.bmp)
.bmp)
A federal appeals court in California has been asked to remove "God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and U.S. currency in separate but related cases heard this week.The arguments, in both cases, were before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco by Michael Newdow, a well-known atheist who has campaigned to remove acknowledgement of God from the public sphere.As WND reported, Newdow also recently launched a new assault on the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance with a lawsuit filed on behalf of an anonymous New Hampshire couple against a school district.The couple, an agnostic and atheist with three children, say in their complaint that they "generally, deny that God exists" and contend their constitutional rights are violated when school authorities require their children to "participate in making the purely religious, monotheistic claim that the United States is 'one nation under God.'"Newdow previously sued over the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge because of his daughter's exposure to it in her California school. The self-described atheist said he did not want the third-grader to have to listen to the phrase "under God" in a public school.After losing at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, based on a ruling he didn't have standing to bring a complaint, Newdow returned to California and launched another case on behalf of anonymous parents in another school district, which resulted in a ruling from Judge Lawrence Karlton in Newdow's favor. He also filed a separate action challenging the inclusion of the national motto "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, and both cases were before the appeals bench this week.Brad Dacus, who directs the work of the Pacific Justice Institute, told WND his chief counsel, Kevin Snider, pointed out that the motto actually does not "endorse" religion, and to remove it actually would be an act of hostility toward religion."We pointed out to the court that the phrase 'In God We Trust' in no way amounts to an endorsement of any particular religion or sect," he told WND. "Courts have made clear distinctions between a generic acknowledgement of God and an endorsement of a particular religion."He also said it was explained to the court that legal precedent in the United States has been to allow references to God "in a context that is commemorative or reflective of our nation's history or heritage."Dacus also pointed out that should the motto be banned from currency, there still would be problems in the U.S., because the Declaration of Independence as well as the U.S. Constitution contain references to God or a Creator.Ultimately, a decision to ban God would have far-reaching ramifications, he said."If the court rules that 'In God We Trust' is unconstitutional, then without question, we can easily see them invalidating any commemorative usages on public structures," Dacus told WND. "It was Justice Kennedy [who said] that would amount to effective state hostility to religion, not neutrality."To read more go to:
As in the days of Noah...
