On June 26, 2002  the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled 2-1 in Michael A. Newdow v. US Congress, et al. (2002) that a 1954 act of Congress inserting the phrase "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. This means, the court held, that the Pledge may no longer be sponsored by public schools. This ruling sparked much comment in the media.  Issues that have arisen other than whether the court ruling was correct include the meaning of the First Amendment and whether the United States is a Christian nation.  Ross Mackenzie, a columnist for the Richmond Times Dispatch, asserted that we are indeed a Christian nation in a column entitled Under God: A Piece of Cake Easier than even 'Re Went to the Store on July 4.  Many of the letters cited below were in response to this column.

I wrote two letters to the Richmond Times Dispatch in three weeks concerning this issue.  The first was in response to a letter published on July 8 entitled First Amendment Limits Congress, Not Us.  The second responded to three letters published under the banner Christian Nation Provokes Debate on July 29.  My first letter was published on July 21 along with several others.  The second letter was not published since it was submitted so soon after the first one. There was a letter in the July 30 edition of the Richmond Times Dispatch entitled Founders Created Christian Nation in which there were references to David Barton and Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. (1892).  Three more letters on the subject were published on July 31 under the headline T-D Readers Weigh In on the Pledge.  Relevant letters were also published on July 12, July 14, July 15, July 17, July 18, and July 28.

About a year later, on September 2, 2003, the Richmond Times Dispatch published an editorial entitled Endowed? in which the author asked the question, "Can government acknowledge God?"  I wrote a letter responding that government should neither acknowledge nor deny the existence of God.  It was a rather long letter, and they chose not to publish it, but I think it is a well reasoned response to all of the arguments made in the editorial.  Read them both and let me know what you think.  The text of the editorial and my letter may be accessed by clicking on Endowed? and letter.

The Pledge case was argued before the Supreme Court in the Spring of 2004.  I used this case in my Government class for a simulation of the Supreme Court.  Click on Mock Supreme Court for details about the assignment and Pledge of Allegiance Resources for all the background, latest news, and legal documents regarding this case.  "On June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court issued a decision in the Pledge of Allegiance case, Elk Grove v. Newdow, No. 02-1624.  The Court ruled that Michael Newdow, the California atheist who brought suit on behalf of his daughter, lacked standing to sue because the child's mother, Sandra Banning, has "what amounts to a tie-breaking vote" on issues related to the child's education."

This leaves the Constitutional question unresolved.  Undoubtedly it will come up again.