The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the Constitutionality of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and the motto “In God We Trust” on American currency. This double body-blow denies two lawsuits spearheaded by Michael Newdow. You can read the Court’s opinions here and here.
I have not had time to absorb these rulings in detail, but right away I wonder how the Court can use the Declaration of Independence (citing the phrase “endowed by their Creator” as an expression of the Founding Fathers’ beliefs) as a litmus test for the Constitutionality of the phrase “under God.” The DoI is an historically significant document, but it has no force of law whatsoever. The Constitution does, and it’s internally consistent throughout that government and religion ought not mix.
The Court also makes confounding statements like “the motto (‘In God We Trust’) has no theological or ritualistic impact. As stated by the Congressional report, it has ‘spiritual and psychological value’ and ‘inspirational quality.’” Please explain to me the substantive difference between “theological” and “spiritual”–for that matter, how can the word “God” itself be said to have no theological impact???
I think politicians (elected judges) won’t get rid of this religious nonsense because to do so would be political suicide. I don’t know about the appointed ones, maybe they are concerned about the backlash to the person that appointed them, maybe they really believe the religious nonsense. Either way, none of them have the nerve to do what is right and defend our godless constitution.