On Dec 5, 12:26 am, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:

Court Debates "God" On Money And In Pledge

POSTED: 6:57 am PST December 4, 2007
UPDATED: 7:19 pm PST December 4, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO -- A Sacramento atheist made an ardent plea to a
federal appeals court Tuesday to respect his religion and remove the
words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We
Trust" from U.S. currency.

"I want to be treated equally," said Michael Newdow, who argued both
cases consecutively to a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals. "They want to have their religious views espoused
by the government."

Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, sued his daughter's school
district in 2000 for forcing public school children to recite the
pledge, saying it was unconstitutional.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Newdow's favor in
2002, but two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he
lacked standing to sue because he didn't have custody of the
daughter on whose behalf he brought the case. He immediately filed a
second lawsuit on behalf of three unidentified parents and their
children in another district.

In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento again found in favor of
Newdow, ruling the pledge was unconstitutional. The judge said he
was following the precedent set by the 9th Circuit Court's ruling in
Newdow's first case.

Terence Cassidy, a lawyer for the school district, argued Tuesday
that reciting the pledge is simply a "patriotic exercise" and a
reminder of the historical traditions of the U.S.

Judge Dorothy W. Nelson asked Cassidy whether removing the words
"under God" would make the pledge any less patriotic.

"Not necessarily," he replied, arguing it provided a historical
context, not a religious one.

But Newdow countered the pledge has "tons of religious significance.
That's why everyone gets so angry when we talk about ... taking it
out."

Newdow's arguments were lively and impassioned, filled with
references to legal precedence, Bible quotations and historical
references. He said repeatedly he didn't advocate hostility toward
God or religion and respected people's right to believe whatever
they wanted to believe. He said he wanted equal respect for
atheists, who've long been disenfranchised.

"They can't use the machinery of the state to get that (religious)
message across," he said.

About 20 Newdow supporters in the courtroom and outside the
courthouse wore T-shirts touting evolution and atheism and carried
signs supporting the separation of church and state.

The same panel also heard arguments in Newdow's case against the
national motto, "In God We Trust."

In 2005, Newdow sued Congress and several federal officials, arguing
the motto's presence on coins and currency violated his First
Amendment rights.

Last year, a federal judge in Sacramento disagreed, saying the words
did not violate Newdow's atheism, and Newdow appealed.

On Tuesday, Justice Department lawyer Lowell Sturgill Jr. said "In
God We Trust," is not an endorsement of a particular faith, but
simply a patriotic or ceremonial message.

Questioning from the judges seemed to indicate their willingness to
get the matters to the U.S. Supreme Court for consideration.

"How is pledging allegiance to a nation under God not a religious
act?" Nelson asked.

"It affects Mr. Newdow every moment of his life," Judge Stephen
Reinhardt said. "The government has no compelling interest to put a
slogan on a dollar bill."

Congress first authorized a reference to God on a two-cent piece in
1864. In 1955, the year after lawmakers added the words "under God"
to the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress passed a law requiring all
U.S. currency to carry the motto "In God We Trust."

I met Newdow at a moot court and asked him in public whether he would
accept the phrases if it was written into law that they referred to
the Deist God and not the Theist God. Surprisingly, he said that
would satisfy him.