Skip navigation

Appeals court to hear Pledge of Allegiance cases

Atheist also seeking to remove words 'under God' from U.S. currency

  How we worship
Christianity
Brazilians get baptized in Israel, a megachurch opens in Houston, and devotees carry a cross in the Philippines.
Islam
Whirling dervishes perform in Turkey, pilgrims gather in Mecca, and an elderly man is doused with holy water.
Judaism
Jews pray at the Mount of Olives, matzoh is baked in Brooklyn, and thousands of rabbis pose for a group photo.
Hinduism and more
Japanese ascetics hang from a cliff, Shinto believers pray in ice water and a 60-foot statue takes a colorful bath.
Video: Faith  
Orrin Hatch pens Hanukkah tune
Dec. 9: Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, wrote and sings backup on a peppy pop song celebrating Hanukkah. Msnbc's Contessa Brewer reports.

  RSS feeds on msnbc.com

Add these headlines to your news reader

updated 9:24 a.m. ET Dec. 4, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO - An atheist seeking to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance and U.S. currency is taking his arguments back to a federal appeals court.

Michael Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, sued the Elk Grove Unified 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 Newdow 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.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here

Previous ruling
In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento found in favor of Newdow, ruling the pledge was unconstitutional because its reference to “one nation under God” violates children’s rights to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.” The judge said he was following the precedent set by the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling in Newdow’s first case.

A three-judge panel from that court was to hear arguments in the case on Tuesday. The same panel also was to hear arguments in Newdow’s case against the national motto, “In God We Trust.”

In 2005, Newdow sued Congress and several federal officials, arguing that making money with the motto on it violated the First Amendment clause requiring the separation of church and state.

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

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.”

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Sponsored LinksGet listed here
Online College Courses
Boost your career with an online Degree. Pick from Leading Colleges!
www.EarnMyDegree.com

Sponsored links

Resource guide