Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

POSTED: Friday, March 12, 2010 - 12:27pm

UPDATED: Thursday, April 8, 2010 - 4:30am

SAN FRANCISCO – 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 having students recite the pledge at school.

That lawsuit reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, but the high court ruled that Newdow lacked the legal standing to file the suit because he didn't have custody of his daughter, on whose behalf he brought the case.

So Newdow, who is a doctor and lawyer, filed an identical challenge on behalf of other parents who objected to the recitation of the pledge at school. In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento decided in Newdow's favor, ruling that the pledge was unconstitutional.

"I want to be treated equally," Newdow said when he argued the case before the 9th Circuit in December 2007. He added that supporters of the phrase "want to have their religious views espoused by the government."

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, saying that the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic, not religious.

Reached on his cell phone, Newdow said he hadn't been aware that the appeals court had ruled against him Thursday.

"Oh man, what a bummer," he said.

Newdow said he would comment further after he had read the decisions.

Comments News Comments

I need to be reminded every now and then that there are people in the world that have a different view of life than I do. Unfortunatly they do not live with the MAJORITY! The majority does however have the responsibilty to take there money and tie up our judicial system. For what ever reason... to be politically correct I guess.
LORD FORGIVE THEM FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO.

You know, this is the " UNITED STATES of AMERICA ". I am tired of the atheist and others trying to destroy our countries way of rights and what our fore fathers and women, fought so hard for. The majority of Americans, believe in " GOD ". Why should we have to pay, because of the few whom do not believe. If they do not want thier children saying the pledge, they should set outside the classroom, shut up and be quiet, form thier own school or move to another country. We have to many do gooders in this country trying to ruin our way of life. I had a friend tell a guy at work one time, " lets say you do not believe in GOD, which we know you don't. Lets say I die and find out that there is no GOD, well then I made a mistake. If there is a GOD, though and I believe there is, then your going straight to hell when you die, for not believing. Thank you. I hope you post this. James Johnson.

I am very sad about the court's decision. The government is not supposed to force religious belief's upon the public, which the currency and the pledge do. I do not believe God exists, and I should not be forced to hear that I live under a non-existent God. I want the court to produce the God or to reverse their ruling, since it says God exists. I do not live under their God. To hell with their idiocy and their God. Oh wait! Hell does not exist either. When a murderer buys a gun to kill someone, is he trusting in God? God does not belong on money. At least two members of the court are brainwashed morons.

Mr. Newdow states "he wants to be treated equally" yet his actions are selfish and only concerned with HIS version of equality and do not even take into his lack of tolerance.

GOOD!!! Under God should remain... now why is this news??????? There are more important issues at hand.

Post new Comment