What happened?

[1Timothy115]

On April 28, 1952, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), in
which school children were allowed to be excused from public schools for religious OBservances and education, Justice William O.
Douglas, in writing for the Court stated:

"The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State.
Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concern or union or dependency one
on the other. That is the common sense of the matter.

Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other--
hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not
be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of
worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the
Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God'' in our courtroom oaths--these
and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the
First Amendment.

A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even OBject to the supplication with which the Court opens each session:
"God save the United States and this Honorable Court.''


On November 20, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School
District 21, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992), held that a school district's policy for voluntary recitation of the Pledge of
Allegiance including the words `under God' was constitutional.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously held, in Newdow v. U.S. Congress (9th Cir. June 26, 2002), that the Pledge of
Allegiance's use of the express religious reference `under God' violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that,
therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance is
unconstitutional.

The erroneous rationale of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow would lead to the absurd result that the
Constitution's use of the express religious reference `Year of our Lord' in Article VII violates the First Amendment to the
Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Constitution
itself would be unconstitutional.''

Reaffirmation of Language

Pub. L. 107-293, Sec. 2(, Nov. 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 2060, provided that: ``In codifying this subsection [prOBably should be
``section'', meaning section 2 of Pub. L. 107-293, which amended this section], the Office of the Law Revision Counsel shall
show in the historical and statutory notes that the 107th Congress reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the
Pledge for decades.''

Edited December 15, 2010 by 1Tim115