State legislators joined the fray of lawmakers denouncing last week’s 2-1 ruling by an appeals court panel that the Pledge of Allegiance’s reference to God is unconstitutional. One of the judges put the order on hold until the full appeals court could hear the case.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco handed down the ruling Wednesday, sending politicians from both sides of the aisle scrambling to denounce it. Although the court’s decision only affects nine Western states, Michigan politicians were quick to join in the debate.
“The ruling was met across the nation with an instantaneous outcry,” said state Rep. Mickey Mortimer, R-Horton. “It’s up to all of us to step forward and let our leaders know the will of the people.”
Mortimer co-authored a House resolution with Rep. Mike Kowall, R-White Lake, urging public schools to have students recite the pledge - complete with “under God” - every morning. The resolution, along with a similar one in the state Senate, passed unanimously.
The legislative distaste for the ruling crossed party lines. State Rep. Patricia Lockwood, D-Fenton, led a bipartisan group of legislators Thursday in a recital of the pledge on the front steps of the Capitol.
“When I heard of the court’s decision, I just couldn’t believe it,” she said. “I hope that appropriate action is taken to overturn this decision.”
Lockwood went as far as to list all references to God in government, including U.S. currency that says “In God We Trust” and the phrase “so help me God” at the end of the presidential oath of office.
“Does this mean that every reference to God or the creator has to be stripped from every single facet of government?” she said. “I think the court overstepped its bounds in this decision. It’s ridiculous.”
But some area residents aren’t as outraged as legislators. Journalism senior Emily Friedman said she stopped regularly reciting the pledge in middle school when it was no longer required.
“I can understand saying the Pledge of Allegiance and not using God, because it’s still patriotic,” she said. “Not every student believes in God, so that’s kind of going to leave them out. That’s not really fair.”
East Lansing resident Sarah Pletcher said the court’s ruling brings back the original intention of the pledge. Congress added the words “under God” in 1954.
“If the whole purpose of the pledge is to have some central, unifying message, then why would you put something in there that couldn’t be more nonunifying?” Pletcher said. “I think the whole point of the pledge is a wonderful thing.
“We need some sort of unification in this country.”
Staff writer Kristofer Karol contributed to this report.
