'God' in Pledge of Allegiance ruled unlawful

By David Kravets
Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO — The Pledge of Allegiance, recited by millions of American children at the start of each school day, is unconstitutional because it describes the United States as "one Nation, under God," a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.

The ruling does not take effect for 90 days, and moves were under way immediately to have the ruling reversed by higher courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Critics warned that the decision called into question the use of "In God We Trust" on the nation's currency, public singing of patriotic songs such as "God Bless America," and even use of the phrase "So help me God" when judges are sworn into office.

The case was brought by a California man who objected to his daughter being compelled to listen to her second-grade classmates recite the pledge.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the phrase "one nation under God" amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the separation of church and state.

Leading schoolchildren in a pledge that says the United States is "one nation under God" is as objectionable as making them say "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 with respect to religion," Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote.

In Canada, where President Bush was taking part in an economic summit, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said: "The president's reaction was that this ruling is ridiculous.

"The Supreme Court itself begins each of its sessions with the phrase 'God save the United States and this honorable court,' " Fleischer said. "The Declaration of Independence refers to God or to the creator four different times. Congress begins each session of the Congress each day with a prayer, and of course our currency says, 'In God We Trust.' The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision and the Department of Justice is now evaluating how to seek redress."

The ruling also was attacked on Capitol Hill, with Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle, D-S.D., calling it "just nuts."

After the ruling, House members gathered on the front steps of the Capitol to recite the pledge en masse — the same place they defiantly sang "God Bless America" the night of the Sept. 11 attacks.

And senators debating a defense bill angrily stopped to pass unanimously a resolution denouncing the decision.

The government had argued that the religious content of "one nation under God" was minimal. But the appeals court said an atheist or person who held certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see it as an endorsement of monotheism.

The 9th Circuit covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawai'i, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state. Those are the only states directly affected.

Congress inserted "under God" at the height of the Cold War, after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, religious leaders and others who wanted to distinguish the United States from what they regarded as godless communism.

Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento atheist, sued his daughter's Elk Grove school district, Congress and then-President Clinton in 2000, calling the pledge a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with." A federal judge dismissed his lawsuit.

Newdow, a doctor who holds a law degree, represented himself and said yesterday he was trying to restore the pledge to its pre-1954 version, as no one should be forced to worship a religion.

"People have to consider," he said, "what if they were in the minority religion and the majority religion was overpowering them?"

The appeals court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had said students could not be compelled to recite the pledge. But "the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public-school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge."

The ruling was issued by Goodwin, who was appointed by President Nixon, and Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a Carter appointee.

In a dissent, Circuit Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez, appointed by the first President Bush, warned that under his colleagues' theory, "we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings."

" 'God Bless America' and 'America the Beautiful' will be gone for sure," he said.

Fernandez said the same faulty logic would apply to "In God We Trust" on the nation's currency.

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., one of many lawmakers who immediately reacted in anger and shock, said: "Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok. What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God' from the pledge taken by new presidents?"

Harvard scholar Laurence Tribe predicted the U.S. Supreme Court would reverse the decision unless the 9th Circuit does so itself. "I would bet an awful lot on that," Tribe said.

The 9th Circuit is the nation's most overturned appellate court — partly because it is the largest, but also because it tends to make liberal, activist opinions, and because the cases it hears tend to challenge the status quo.

The nation's high court has never squarely addressed the issue, Tribe said. The court has said schools can require teachers to lead the pledge, but that students could not be punished for refusing to recite it.