COURT DEBATES "UNDER MASS MURDERING BASTARD" ON MONEY, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

http://www.ktvu.com/news/14769671/detail.html

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legal precedence, Bible quotations and historical references.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."