Federal appeals court judges in San Francisco said the patriotic statement is illegal because it violated the basic separation of church and state as ordered by the US Constitution.

The Department of Justice had argued that the phrase "one nation under God" had minimal religious content. But the appeals court ruled that an atheist or a follower of some religions could see it as an endorsement of monotheism.

The decision was denounced as "ridiculous" by President George W Bush, while Senate majority leader Tom Daschle dismissed it as "just nuts".

The Department of Justice is now examining how to overturn the verdict, which will affect children in nine western states if it is allowed to stand.

What do you think? Is the US Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? Do the lines dividing patriotism and religion need to be more clearly defined?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

Your reaction

So much for the US being a free country; I'm not allowed to be an atheist, then? If the US is serious about being a free country it must scrap this reference to God from the pledge.
Jonathan Kelk, UK

As far as God is mentioned, it's a peaceful mention, why not keep it?
Schribaux, France

The separation of church and state is just a veneer

Moray, UK

Now that 'under God' is unconstitutional, will the US realise that the separation of church and state is just a veneer and that officially sanctioned religious exhortations abound everywhere they shouldn't. From 'In God we Trust' on money to oaths, prayers in schools, congress and so on, it intrudes into what should be a purely private matter for citizens, making atheists and polyatheists feel uncomfortable and excluded from the 'accepted' definition of loyal citizenry?
Moray, UK

If legally forcing people to say they believe in God isn't against the 1st amendment, then what is? Considering that the original version did not have the words "under God", why should there be any problem in removing them again?
Martin, England, UK

I'm not surprised George W. Bush finds the ruling ridiculous; he almost certainly doesn't understand the implications. If you don't believe in God, you can't possibly have any allegiance to the US can you?
Steve, UK

One nation!? Don't make me laugh. I have never visited a country so divided by religion and economic class. Utter emotional tripe!!
S G Begum, UK

As an atheist and republican I am not pleased that our national anthem is "God Save The Queen" and pledges to the Queen remain when becoming a Member of Parliament, joining the police service and the armed forces. But I think there are more important issues to take up my time.
John W, Liverpool, England

The constitution says "freedom of religion", not freedom from it

GC Jordahl, USA

While I do not think anyone should be made to say the pledge, to make it unconstitutional is idiotic. Why is it always the wishes of the few in America that always outweigh the wishes of the many. With all the suffering on the planet, it is amazing how some must suffer indignation. The constitution says "freedom of religion", not freedom from it.
GC Jordahl, USA

This interesting case will bring to light the issue of whether US style democracy is able to look after concerns of the minorities, especially those who are not represented by the US Senate, who voted 99-0 against this.
Jessica Simpson, USA

The court's decision was the right one. The reference to God was not put in by the founding fathers. It was only inserted in the 1950s during the McCarthy era as a poorly-thought response to fears of atheist communism. I don't understand why lawmakers are in such an uproar. They show no respect for the third branch of our government. All they have to do is correct their mistake and delete the reference to God.
Mike, USA

Some of us may be extremely scared by the growing influence of the religious right in America, but I never realised how bad things must have been in Eisenhower's day to actually taint the great US constitution with a blatant, sectarian bias. May any relevant deity or deities preserve us!
Jon E, France

What happens next then? No more swearing of oaths on the Bible? When will people understand that America was built on religious faith. The oath should reflect that.
Sarah W, Belgium

As an American long-resident in the UK, I applaud this brave ruling by the Federal Appeals Court. Belief in one God, many Gods, or no God at all is a personal matter with no place in the public life we share with the rest of humanity. Far too much of human history is a melancholy chronicle of murdering each other over disputes about real estate or religion, and neither are worth a single human life. It's time we all grew up!
Tim, UK

Only in California! What on earth is next? The re-creation of all US paper currency because it too contains references to God i.e. "In God We Trust". The United States is a nation whose Constitution is founded on a religious principle. History cannot be changed, although many would like to try or, at least deny it. This is purely political correctness run amok. There are far more important issues to get worked up about.
Di Stewart, USA

As an atheist, I have left out "under God" when reciting the pledge for quite some time. When others pray, I am silent out of respect, but I do not bow my head. But I'm an adult who has made up my mind. Youth should not be forced to robotically recite anything that has a religious message/content. How about we just reverse the McCarthy-era rush to religious zealotry and remove all the "God" stuff from our pledge, currency, etc.? What other progressive government has so much religious suggestion? Uh, maybe middle-eastern countries!
Debbie Lawson, USA

I predict the words will remain

Glenis Roberts, USA

Of course the words "under God" are unconstitutional. Unfortunately, it would be political suicide for any public official to oppose their inclusion in the pledge, Just as it would be political suicide for them admit to atheism or agnosticism. I predict the words will remain.
Glenis Roberts, USA

What would the appeals court suggest as a more politically correct solution: "one nation under (fill in the blank space according to your beliefs)"? And if this outbreak of silliness spreads to the UK, who will "..save our gracious queen"? The point lies in the general sentiment rather than the detail, so leave things alone and go and find something useful to do.
Chris B, England

As a long time resident of US (as well as UK and India before that), I think the separation of church and state has gone far enough. I fully agree that 'God' equates to a supreme being whether Jesus (son of God), Vishnu, Allah, Buddha and other names or just no name for an atheist. We need to show our young generation a guiding light of inspiration instead of squabbling on semantics. God bless America (and the world).
Sanjoy Bose, USA

How could anyone deny that the phrase "One nation under God" doesn't endorse monotheism? As predictable as the ruling was obvious, was Bush's reaction. As usual with politicians these days, anything which might make them think is dismissed as ludicrous, a waste of time.
Matthew, UK

Having taught at a primary school in New York State last year as part of my teacher training, I think the issue of whether the US Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional is secondary to whether it actually carries any meaning to children who are so young! I did find myself wondering how many of the five year olds I taught who repeated it parrot-fashion every morning understood the notions of nationhood and allegiance, let alone phrases like 'indivisible under God'!
Mike Parker, United Kingdom