Newdow, allies challenge ‘under God’ in pledge

By Tom Strode - Jan 31, 2005 - comment

Michael Newdow has gained some allies in a renewed effort to remove the name of God from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Newdow, whose challenge to the words “under God” in the pledge was rejected by the Supreme Court in June, filed a federal lawsuit Jan. 4 in Sacramento, Calif., asking a court to rule as unconstitutional a 1954 law inserting the phrase about deity into the pledge, the Sacramento Bee reported. Eight others—parents of students in northern California public schools or students themselves—joined Newdow in the suit, according to the Bee.

The co-plaintiffs provide Newdow’s case with something the high court said last year he did not have—legal standing. The justices reversed a federal appeals court decision without deciding whether “under God” is constitutional. Instead, a majority of the court ruled Newdow, as a father without primary custody of his elementary-age daughter, did not have standing to represent her in the suit.

The parents who are co-plaintiffs with Newdow have custody of their children. They and the students joining in his latest challenge are atheists, agnostics or pantheists, according to the Bee. Newdow is an atheist.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Citizenship, Church and State, Religious Liberty, Social Issues

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com