WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decidewhether it's unconstitutional for children in public schools topledge their allegiance to ''one nation under God.''
The Pledge of Allegiance case pushes the court into an emotionalargument over religion, patriotism and schools. Activists on bothsides of the church-state divide immediately predicted one of themost significant, and wrenching, rulings in the court's modernhistory.
Generations of schoolchildren have begun each day by standing,hand on heart, to recite the oath that begins, ''I pledgeallegiance to the flag of the United States of America.''
Sometime next year, the high court will hear the case of aCalifornia atheist who objects to the pledge his 9-year-olddaughter's teacher leads daily. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court ofAppeals in San Francisco agreed with Michael Newdow last year, andthe ruling set off a national uproar.
Democrats and Republicans in Congress criticized the decisionand quickly passed a law affirming references to God in the pledgeand the national motto, ''In God We Trust.'' President Bush, whosigned the measure, called the appeals court decisionridiculous.
The ruling is on hold pending the court challenge.
Newdow, a doctor and lawyer representing himself in the case,was pleased the court agreed to hear the appeal.
''As a father, it's important that my child should be able tochoose which religious beliefs are most appropriate without thegovernment weighing in,'' he said.
The Constitution guarantees there will be no government''establishment of religion,'' wording that has come to mean ageneral ban on overt government sponsorship of religion in publicschools and elsewhere.
The line between God and government can be fuzzy, however, asattested by recent public furor and legal debate over display ofthe biblical Ten Commandments in courthouses and on publicsquares.
The Supreme Court already has said that schoolchildren cannot berequired to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The court also hasrepeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playingfields and school ceremonies.
''This case represents an important opportunity to put a halt toa national effort aimed at removing any religious phrase orreference from our culture,'' said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel ofthe American Center for Law and Justice, a law firm founded by theRev. Pat Robertson.
Most lawyers who watch the court had predicted the justiceswould not take on the highly divisive pledge case. The court couldhave resolved the matter without hearing the case on itsmerits.
The court still could do that, if it should find that Newdowlacks proper legal footing to bring the case. Newdow does not havephysical custody of the girl, whose name is not part of the SupremeCourt record. The girl lives with her mother, Sandra Banning, whohas told the court she has no objection to the pledge.
In another surprise, Justice Antonin Scalia said he will nottake part in the case. He did not explain why, but Newdow hadchallenged Scalia's impartiality based on remarks Scalia made at a''Religious Freedom Day'' observance this year. Scalia said theissue would be better decided by lawmakers than judges.
Scalia's absence sets up the possibility that the remainingeight justices could deadlock 4-4. That would affirm the 9thCircuit's ban on the religious reference, which would apply to 9.6million schoolchildren in the nine states the court oversees:California, Oregon, Nevada, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Arizona,Hawaii and Alaska, plus Guam.
Public schoolchildren elsewhere in the country could stillrecite the ''under God'' version.
God was not part of the original pledge written in 1892 andadopted by Congress 50 years later as a wartime patriotic tribute.Congress inserted the ''under God'' phrase in 1954, when the worldhad moved from hot war to cold and U.S. religious leaderssermonized against ''godless communists.''
Many people misunderstood the 9th Circuit ruling to be an attackon patriotism, and assumed the ruling meant that the pledge wouldbe banned wholesale, said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive directorof Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He thinksthe lower court got the ruling right, even though the result wasunpopular.
''What this is about is a tremendous test of our respect as anation for freedom of conscience,'' Lynn said.
Newdow, his daughter's school district and the Bushadministration all asked the Supreme Court to get involved. Thecourt agreed only to hear the school's appeal, but invited theWhite House to weigh in.
The administration has argued that the reference to God in thepledge is more about ceremony and history than about religion.
The reference is an ''official acknowledgment of our nation'sreligious heritage,'' similar to the ''In God We Trust'' stamped oncoins and bills, Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the court.It is far-fetched to say such references pose a real danger ofimposing state-sponsored religion, Olson wrote.
The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow,02-1624.
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
