'Under God' To Remain In Pledge Of Allegiance

By Justin Worsley

After eight years of deliberating, San Francisco-based 9th circuit court ruled that the use of the phrases "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on United States currency do not violate the First Amendment, which includes the separation of church and state.

The case was first brought forward by atheist Michael Newdow of Sacramento, who stated that the usage of God violates his religious beliefs and is unconstitutional. Newdow constructed a lawsuit after discovering his daughter's school recited the Pledge of Allegiance every morning.

In 2002, the 9th circuit court ruled in favor of Newdow. Former President George W. Bush called the ruling "ridiculous," as the lawsuit went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, where Newdow was shot down due to him not having custody of his daughter.

Newdow returned in 2005, however, after creating another lawsuit under the names of several parents who share his views.

In 1954, the words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance by federal law, a law augmented during a paranoid McCarthy-era America. The usage of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was an attempt to separate the United States from "godless communists."

Newdow told the Associated Press after the hearing that he will appeal the ruling, going as far as the Supreme Court if necessary.

"The whole argument is that 'under God' wasn't placed in the pledge for religious purposes is bogus," Newdow said. "I hope people recognize this is not against God or people who believe in God. It is about the government treating people equally on the basis of their lawful religious views."

The ruling was one of the most controversial of last decade, and could very well spill into this season, however it is very unlikely after yesterday's ruling.