On the recordJuly 15, 2002
I wish to indicate my concern about the recent ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in regard to the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in school as unconstitutional, noting its reference to ``one nation under God.'' I think we were all a bit surprised at that particular ruling. Perhaps for more years than I care to acknowledge, I have witnessed one bizarre decision after another arising from what I consider a very troubled court. During that time, a number of us in the Senate have worked to bring about fundamental reform in our legal system, including a wholesale restructuring of the Ninth Circuit. I quote from the court's decision on the pledge, and this was Judge Alfred T. Goodwin who wrote: A profession that we are a nation ``under God'' is identical, for establishment clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation under Jesus, a nation under Vishnu, a nation under Zeus, or a nation under no god, because none of these professions can be neutral without respect to religion. I find that troubling because it is totally inconsistent. It tries to establish a parallel that there is virtually no difference whether we are under Zeus, under Vishnu, or under no god because, as is stated in the opinion, none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion. This is a type of extremism carried out by individuals who want to eradicate any reference to religion in public life. It is clearly wrong.…
Source
govinfo.gov




