SACRAMENTO, July 25 (UPI) -- The controversial court ruling that found the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools to be unconstitutional was challenged by the State of California Thursday on the grounds the pledge was a patriotic rather than religious exercise.
State Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed a brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday requesting reconsideration of the June 26 decision that touched off a firestorm of criticism when it found that the pledge's "One nation under God" stanza violated the separation of church and state.
"The panel's ruling was not only troubling, but it was wrong based on the facts and the law," Lockyer said. "The Ninth Circuit would do well to reconsider and reverse this erroneous decision as quickly as possible."
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit had ruled 2-1 that stating that the United States was united "under God" implied that those who did not believe in God were outsiders, which amounted to public schools being used to promote a particular religion or belief system.
Lockyer's request for reconsideration of the decision echoed the contention of supporters of the pledge, who had said that it was designed to promote unity among the various religions and ethnic groups in the United States.
"The state contends that the pledge is not a prayer or other form of religious exercise, and that the pledge is significant to the public as a "vocal expression of patriotism and duty," Lockyer's office said in a statement.
The Ninth Circuit's ruling in San Francisco came in a lawsuit filed by Michael Newdow, a Sacramento-area physician who objected to the daily pledge recital in his daughter's elementary school. The state was among the defendants in the lawsuit.
The majority opinion concluded that the pledge was indeed a virtual list of admirable American ideals and values, but the inclusion of God in the mix through an act of Congress in 1954 had put schools over the line, particularly because authority figures such as teachers often led the recital.
"The school district's practice of teacher-led recitation of the pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect for the ideals set forth in the pledge, and thus amounts to state endorsement of these ideals," the opinion said. "Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge."
The decision, however, was met by sharp denunciations from veterans' groups and from Washington, where President Bush criticized the decision and the Senate passed a resolution declaring its support for the pledge by a vote of 99-0.
