Atheist Loses 2nd "Under God" Court Appeal

(AP)  A federal appeals court upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who said the references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs.

The same appeals court caused a national uproar and prompted accusations of judicial activism when it decided in Newdow's favor in 2002, ruling that the pledge violated the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion.

President George W. Bush called the 2002 decision "ridiculous," senators passed a resolution condemning the ruling and Newdow received death threats.

That lawsuit reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, but the high court said 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 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, prompting the appeals court to take up the case again.

Judge Carlos Bea, who was appointed by Bush in 2003, wrote for the majority in Thursday's 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," he said.

Bea noted that schools do not require students to recite the pledge, which was amended to include the words "under God" by a 1954 federal law. Members of Congress at the time said they wanted to set the United States apart from "godless communists."

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who was part of the three-judge panel that ruled in Newdow's favor eight years ago, wrote a 123-page dissent to the 60-page majority opinion.

"Under no sound legal analysis adhering to binding Supreme Court precedent could this court uphold state-directed, teacher-led, daily recitation of the 'under God' version of the Pledge of Allegiance by children in public schools," wrote Reinhardt, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Newdow, a doctor and attorney who founded a group called the
First Atheist Church of True Science, told The Associated Press he would ask the appeals court to rehear the case. If it rejects that request, Newdow said he'll appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The whole argument that 'under God' wasn't placed into the pledge for religious purposes is bogus," Newdow said. "I hope people recognize this is not against God or people who believe in God. It's about the government not treating people equally on the basis of their lawful religious views."

Newdow said he isn't optimistic the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case because the justices will likely be reluctant to hear a case that could invalidate the pledge.

"They don't want to do what's politically unpopular," he said. "The Supreme Court will not hear a case that upholds the Pledge of Allegiance. It's very unlikely at least."

Rory Little, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, agreed. He said the Supreme Court is unlikely to review the case because Thursday's ruling is the third appellate court decision upholding the pledge.

In addition, Congress passed legislation reaffirming the pledge in 2002, following the 9th Circuit's ruling that struck it down.

"I think this is the last word on this particular lawsuit," Little said. "It's an important ruling."

In a separate 3-0 ruling Thursday, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency, citing an earlier 9th Circuit panel that ruled the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic and "has nothing whatsover to do with the establishment of religion."

Greg Katsas, who argued the case on behalf of the U.S. government when the appellate court heard the case in December 2007, said the panel made the right decision Thursday.

"I think these two phrases encapsulate the philosophy on which the nation was founded," said Katsas, who now works in private practice. "There is a religious aspect to saying "One nation under God," but it isn't like a prayer. When someone says the pledge, they're not praying to God, they're pledging allegiance to the country, the flag and the ideals of the country."

[jankebenzone]

Tough bananas atheists, the courts have ruled you out of order and anti American.Don't like it? move to one of the few remaining communists countries such as Vietnam. Btw, there is only one God!

[rnrstar]

You are a perfect example of why "under God" in the pledge is so deleterious to this country. It gives people like you an excuse to denigrate your fellow Americans simply because they don't believe in your god. So what's next if we refuse to leave, gas chambers?

[tonyatq]

Good for the courts!

[RoboBlogger]

"God" is a universal language for Creator. Leave it at that. Besides, it wouldn't sound right without it after memorizing it for 26 years.

[tronking]

What people seem to fail to see here is that he see's this as an infringement on his beliefs and unconstitutional.

--The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who said the references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs. His rights are to believe what he wants and to leave it at that. If he wants to change something that I believe in then he is violating my rights of religious freedom which is in the constitution.

This should not even be in the courts, for one main reason. According to the report -- A federal appeals court upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The courts keep trying to put separation of church and state into the constitution and it is not there. Therefore any court rulings stating a violation of constitutional rights would be out of order. This has been a problem for many years and this battle will keep going on until the constitution gets ammended. Then if an ammendment was made and it stated separation then the courts could rule on violations of constitutional rights due to constitutional requirements for separation of church and state.

[debbyt1-2009]

This country was found on religious principles,like it or not. The separation of church and state simply means, you can choose which religion, or lack or religion you want, but that the religious principles stand as our foundation. If you don't like it blame your ancestors who came here... or go back to where you came from... this is OUR country..for all of us. If you don't like our constitution, go find a country that you believe in.

[tronking]

The problem isn't religious principles the problem is putting words into the constitution that aren't there and then making court rulings on those words. We need to hammer our courts when they make these rulings and let them know they need to make their decisions on written law. Not on what they perceive someone meant in a letter that was written as a response to a question that had no legal binding.

[rnrstar]

Exactly what religious principles is this country founded upon. Better yet, what specifically Christian principles are to be found in the Constitution? The problem with platitudes such as "we were founded upon Christian principles" is that under even the most superficial examination there is no substance. They exist only to muddy reality. IOW, propaganda. The fact is, you can't find a single Christian principle in the Constitution. It is a wholly secular document that never mentions God, even once. Our founding fathers recognized the danger of allowing God into the government and fought back every single attempt to include God in the Constitution.

[Devils_advocate_from_SJ]

...Amen !!

[dcodyman]

why is it that just because you are an atheist you are aloud to remove GOD from everything what about my right to be a christian and the right to believe in GOD do you see christian going around suing atheist for emotional distress, what about my rights to want my children and grandchildren to say the pledge and keep GOD in our everyday life i believe in the words IN GOD WE TRUST!!! i feel i am very emotional distressed do to the fact that my grandchildren do not pray in school, so distressed it is hard for me to get out of bed i feel it is my right to pray where ever i feel i need to pray!!!!!! why don't you give me the respect to pray, if you do not wish to believe that is ok by me i will not force you, but why do you want to force me to do thing i do not believe as a believer in GOD do i not have rights?

[rnrstar]

No atheist or supporter of the Constitution that I know of is advocating that we should "remove GOD from everything". That is known as a straw man argument. You have every right to say the pledge any way you want. What you do not have a right to do is to use OUR government to tell me that I should pray to your god with the Pledge. BTW, your grandchildren are certainly allowed to pray in school. Once again, your right has not been violated. Just as it is my right to not have a public school teacher lead my child in prayer. BTW, do you think your right to "pray where ever I feel I need to pray" include a court room while it is in session? Try saying the Lord's Prayer out loud in a court room while in session and see what your rights are.

[newsterl]

"and Newdow received death threats. "

Oh yeah, those xtians are certainly not about that, the violent history of this cult and the other branches of it is well documented, just read about the reformation, inquisition, witch trials, jailings, torture, burnings, beheadings, pole axing, entire villages of "non believers" who refused to "convert" were wiped out- men, women, children AND animals. It's all in the history books

[gorgeousm]

IMPOSING OR FORCING GOD FOR RELIGIOUS BASIS IS WORSE THAN JUST WRONGFUL

We should not have be pushed into accepting constant reminders of God on our currency, and/or on our public and government statues and edifices, or for that matter, NOT in ANY way.

Religion and the attitudes and mindsets that religious thinking creates, has demonstrated its tendency to be divisive, dangerous, destructive and deadly.

GOD IS NOT RELIGION, AND RELIGION IS NOT GOD
Yes, God is better than any 'superior-claimed', brand-named religion, but we should not have either shoved in our faces. So yes, you can privately and personally believe in God, atheism, agnosticism, and/or your religious beliefs...

...as long as you refrain from imposing such of your personal beliefs onto others.

[spillover]

Bye Bye Mikey, you won't be missed.

[rnrstar]

Bye Bye religious freedom, it will be missed.