Court Allows 'Under God' on Technicality
Mon Jun 14, 9:01 PM
By
ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer
Yahoo News
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday allowed millions of schoolchildren
to keep affirming loyalty to one nation "under God" but
dodged the underlying question of whether the Pledge of Allegiance
is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.
The ruling overturned a lower court decision that the religious
reference made the pledge unconstitutional in public schools. But
the decision did so on technical grounds, ruling the man who brought
the case on behalf of his 10-year-old daughter could not legally represent
her.
It was an anticlimactic end to an emotional high court showdown over
God in the public schools and in public life. It also neutralizes
what might have been a potent election-year political issue in which
the Bush administration argued strongly that the reference to God
should remain part of the pledge.
The outcome does not prevent a future court challenge over the same
issue, however, and both defenders and opponents of the current wording
predicted that fight will come quickly.
For now, five justices said the court could not rule on the case because
California atheist Michael Newdow does not have full custody of his
daughter.
"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect
the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its
hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal
constitutional law," Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites)
wrote for the majority.
Newdow, who has fought a protracted custody battle with the girl's
mother, was angered by the decision and the basis for it.
"She spends 10 days a month with me," he said. "The
suggestion that I don't have sufficient custody is just incredible."
Three other justices went along with the outcome, but seemed to accuse
the majority of using Newdow's legal standing as a fig leaf to avoid
the harder constitutional issue. The three, Chief Justice William
H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) and
Clarence Thomas (news - web sites), made clear that they would have
upheld the religious reference.
The court's ninth justice, Antonin Scalia (news - web sites), removed
himself from the case after making off-the-bench remarks that seemed
to telegraph his view that the pledge is constitutional.
The phrase "one nation under God" is more about ceremony
and history than about religion, Rehnquist wrote. He likened the phrase
to the motto "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, and to
the call that opens each session of the high court itself: "God
save this honorable court."
"All these events strongly suggest that our national culture
allows public recognition of our nation's religious history and character,"
Rehnquist wrote.
Nathan Diament, policy director for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations
of America, said most Americans would be relieved by the ruling.
"There is a consensus in this country that there is an appropriate
place for expressions of religion in the public square," Diament
said.
The First Amendment guarantees that government will not "establish"
religion, wording that has come to mean a general ban on overt government
sponsorship of religion in public schools and elsewhere.
The Supreme Court already has said schoolchildren cannot be required
to recite the oath that begins, "I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America." The court also has repeatedly
barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and
school ceremonies.
Before 1954, when the United States was in the middle of the Cold
War, the pledge did not include a reference to God. In adding it,
members of Congress said they wanted to set the United States apart
from "godless communists."
In a ruling last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news
- web sites) in San Francisco said the language of the First Amendment
and the Supreme Court's precedents make clear that tax-supported schools
cannot lend their imprimatur to a declaration of fealty to "one
nation under God."
That decision set off a national uproar and would have stripped the
reference to God from the version of the pledge said by about 9.6
million schoolchildren in California and other Western states covered
by the appeals court.
Children were never barred from saying the full pledge, because the
lower court ruling was on hold while the Supreme Court considered
the issue.
Like most elementary school children, Newdow's daughter hears her
teacher lead the pledge each morning. The case began when Newdow,
a lawyer, doctor and self-proclaimed atheist minister, sued his daughter's
Sacramento-area school district, Congress and President Bush (news
- web sites) to remove the words "under God."
In one of the many odd twists to an odd case, Newdow served as his
own lawyer when the Supreme Court heard arguments in March. He argued
that each day his daughter hears the pledge is another day that a
teacher tells her, in effect, that her father is wrong.
The mother, Sandra Banning, told the court in legal filings that
she makes the decisions about the girl's education. Newdow can fight
the pledge on his own, but should not drag their daughter into it,
Banning argued. She added that she supports leaving the pledge as
it is, and wants her daughter to continue reciting it at school.
The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624.
___
On the Net:
Ruling in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow: http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/040614newdow.pdf