Judges asked to remove Him (God) from motto, Pledge of Allegiance
Posted: December 6, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
A federal appeals court in has been asked to remove "God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, as well as U.S. currency, which now carries the motto, "In God We Trust," in separate but related cases heard this week. The arguments were before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in and both cases were brought by Michael Newdow, a well-known atheist who has been campaigning for a number of years to stifle public acknowledgement of the Creator.
The couple, an agnostic and atheist with three children, say in their complaint that they "generally, deny that God exists" and contend their constitutional rights are violated when school authorities require their children to "participate in making the purely religious, monotheistic claim that the United States is 'one nation under God.'"
Newdow previously sued over the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge because of his daughter's exposure to the pledge in her California school. The self-described atheist said he did not want the third-grader to have to listen to the phrase "under God" in a public school.
After losing at the
in 2004, based on a ruling he didn't have standing to bring a complaint, he returned to and launched another case on behalf of some anonymous parents in another school district, which resulted in a ruling from Judge Lawrence Karlton in Newdow's favor.
He also filed a separate action challenging the inclusion of the national motto, "In God We Trust," on U.S. currency, and both cases were before the appeals bench this week.
Brad Dacus, who directs the work of the Pacific Justice Institute, told WND his chief counsel, Kevin Snider, pointed out that the motto actually does not "endorse" religion, and to remove it actually would be an act of hostility toward religion.
"We pointed out to the court that the phrase 'In God We Trust' in no way amounts to an endorsement of any particular religion or sect," he told WND. "Courts have made clear distinctions between a generic acknowledgement of God and an endorsement of a particular religion."
He also said it was explained to the court that legal precedent in the United States has been to allow references to God "in a context that is commemorative or reflective of our nation's history or heritage."
***********for remainder, go to*********