constructive. No one is going to be knocking on random doors. It just doesn’t happen.”

According to an article published in the Olympian, however, a spokesman for WhoSigned.org said he hoped posting the list of names “would lead to conversations between neighbors about the legislation” and that “the list would give gay rights advocates the opportunity to educate individuals.”

Further, the ACLJ contends it is not necessary to prove intimidation is happening, as the issue is a matter of Constitutional protection of free speech and the political process. And now that the case – which was decided against traditional marriage supporters at the appellate level – has gone to the Supreme Court, the upcoming ruling could affect voters in all 50 states.

“The Supreme Court has an opportunity to correct a damaging decision that threatens the constitutional protections afforded to political speech,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, in a statement. “The process of initiating legislation is constitutionally protected as well. To force petitioners who oppose controversial ballot measures to disclose their identities as well as personal information is not only wrong, but violates core political speech rights protected by the First Amendment.”

“There is no meaningful distinction between signing a referendum petition and voting,” the ACLJ brief explains. “Whether the citizen touches a screen, presses a lever or signs his name, he is participating in the political process – expressing his convictions on the political issue at hand. The right to secret ballot – ‘the hard-won right to vote one’s conscience without fear of retaliation,’ McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 343, – is, of course, one of the most precious rights.”

“Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority,” the brief continues, quoting a 1995 Supreme Court case. “It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation – and their ideas from suppression – at the hand of an intolerant society.”

Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed, the defendant in the case, told the Seattle Times that Washington is defending its public-disclosure law as a matter of government transparency: “We welcome an opportunity to go to the highest court in the land to defend Washington citizens’ strong desire for transparency, openness and accountability in government, and the public’s belief that our state and local public documents must be available for public inspection.”

Arguments before the court are scheduled for April, with a decision possible as soon as June.

“It is not surprising,” Reed said, “that the Supreme Court would be intrigued by a nationally-watched case dealing with disclosure, First Amendment considerations and public discourse during the Internet era.”

 Courtesy of wnd.com at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127072