The California father who wants the words ''under God'' removed from the Pledge of Allegiance faced skeptical questions yesterday from Supreme Court justices, who took aim at his stance that the pledge is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
Michael Newdow, an atheist who argued his own case, won praise from court veterans for holding up under a barrage of questions from the justices. But the justices' comments suggested that the novice litigator faced significant hurdles to winning a ruling that could alter the morning routines for millions of children in public schools.
''No child is required to say the pledge,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said at one point, referring to a Supreme Court decision in 1943 that said schoolchildren could choose not to recite the pledge.
O'Connor also suggested the ''under God'' language was similar to the ''In God We Trust'' motto on U.S. currency, which a previous court decision said was a ceremonial motto and not an illegal government endorsement of religion.
''There are so many references to God in our daily lives'' that don't amount to prayers, she said.
Justice David Souter, a member of the court's liberal wing, asked Newdow whether the pledge's ''affirmation'' of religion was ''ceremonial'' rather than ''compulsory prayer.''
And Justice Anthony Kennedy, who like O'Connor votes with both the court's liberal and conservative wings, questioned whether Newdow had the legal standing to bring the case on behalf of his fourth-grade daughter.
Newdow and the girl's mother, Sandra Banning, never married, and Banning has legal custody of the girl. Banning is an evangelical Christian who supports the ''under God'' language.
Newdow, 50, didn't budge from his core arguments: that ''under God'' violates the Constitution's First Amendment by promoting religious belief, and that reciting the pledge in a public school classroom ''coerces'' children to join in and tells his daughter that his beliefs are ''wrong.''
''I don't see anything that is not religious about 'under God,' '' said Newdow, a doctor and lawyer from Sacramento. ''Government is not supposed to be anywhere near this position. … Clearly, there is a religious purpose.''
Newdow was opposed in the case by attorneys for the Elk Grove, Calif., school district, where his daughter is enrolled, and by the U.S. government.
The strong feelings aroused by Newdow's case were on view inside and outside the ornate marble court. On the court's steps, demonstrators began to gather before dawn and were treated to speeches, prayers and criticism of prayer throughout the morning. Hundreds eventually gathered.
Inside, Newdow's supporters applauded — a major taboo in the court's chambers — when he cited discrimination against atheists. Chief Justice William Rehnquist silenced the audience by threatening to clear the courtroom.
Eight of the nine justices took part in the case. Antonin Scalia, a likely vote to uphold ''under God,'' withdrew from the case last October after Newdow complained that Scalia's public comments supporting the pledge suggested that he had prejudged the case.
In July 2000, a U.S. district court in California rejected Newdow's claim. But in June 2002, a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Newdow and said the pledge is a ''profession of a religious belief.'' The decision sparked outrage across the nation; public surveys have indicated that about three-quarters of Americans say they believe the pledge is constitutional.
In February 2003, the appeals court narrowed its ruling, which applied to public schools in nine western states. The court banned the recitation of the pledge but was silent on whether it is constitutional.
The phrase ''under God'' was added to the pledge by Congress in 1954, and the Supreme Court has not ruled on its constitutionality.
Representing the U.S. government, Solicitor General Theodore Olson avoided the notion that ''under God'' had a current religious meaning. Olson argued that the phrase is viewed as an ''acknowledgement'' of religion's role in the lives of America's founders. Under a 1985 court opinion, such acknowledgements amount to a ''patriotic exercise'' and not an ''endorsement,'' Olson said.
Newdow countered that the words ''under God'' were inserted into the pledge in 1954 after a campaign led by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic group that aimed to counter communism. He also cited a 1992 ruling in which the court found that prayers at non-compulsory school graduation ceremonies were unconstitutional because they used peer pressure to apply ''subtle ... compulsion.''
Justice Stephen Breyer, another member of the court's liberal wing, told Newdow, ''You have a right to be offended.''
But, Breyer said, Congress also could have a right to insert the phrase ''under God'' into the pledge because ''it serves the purpose of unification.'' The phrase, the justice said, could be ''meant to include everybody'' in a statement of common purpose.
In that case, Newdow countered, he feels excluded because ''I deny the existence of God.''
A decision in the case is likely by late June.