Article Summaries

‘Under God’ in Pledge ruled unconstitutional

            According to CNN.com a federal appeals court ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of the phrase “Under God”. They 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals feels that it is an “endorsement of religion”. Later the 9^th Circuit Court Appeals remanded the case to a lower court, but if the ruling was to stand it would be applied to the nine state school districts that are covered by the 9^th Circuit Court. When the US Senate got wind of this issue they were outraged, they then asked the Senate Counsel to intervene in the case. Later that day there were between 100-150 House members gathered in front of the Capitol who were reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to show their support for it. Among those in support of the Pledge of Allegiance was President Bush, he believes that the rulings were ridiculous. The 9^th Circuit Court stated that “The pledge is an impermissible government endorsement of religion” and it sends a message. The message being that if you do not believe in God, then you are an outsider, and to those who do believe in God that you are favored members of the political community. Then the 9^th Circuit Court proceeded to say that when they inserted “Under God” in 1954, that it was a time when the government was publicly inveighing against atheist communism. After the 9^th Circuit Court stated that, the Supreme Court said that their statement was a fact that the federal government did not dispute.

Supreme Court rules on technicality Article Summary

            According to an article from USA Today, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts decision, which said that reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. However the Supreme Court did not decide whether this common practice for most school children was religious indoctrination. This case was brought against a California school district by Michael Newdow, an atheist father who lacked the legal standings to sue the districts because he did not have custody of his daughter. Eight court justices described the pledge as a patriotic exercise that was designed to encourage national unity and not a religious declaration. This case was testing the line between state and church. For example when the U.S. Court of Appeals struck down the recitation of “under god” by school children in 2002 the public outcry was immediate. Also the Bush administration backed the California school district in their time of need. The resolution for whether the practice of the pledge violates the separation of church and state is most likely years away. One opinion that Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated when joined by Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas was that a student who pledges allegiance to the flag promises “fidelity to our flag and our nation, not to any particular God, faith or church.” However Michael Newdow later stated that he was sure another atheist would sue and have the pledge struck down.