House votes to protect “under God” in pledge

By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – In a move intended to preserve a
reference to God in an oath recited by millions of Americans
each day, the House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to
prevent U.S. courts from hearing challenges to the Pledge of
Allegiance.

The 260-167 vote, largely along party lines, was one of
several hot-button topics brought to the House floor by
Republican leaders aiming to highlight differences between the
parties before November’s congressional elections.

In the Senate, a similar bill has not advanced since it was
introduced a year ago.

Conservatives have sought to keep the phrase “under God” in
the pledge since an appeals court ruled in 2002 it amounted to
an endorsement of religion in violation of the U.S.
Constitution. An atheist had challenged the pledge being
recited in his daughter’s school. Schoolchildren across the
nation commonly pledge allegiance to the flag each morning.

The Supreme Court struck down the appeals court decision on
procedural grounds but left the door open for another
challenge, causing Republicans to say the pledge must be placed
off-limits before “activist judges” tamper with it again.

“We’re creating a fence. The fence goes around the federal
judiciary. We’re doing that because we don’t trust them,” said
Missouri Rep. Todd Akin.

The California man who has led the challenge against the
phrase “under God” vowed to fight the new legislation if it
became law and said it provided him with new legal arguments
against the pledge.

“This is the greatest thing that could have happened,”
Michael Newdow, who is both a lawyer and a doctor, said by
telephone. “They are showing the courts that this is a huge
issue and that they want their religious view espoused by our
government which is exactly what the Constitution forbids.”

Akin and other Republicans said the reference to God, added
to the pledge in 1954, did not endorse any specific religion
but referred to the philosophy of the country’s founders that
rights such as freedom of speech were granted by a divine
being, not a government.

Democrats said the measure would deprive the courts of
their ability to oversee an important form of personal rights.

(Additional reporting by Adam Tanner in San Francisco)