<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16981" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>
<DIV><A href="http://tinyurl.com/yddqnat"><FONT
size=3>http://tinyurl.com/yddqnat</FONT></A></DIV>
<DIV>
<H1>Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance</H1>
<DIV class=byline><CITE class=vcard>By TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer
<SPAN class="fn org">Terence Chea, Associated Press Writer</SPAN> </CITE><ABBR
class=recenttimedate title=2010-03-11T14:41:38-0800>1 min ago</ABBR>
</DIV><!-- end .byline -->
<DIV class="mod ad darla_ad" id=darla-ad__LREC> </DIV>
<DIV class="mod ad darla_ad">SAN FRANCISCO – A <SPAN class=yshortcuts
id=lw_1268347313_0>federal appeals court</SPAN> in San Francisco upheld the use
of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "<SPAN class=yshortcuts
id=lw_1268347313_1>In God We Trust</SPAN>" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments
on Thursday that the phrases violate the <SPAN class=yshortcuts
id=lw_1268347313_2>separation of church and state</SPAN>.</DIV>
<P>The 9th <SPAN class=yshortcuts id=lw_1268347313_3>U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals</SPAN> panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist <SPAN
class=yshortcuts id=lw_1268347313_4>Michael Newdow</SPAN>, who claimed the
references to God disrespect his religious beliefs.</P>
<P>"<SPAN class=yshortcuts id=lw_1268347313_5>The Pledge</SPAN> is
constitutional," <SPAN class=yshortcuts id=lw_1268347313_6>Judge Carlos
Bea</SPAN> wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. "<SPAN class=yshortcuts
id=lw_1268347313_7>The Pledge of Allegiance</SPAN> serves to unite our vast
nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our
Republic was founded."</P>
<P>The same court ruled in Newdow's favor in 2002 after he sued his daughter's
school district for having students recite the pledge at school.</P>
<P>That lawsuit reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, but the high court ruled
that Newdow lacked the legal standing to file the suit because he didn't have
custody of his daughter, on whose behalf he brought the case.</P>
<P>So Newdow, who is a doctor and lawyer, filed an identical challenge on behalf
of other parents who objected to the recitation of the pledge at school. In
2005, a <SPAN class=yshortcuts id=lw_1268347313_8>federal judge</SPAN> in
Sacramento decided in Newdow's favor, ruling that the pledge was
unconstitutional.</P>
<P>"I want to be treated equally," Newdow said when he argued the case before
the 9th Circuit in December 2007. He added that supporters of the phrase "want
to have their religious views espoused by the government."</P>
<P>In a separate 3-0 ruling Thursday, the appeals court upheld the inscription
of the national motto "In God We Trust" on coins and currency, saying that the
phrase is ceremonial and patriotic, not religious.</P>
<P>Reached on his cell phone, Newdow said he hadn't been aware that the appeals
court had ruled against him Thursday.</P>
<P>"Oh man, what a bummer," he said.</P>
<P>Newdow said he would comment further after he had read the
decisions.</P></FONT></DIV></BODY>
</HTML>