Atheist seeks removal of the words "under God" from Pledge of Allegiance
An atheist has pleaded with a federal appeals court to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency, saying the references disrespect his religious beliefs. "I want to be treated equally," said Michael Newdow, who argued the cases consecutively to a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday. He added that supporters of the phrases "want to have their religious views espoused by the government." Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, sued his daughter's school district in 2000 for forcing public school children to recite the pledge, saying it was unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit ruled in Newdow's favor in 2002, but two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he lacked standing to sue because he didn't have custody of the daughter on whose behalf he brought the case. He immediately filed a second lawsuit on behalf of three unidentified parents and their children in another district. In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento again found in favor of Newdow, ruling the pledge was unconstitutional. The judge said he was following the precedent set by the 9th Circuit's ruling in Newdow's first case. Terence Cassidy, a lawyer for the school district, argued Tuesday that reciting the pledge is simply a "patriotic exercise" and a reminder of the traditions of the U.S. "How is pledging allegiance to a nation under God not a religious act?" Judge Dorothy W. Nelson asked. Cassidy said the pledge has religious elements but is not a religious exercise. Newdow said the pledge has "tons of religious significance. That's why everyone gets so angry when we talk about ... taking it out." Nelson asked Cassidy whether removing the words "under God" would make the pledge any less patriotic. "Not necessarily," he replied, arguing it provided a historical context, not a religious one. Congress added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.
Associated Press By Kim Curtis
[Editor’s Note: The jurisdictions comprising the Ninth Circuit are: AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, GU, and CNMI. Summaries of past rulings in Dr. Newdow’s lawsuits are available starting at the first link below. The second link is to NSBA’s amicus brief to the Supreme Court supporting the school district in the first challenge, which unlike the many other briefs filed in the case argued the legal issues primarily from an educational perspective.]
NSBA School Law pages on Newdow v. U.S. Congress
NSBA brief in Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow