Merced Sun-Star Logo

Federal appeals court upholds 'under God' in pledge | Merced Sun-Star

×
  • E-edition
    • Customer Service
    • Mobile & Apps
    • Archives
    • Newsletters
    • Buy Photo
    • FAQ

    • All News
    • Local News
    • Business
    • Crime
    • Education
    • UC Merced
    • California News
    • Nation/World
    • Communities
    • Atwater
    • Chowchilla
    • Livingston
    • Los Banos
    • Mariposa & Yosemite
    • All Sports
    • High Schools
    • High School Athletes
    • High School Football
    • Merced College
    • UC Merced
    • Outdoors
    • NFL
    • NBA
    • MLB
    • Politics
    • Elections
    • The California Influencer Series
    • All Business
    • Agriculture
    • All Living
    • Celebrations
    • Food & Drink
    • Health & Fitness
    • Family
    • Blogs & Columnists
    • Brigitte Bowers
    • Debbie Croft
    • Sarah Lim
    • Old Trainer
    • All Entertainment
    • Celebrations
    • Comics
    • Puzzles & Games
    • Horoscopes
    • All Opinion
    • Columns
    • Editorials
    • Influencers Opinion
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Submit a Letter
    • Obituaries
    • View Obituaries
    • Place Obituaries

    • dealsaver
    • Circulars
    • Classifieds
    • Place Classified Ad
    • Pets
    • Garage Sales
    • Real Estate
    • Apartment and Rentals
    • Jobs
    • RVs/Motorhomes
    • Merchandise
    • Service Directory
    • Place an Ad
    • Place Celebration
    • Place Obituary Ad
    • Place Classified Ad
    • Place Legal Ad
  • Jobs
  • Moonlighting
  • Cars
  • Homes
  • See Legal Notices
  • Mobile & Apps

State

Federal appeals court upholds 'under God' in pledge

By Bob Egelko

San Francisco Chronicle

    ORDER REPRINT →

March 11, 2010 09:54 PM

SAN FRANCISCO — The federal court that touched off a furor in 2002 by declaring the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance to be an unconstitutional endorsement of religion took another look at the issue Thursday and said the phrase invokes patriotism, not religious faith.

The daily schoolroom ritual is not a prayer, but instead "a recognition of our founders' political philosophy that a power greater than the government gives the people their inalienable rights," said the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in a 2-1 ruling.

"Thus, the pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in Thursday's ruling.

The dissenting judge, Stephen Reinhardt, said statements by members of Congress who added "under God" to the pledge in 1954 show conclusively that it was intended to "indoctrinate our nation's children with a state-held religious belief."

SIGN UP

Sign Up and Save

Get six months of free digital access to the Merced Sun-Star

SUBSCRIBE WITH GOOGLE

#ReadLocal

In a separate ruling, the same panel upheld the use of the national motto, "In God We Trust," on 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."

Reinhardt reluctantly joined the 3-0 decision, saying he was bound by the court's newly established precedent in the pledge case.

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."

Both lawsuits were filed by Sacramento resident Michael Newdow, an atheist who has brought numerous challenges to government-sponsored religious invocations.

Newdow, a doctor and attorney who founded a group called the First Atheist Church of True Science, said he learned about the ruling when reporters contacted him Thursday afternoon.

"I'm bummed," Newdow said. "I think the arguments are deeply flawed and it's a shame to see judges buying into them."

He called the 193-page ruling "a blow to equal protection that the first 10 words of the Bill of Rights are supposed to be upholding."

"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 will continue his efforts to have the phrase removed from the pledge of allegiance. He said he would appeal the rulings to the full appellate court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

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."

Challenges began in 2000

Newdow first challenged the pledge of allegiance in 2000 on behalf of his daughter, a student in a Elk Grove elementary school.

The appeals court ruled in June 2002 that the addition of "under God" was religiously motivated and sent "a message to nonbelievers that they are outsiders," in violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.

President George W. Bush labeled the decision "ridiculous" and Congress reacted furiously, passing a resolution with virtually no dissenting votes that also denounced the decision. The court put its ruling on hold until the case reached the Supreme Court, which sidestepped the constitutional issue and ruled that Newdow could not represent his daughter's interests because her mother had legal custody.

