By Heather Danforth
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional June 26 because of the phrase “under God.”
The court said that the phrase, added to the pledge under President Eisenhower in 1954, violates the constitution”s Establishment Clause, which mandates a separation between church and state.
The decision came in response to a case brought by Sacramento atheist Michael A. Newdow on behalf of his second-grade daughter, whose public school teacher led his daughter”s class in a daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
The recitation was intended to satisfy a California statute to begin each school day with “appropriate patriotic exercises.”
Although Newdow”s daughter was not compelled to participate in the recitation, he claims that being forced to watch and listen to it injured her.
The court upheld his claim.
“In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation ”under God” is an endorsement of religion,” the court”s opinion stated.
“To recite the Pledge is not to describe the Unites States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and – since 1954 – monotheism,” the opinion continued.
The circuit court”s controversial decision inspired a quick and heated response from organizations and individuals across the country.
“I find this opinion an outrageous example of judicial activism and overreaching,” said Utah Senator Orrin Hatch.
BYU Professor of Law Lynn Wardle said he was surprised by the decision.
“The Pledge of Allegiance, with the ”under God” language, has been around for a couple of generations and has withstood prior challenges, so this is unexpected,” he said.
However, the American Civil Liberties Union affirmed the court”s ruling in a press release.
“We believe the court”s finding was correct and is consistent with recent Supreme Court rulings invalidating prayer at school events,” the ACLU said.
The ACLU added that while schools should teach tolerance and good citizenship, they “must not favor one religion over another or belief over non-belief.”
Jenny Stauffer, a fourth grade teacher at Sprucewood Elementary in Sandy, disagreed with the court”s ruling. Stauffer leads her students in a daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
“I think it”s a great way to teach children patriotism,” she said. “Since Sept. 11, it should be stressed even more.”
Seventh-grader Caitlin Curtis, 12, of Temecula, Calif., felt the same way.
“It”s stupid if they tell us not to say the Pledge because it helps us to show respect,” she said.
V. Dennis Wardle, a member of the board of directors of the Foundation on the Constitution of the United States, said he hopes the decision will be reversed.
“I expect mature and responsible jurists to disavow this foolish ruling,” he said. “I hope that subsequent court handlings will set it aside.”
Hatch said he expects the Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit Court”s decision.
