A PATRIOT PLEDGE

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed their own 2002 ruling that said that requiring students to recite the pledge violated their rights to be free of religious indoctrination by the government.

The 3-judge panel did so by rejecting a challenge by a longtime atheist activist in a 2-1 court decision.

"The pledge is constitutional," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority, which found the pledge is a statement of patriotism, not religion.

---

RESOURCES: U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions

The case is NEWDOW v. RIO LINDA USD online decision. Pg 5 (all pages given are PDF pages.) here.

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: one Nation under God—the Founding Fathers’ belief that the people of this nation are endowed by their Creator
with certain inalienable rights; indivisible—although we have individual states, they are united in one Republic; with liberty —the government cannot take away the people’s inalienable rights; and justice for all—everyone in America is entitled to
“equal justice under the law” (as is inscribed above the main entrance to our Supreme Court). Millions of people daily recite these words when pledging allegiance to the United States of America:

The court found the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' 2002 decision erroneous. pg 93 [Bolding mine.]

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.

As for the pledge being coercive? "The Pledge is not a prayer and its recitation is not a religious exercise." pg 54

Judge Stephen Reinhardt was the dissenting vote. His dissention starts on pg 61.

---

The 79-year-old Reinhardt was a Carter appointee as was Senior Circuit Judge Dorothy W. Nelson. Nelson sided with Judge Carlos T. Bea who wrote the majority opinion . (Bea is a G.W. Bush appointee.) Reinhardt is married to Ramona Ripston, the Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California.