Newdow then refiled the lawsuit on behalf of the parent of a kindergartner in Rio Linda. He won the first round before a federal judge in 2005, but a new appeals court panel issued a ruling Thursday upholding the pledge.

Bea, who was appointed to the court by Bush in 2003, acknowledged that "the words 'under God' have religious significance," but said they do not "convert the pledge into a prayer."

The 1954 law that added those words at the height of the Cold War was meant to convey the idea of a limited government, "in stark contrast to the unlimited power exercised by communist forms of government," said Bea, joined by Judge Dorothy Nelson. "Congress' ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism."

Reinhardt, a member of the 2002 panel that found the language unconstitutional, said Thursday's majority ignored overwhelming evidence of religious motivation by the 1954 Congress.

He cited statements by numerous lawmakers denouncing atheistic communism and declaring a belief in God to be part of the American way of life.

During the same period, Reinhardt said, Congress adopted "In God We Trust" as the national motto, ordered it inscribed on paper money and established an annual National Prayer Breakfast.

By inserting religious language into the pledge, Reinhardt said, "we abandoned our historic principle that secular matters were for the state and matters of faith were for the church."

The Associated Press and Sacramento Bee staff writer Jennifer Garza contributed to this report.

  Comments  

Videos

See ice on Shaver Lake captured by drone video

Thick snow turns Yosemite National Park into winter wonderland

View More Video

Trending Stories

Police: More than a dozen people rescued from SeaWorld ride

February 18, 2019 11:53 PM

One person injured in Merced County shooting, police say

February 19, 2019 01:57 PM

Gavin Newsom’s housing lawsuit put 47 California cities on notice. Is yours on the list?

February 19, 2019 12:00 AM

Cold winter storm expected to bring more snow to Yosemite Valley

February 19, 2019 06:00 AM

Gas tax hiring spree continues at Caltrans. It has hundreds of new openings

February 19, 2019 12:00 AM

Read Next

The Latest: Smollett gave false information in 2007 case

Entertainment

The Latest: Smollett gave false information in 2007 case

The Associated Press

    ORDER REPRINT →

February 19, 2019 07:01 PM

A California misdemeanor complaint against Jussie Smollett shows the actor was accused of identifying himself as his younger brother in 2007 when a Los Angeles police officer pulled him over on suspicion of driving under the influence.

KEEP READING

Sign Up and Save

#ReadLocal

Get six months of free digital access to the Merced Sun-Star

SUBSCRIBE WITH GOOGLE

MORE STATE

Newsom claims ‘retribution’ after Trump administration demands high-speed rail funds back

California

Newsom claims ‘retribution’ after Trump administration demands high-speed rail funds back

February 19, 2019 03:36 PM
Anti-vaccine talk is an ‘attack on our nation’s health’ and must end, California lawmaker says

California

Anti-vaccine talk is an ‘attack on our nation’s health’ and must end, California lawmaker says

February 19, 2019 04:14 PM
Trump slams California’s ‘fast train’ as Gavin Newsom leads 16 states suing over border wall

California

Trump slams California’s ‘fast train’ as Gavin Newsom leads 16 states suing over border wall

February 19, 2019 07:46 AM

California

Why Trump’s tweets could be used against him in California’s border emergency lawsuit

February 19, 2019 02:15 PM
Trump’s proposed border wall would be a disaster for endangered species, lawsuits say

California

Trump’s proposed border wall would be a disaster for endangered species, lawsuits say

February 19, 2019 03:26 PM

Afternoon Newsletter

‘A pretty good season.’ What California’s winter rain and snow mean for you in 2019

February 19, 2019 11:09 AM
Take Us With You

Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand.

Icon for mobile apps

Merced Sun-Star App

View Newsletters

Subscriptions
  • Start a Subscription
  • Customer Service
  • eEdition
  • Vacation Hold
  • Pay Your Bill
  • Rewards
Learn More
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletters
  • News in Education
  • Archives
Advertising
  • Advertising Information
  • Place Obituary, Celebration
  • Place Classified, Legal
  • Local Deals
Copyright
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service


Back to Story