You’ll be pleased to know that the “under God” part of the Pledge of Allegiance is still legal — but just barely:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the use of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments on Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who claimed the references to God disrespect his religious beliefs.
“The Pledge is constitutional,” Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. “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.”
The same court ruled in Newdow’s favor in 2002 after he sued his daughter’s school district for forcing students to recite the pledge.
In a separate 3-0 ruling Thursday, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto “In God We Trust” on coins and currency.
The Los Angeles Times adds:
A divided federal appeals court Thursday reversed itself, ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t violate the constitutional prohibition against state-mandated religious exercise even though it contains the phrase “one nation under God.”
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2002, which deemed that requiring students to recite the pledge violated their rights to be free of religious indoctrination by the government, was one of the most controversial to come out of the court that is second only to the U.S. Supreme Court in its power to determine law for nine Western states and two Pacific territories.
The Establishment Clause of the Constitution’s 1st Amendment prohibits the enactment of a law or official policy that establishes a religion or religious faith. The 9th Circuit’s earlier ruling that the pledge unconstitutionally included “under God” stirred nationwide controversy and exposed Newdow, a physician and lawyer, to virulent scorn for attacking the religious references.
In Thursday’s ruling, written by Judge Carlos T. Bea, an appointee of President George W. Bush, the judges ruled 2-1 that Newdow and others who joined his lawsuit didn’t have standing to challenge the 1954 amendment to the pledge adding the words “under God” because no federal statute requires them to recite it.
Senior Circuit Judge Dorothy W. Nelson joined Bea in the ruling, but Judge Stephen Reinhardt dissented, writing that “the state-directed, teacher-led daily recitation in public schools of the amended ‘under God’ version of the Pledge of Allegiance… violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.”
Nelson and Reinhardt were both appointed to the court by President Carter.
So, Michael Newdow: misunderstood First Amendment patriot like his predecessor, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, or… you be the judge,
Here’s Madalyn in action, with a special guest appearance by Phil Donahue: