'Under God' Undermined ... Again
by Jody Brown
September 15, 2005
(AgapePress) - One of the defendants in an atheist's lawsuit to have the Pledge of Allegiance removed from public school classrooms says it will immediately appeal a California judge's decision that recitation of the patriotic oath is unconstitutional.Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools has been declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in the second attempt by an atheist to have the pledge removed from classrooms. Atheist Michael Newdow lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Wednesday (September 14), U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the Pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." Karlton said he was bound by the precedent of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 agreed with atheist Michael Newdow that the Pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The case eventually made it to the Supreme Court, where the justices said Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter, and dismissed the case. Newdow followed up that ruling by filing an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Judge Karlton now says those families do have the right to sue.
In addition, Karlton has stated he will sign a restraining order preventing recitation of the Pledge in the three Sacramento County school districts where the children of the plaintiffs attend. That move has prompted the Catholic League to suggest that patriotic teachers in the three districts practice civil obedience by leading their students in the Pledge -- in full view of television cameras.
The Knights of Columbus, which is among the defendants in Newdow v. Congress of the United States, et al., has already announced it plans to immediately appeal Judge Karlton's decision. According to a press release, the Knights of Columbus was instrumental in persuading Congress to insert the words "under God" in the Pledge in 1954. The Beckett Fund, which represents the Knights of Columbus, tells Associated Press it will take the case to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Attorneys: It's a Flawed Ruling
Mat Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel in Virginia, says the ruling handed down by Judge Karlton "is not surprising but it is dismaying." Staver notes that a little more than a month ago, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Pledge was constitutional. And he takes issue with those who argue that inclusion of the two word "under God" in the Pledge violates the so-called separation of church and state.
"If the Pledge established or tended to establish a religion, then that would have happened during the past 50 years of its existence," he points out. He cites the fact that despite the fact the Pledge has been recited in classrooms, private meetings, and public event, "not once has it tended to establish a religion."
Staver contends that Karlton's ruling "illustrates why we need judges who are umpires applying settled law rather than activist intent on imposing their own ideology.
Another Christian attorney, Brian Fahling with the American Family Association's Center for Law & Policy, says Karlton's citation of precedence is unfounded. "Judge Karlton was simply wrong to claim that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision was binding on him," says the constitutional expert. "That is because the Supreme Court reversed [that decision] which had the effect of vacating or undoing that decision."
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law & Justice, concurs. "This decision is legally flawed," he states in a website posting. "The Pledge clearly acknowledges the fact that our freedoms in this country come from God, not government. We're hopeful [this] decision ultimately will be overturned."
Sekulow adds that Judge Karlton's ruling also underscores the importance of the federal judiciary and who serves on the Supreme Court. He recalls a statement made by now-retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor following the initial Newdow case. The outgoing justice said that eliminating references to divinity in the nation's symbols, songs mottos, and oaths "would sever ties to a history that sustains this nation even today."
