merican Atheists has filed an Amicus or "friend of the court" Brief on in a historic case which challenges the inclusion of the words "under God" in the nation's Pledge of Allegiance.

   California physician and Atheist Michael Newdow took the issue to court after his young daughter was compelled to recite the religionized Pledge during class. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last summer agreed with Newdow's argument that the practice violated the constitutional separation of church and state. That ruling by a panel of judges led to an uproar throughout the country. Congress passed a slew of resolutions condemning the decision, and President George Bush ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to appeal the case at taxpayer expense. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) agreed to take up the matter, and oral arguments are scheduled in Washington, D.C. next month.

   Several groups have now filed briefs supporting the Newdow case.

   "As the oldest active Atheist civil rights groups in the nation, it was essential that we presented our views in this important legal action," Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists told reporters. "This is both a First Amendment and a civil rights issue for millions of Atheists, Freethinkers and other nonbelievers who reject religious creeds and rituals."

   The 30-page document was filed on behalf of American Atheists by California attorney James Pyle, with Paul Sanford as Counsel of Record.

   What distinguishes this Amicus is its frank declaration concerning Atheist philosophy, including quotes by the late Madalyn Murray O'Hair, founder of the organization. Her historic legal appeal, MURRAY v. CURLETT, was one of two combined cases pivotal in removing mandatory, unison prayer and Bible verse recitation from the public schools in 1963. The brief argues that the Drafters of the Bill of Rights sought to separate government from religion; that Atheists are included in the protections offered by the First Amendment; and that the intent of the 1954 Act of Congress was to "Denigrate and Disparage" Atheists as part of a systematic, political strategy attempting to link Atheism with "Godless Communism."

   Along with the display of the Ten Commandments on public property and prayer in public schools, the Pledge of Allegiance controversy remains at the focus of a national debate over the status of religion in American society.

   While many have defended the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, the original statement was purely secular. Most conservatives would be surprised to also learn that this icon of American patriotic ritual was, in fact, composed by socialist editor and clergyman Francis Bellamy.

   The Pledge made its first appearance in 1892 in The Youth's Companion Magazine where Bellamy served as editor. His first cousin was Edward Bellamy (1850-1898), author of "Looking Backward" and "Equality," two noted socialist utopian novels of the nineteenth century. According to Dr. John W. Baer, an expert on the origin of the Pledge, Rev. Bellamy frequently incorporated the ideological themes of these works into his own sermons.

   The Pledge of Allegiance was first recited in public schools in October, 1892 following a proclamation issued by President Benjamin Harrison. The original wording declared:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and(to)the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

   In 1924, a gathering known as the National Flag Conference orchestrated by the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution made slight alterations to the Pledge format, changing "my Flag" to "the Flag of the United States."

   The most profound change took place during the cold war era. Despite having been a reliable ally in World War II, the Soviet Union was increasingly perceived as a geopolitical menace. Religion was soon mobilized in the defense of American values against the foe of "Godless Communism." Another factor affecting the fate of the Pledge was the increasing tempo of secularization in the United States.

    ¶       A series of Supreme Court cases in the 1940s tested whether schools or other government agencies could compel citizens to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. A number of states led by Kentucky in 1907 had passed laws ordering recitation of the unison Pledge in schools. By 1936, eighteen states mandated the practice. Members of the Jehovah's Witness sect challenged the statutes; and the Supreme Court originally voted to uphold the invasive laws in the 1940 MINERSVILLE v. GOBITIS case. But three years later, the justices reversed the precedent and in a 6-3 decision ruled that no American should be compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

    ¶       In 1948, Congress passed legislation requiring all federal justices and judges to swear an oath concluding with "So help me God." Four years later as Dwight D. Eisenhower assumed the office of the presidency, prayer breakfasts -- first in the White House then in state and local venues throughout the country -- became a routine practice.

   It was during this time that the Hearst newspaper chain in concert with the American Legion, the Catholic Knights of Columbus and assorted Protestant groups, began a campaign to have the words "under God" incorporated into the Pledge. Public pronouncements of religiosity would henceforth become a litmus test and badge of political loyalty.

   Other laws quickly followed. Congress approved special low mailing rates for all religious publications. And on July 11, 1955, President Eisenhower signed Public Law 140 mandating placement of "In God We Trust" on the national currency. The following year, another public law replaced the original national motto of "E Pluribus Unum" ("Out of Many, One") with "In God We Trust."

   In June, 2002, a panel of judges from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance established religion, and thus violatds the separation of church and state. Judge Alfred T. Goodwin opined:

"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral in respect to religion."

   President Bush immediately ordered Attorney General John Ashcroft to mobilize the forces of the Department of Justice and demand that the U.S. Supreme Court hear an appeal in the case.

   Numerous groups on both sides of the issue have weighed in with Amicus briefs, and Congress has passed heated resolutions defending the "under God" portion of the Pledge. The case has also joined other contentious issues in the culture war debate over religion and "family values" in contemporary American society.

   Although the U.S. Ninth Circuit effectively stayed implementation of its ruling in the NEWDOW case, this has fueled arguments by religious and political conservatives that a "runaway judiciary" is stalking the land, making law and changing the social landscape.

   Commentator and former presidential candidate Alan Keyes recently told Agape Press, a religious news service, "There is a difference between constitutional government and judicial dictatorship." He cited a recent federal ruling ordering Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state's Judiciary Building. For Keyes, the first phrase of the Bill of Rights which declares, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" prohibits judges and courts from stopping many practices having to do with government promoted religion.

   Whether the Pledge, or school prayer, or the Commandments, "It means what it says," argues Keyes, "and what it says is there can be no federal law which deals with the subject of religious establishment. What it means, therefore, is that if you're sitting on the federal bench you've got no lawful basis for addressing or interfering with this issue."

   Meanwhile a slew of federal, state and even lawmaker continue to promote the "God" Pledge, even at the risk of violating the U.S. Constitution and dividing communities.

    ¶       In Wyoming, the state Senate has approved a measure requiring public school students to recite Pledge, but presumably giving leeway to those who find the practice objectionable.

   Critics charge that even with an "opt out" provision, statutes of this kind have the effect of singling out and marginalizing those who, for reasons of conscience, do not participate.

   Sen. Keith Goodenough, D-Casper, offered a failed amendment requiring that students' constitutional rights be explained to them.

   "I think the worst thing about this bill is that it's not going to accomplish its goal," Goodenough told the Associated Press. "I don't believe you can invoke patriotism by making students say the Pledge every day."

    ¶       An example of how a compulsory Pledge of Allegiance can divide communities emerged in Stonington, Conn. when Selectman Peter Dibble called upon all local officials to begin meetings with the controversial ritual. Some boards have opted out, and the local Wetlands Commission voted unanimously to not start its gatherings with the Pledge of Allegiance.

   The chairman of the town Economic Development Committee concurred, saying "We don't feel it's necessary to go through the ritual suggested by Mr. Dibble. We subscribe to the fact that we are proud Americans."

   Oral arguments in the NEWDOW case will take place before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 24. A rally on the steps of the court building sponsored by American Atheists and the Godless Americans March on Washington (GAMOW) Task Force is expected to bring out a substantial contingent of nonbelievers supporting Dr. Newdow and the secular version of the Pledge of Allegiance. Religious groups are making plans to assemble as well. The anticipated large turnouts on both sides serve to underscore that fact that with God in the Pledge, Americans are divided, not united over the role of religious expression in the public square.

[text only]