c. 2004 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday (June 14) sidestepped a volatile dispute over the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling that a California atheist had no standing to challenge the phrase on behalf of his daughter.

The court, in a lopsided 8-0 decision, dismissed the challenge brought by Michael Newdow because he does not have sole custody of his 10-year-old daughter and therefore cannot act as her legal representative.

The girl’s mother, Sandra Banning, had told the court she does not object to her daughter hearing the words “under God” in the pledge.

The ruling preserves _ at least for now _ the traditional language of the pledge, but does not address the larger question of whether the phrase violates the separation of church and state.

“When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, joined by Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas, issued a separate opinion supporting the ruling and said “under God” is not unconstitutional.

Justice Antonin Scalia had recused himself after publicly saying he thought Newdow’s case had no merit.

The decision reverses a lower court decision from 2002 that found “under God” unconstitutional. It also lifts that court’s temporary injunction that kept schoolchildren in nine Western states from reciting the full text of the pledge.

Newdow, who claims he was recently awarded joint custody, vowed to continue his quixotic legal fight against the pledge.

“The suggestion that I don’t have sufficient custody is just incredible,” he said, according to the Associated Press. “This is such a blow for parental rights.”

In 1954, Congress added the words “under God” to the pledge written in 1892 to distinguish the United States from godless communist countries at the height of the Cold War.

While the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against prayer in public schools, it has allowed the pledge to be a staple of school mornings, but said in 1943 that children could not be forced to recite it.

Both sides agreed the issue, because it was dismissed on a technicality, is far from settled and likely to reappear before the high court. Opponents promised to help Newdow continue his fight against the pledge.

“Like it or not, the Supreme Court is going to have to take up this question again at some point in the future,” said Dave Silverman, a spokesman for American Atheists. “We promise to be there when it does.”

Supporters of the pledge expressed some disappointment that the high court did not issue a firm defense of it, but nonetheless heralded the decision as a win for keeping religious faith in the public square.

“By dismissing this case … the Supreme Court has removed a dark cloud that has been hanging over one of the nation’s most important and cherished traditions _ the ability of students across the nation to acknowledge the fact that our freedoms in this country come from God, not government,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, who filed a brief on behalf of the pledge.

The words “under God” were supported by the Bush administration and all 50 state attorneys general. In addition, in the days after the 2002 court ruling, the U.S. Senate voted 99-0, and the House voted 416-3, to support the words “under God.”

An Associated Press poll taken when the justices heard arguments on the case last March found that 87 percent of Americans support the words “under God” in the pledge.

The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow.

DEA/PH END ECKSTROM