Bob
Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer (03-11) 11:36 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The words "under
God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an appeal to patriotism, not
religion, and do not violate the separation of church and state, a
federal appeals court ruled today - the same court that declared the
pledge unconstitutional in 2002. In a separate ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel
in San Francisco upheld the placement of the national motto, "In God We
Trust," on coins and currency. The language is patriotic and
ceremonial, not religious, the court said. Both suits were filed by Michael Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who
has filed numerous challenges to government-sponsored religious
invocations. His previous suit against the Pledge of Allegiance reached the U.S.
Supreme Court in 2004. Without deciding the constitutional issue, the
court said Newdow lacked legal standing to challenge the pledge on
behalf of his daughter, because the child's mother, Newdow's former
partner, had legal custody. Newdow then refiled the suit on behalf of parents who had custody of
their children and objected to the daily schoolroom recitals of "under
God," which was added to the pledge by a 1954 federal law. Newdow argued that the reference to divinity in a daily vow of
allegiance violated the rights of atheists and agnostics and amounted
to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. The appeals
court disagreed in a 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," Judge Carlos Bea said in the majority opinion. He said "one nation under God" referred to "our founding fathers'
belief that the people of this nation are endowed by their creator with
certain unalienable rights." "Congress' ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire
patriotism," said Bea, who was joined by Judge Dorothy Nelson. "The
phrase 'one nation under God' does not turn this patriotic exercise
into a religious activity." Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a member of the three-judge panel that
ruled the same language unconstitutional in 2002, dissented from
today's ruling. The 1954 law adding "under God" to the pledge was "designed to
promote religion and to indoctrinate schoolchildren with a religious
belief," Reinhardt said. "The teaching of religious views is the function of the family and
the church, not the state and the public school system," he wrote. The same panel upheld "In God We Trust" in a 3-0 ruling. Reinhardt
said he disagreed but was compelled to follow the precedent the court
had just established in the Pledge case. Bea said the Ninth Circuit upheld the use of the motto on coins in
1970. Although the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue, he said,
the court cited "In God We Trust" in a 1989 case as a "reference to our
religious heritage." E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/11/BAS71CEC9F.DTL