A U.S. Federal Appeals Court has ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional -Truth!

A U.S. Federal Appeals Court has Ruled the Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional Because of Its Reference to God, but Critics are Now Saying the Daughter of the Atheist who Brought the Suit is a Christian-Truth! & Disputed!

Summary of the eRumor
The eRumor says that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that because the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance mentions God, it is unconstitutional because of the separation of church and state. Follow-up versions say that the suit that brought the decision is a sham because the atheist who filed it isn't the only one with parental authority over the child who was allegedly injured by the pledge and that the child is a Christian.

The Truth
As with many legal cases, especially constitutional ones, this is a complex issue.

First, the story about the Appeals Court decision is true. On 6/26/02 the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals ruled that the pledge of allegiance in public schools was and "unconstitutional endorsement of religion" because of the phrase "under God."

The next day Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, who wrote the opinion, blocked his own ruling until all the members of the 9th circuit decide whether to reconsider the case. They can choose to hear the case again with a three judge panel or or an eleven member panel. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft said his department would request the eleven. The ruling and the decision to block the ruling have no effect on the schools affected by the decision since it had not gone into effect. The decision would affect schools in 9 western states.

The decision prompted a national outcry.

At the heart of the controversy is Michael Newdow, a California emergency room physician with a law degree who has initiated several court actions acting as his own attorney. In this case, he sued the El Grove, California school district, challenging the constitutionality of teachers being required to lead the students in the Pledge of Allegiance since it included the phrase "under God." The school district asked a judge to dismiss the complaint, which he did. Newdow appealed to the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals. In his appeal, Newdow said that his 8-year-old daughter is injured when she is compelled to watch and listen as the teacher leads her classmates in the pledge.

Shortly after the appeals court ruling, however, new facts started emerging about Newdow and his daughter that, at the very least, brought criticism of Newdow and, at the very most, prompted some legal experts to say that he might not have a case.

The mother of Newdow's child is Sandra Banning, also of the Sacramento area. Several articles including one from the Associated Press on July 11, 2002, quoted Banning as saying that she and Newdow have never been married, that she has full custody of their daughter, that both she and the daughter are Christians who attend church regularly, and that the daughter is not only not injured by reciting the pledge, but enjoys doing it.

The AP article quotes Rory Little, a Hastings College of the Law professor who follows the 9th Circuit, as saying that the case could only be heard if there was an injured party and without that, there is no case. There is also some question about the viability of his case if he does not have any custody of his daughter.

Newdow is fighting the custody agreement in court.

He has also filed an appeal to another court action of his that was dismissed. That one was filed against President Bush, objecting to a prayer by Bill Graham at his inauguration.

A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet:

SAN FRANCISCO—The Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional and should not be recited in public schools because it includes the words "under God," a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
In its 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 1954 act of Congress that inserted the phrase "under God" after the phrase "one nation" in the pledge.

The Pledge of Allegiance

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The ruling, if allowed to stand, means schoolchildren can no longer recite the pledge, at least in the nine Western states covered by the court.
The court said the phrase amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which requires a separation of church and state.
"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel.
The ruling will not take effect for several months, to allow further appeals. The government can ask the court to reconsider its ruling, or it can ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn it.
"We are certainly considering seeking further review in the matter," Justice Department lawyer Robert Loeb said.
The case was brought by Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who objected because his second-grade daughter was required to recite the pledge at the Elk Grove school district. A federal judge had dismissed his lawsuit.
"I'm an American citizen. I don't like my rights infringed upon by my government,"Newdow said, calling the pledgea "religious idea that certain people don't agree with."
"I'm trying to strengthen the Constitution,"he told Fox News in an exclusive interview Wednesday afternoon. "Take whoever you are out there, find a religion you don't agree with, and make them swear to it. You would object as well.
"If you had to say every morning 'one nation, under Buddha' … 'under David Koresh' ... pick any specific religion you don't agree with ... how would you feel?

The Pledge of Allegiance

Do you agree with the federal appeals court ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance, with the words "under God," is unconstitutional?

Yes, the Pledge violates the separation of church and state.

No, "under God" belongs in the Pledge.

Not sure.

This is not a scientific poll.

"The framers were really smart people. Look around at the world right now … you have problems because you find people combining religion and government."
The federal government, in arguing against Newdow's lawsuit,said that the religious content of "one nation under God"was minimal.
But the appeals court said that an atheist or a holder of certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see it as an endorsement of monotheism.
The 9th Circuit covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state. Those are the only states directly affected by the ruling.
The appeals court said that when President Eisenhower signed the legislation inserting "under God" after the words "one nation," he wrote that "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."
The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said students cannot hold religious invocations at graduations and cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. But when the pledge is recited in a classroom, the appeals court said, a student who objects is confronted with an "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting."
"Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge," the court said.