Atheist Appeals Against Religion in American Oath

America's highest court will be urged today to order the removal of the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance, a move that could spark an ugly battle over the role of patriotism, religion and tradition ahead of the presidential election.

The challenge, which has been brought by a lone father, has infuriated the whole of the United States Senate, President George Bush and the district court for eastern California.

But Michael Newdow has defied the criticism and will argue today that the phrase "one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," recited by American schoolchildren across the country, violates the separation of church and state.

With one of the most conservative judges removed from the case, after he publicly criticised the challenge before it appeared before him, Mr Newdow has a reasonable chance of success.

Children in public schools in nine western US states have already been barred from reciting the full pledge.

Mr Newdow, 50, filed the legal challenge four years ago on behalf of himself and his nine-year-old daughter, based on his status as a parent of a schoolchild who was forced to say the pledge every day.

The judge dismissed it in two paragraphs and Mr Newdow, who is a passionate atheist, appealed.

After legal wrangling, Mr Newdow was granted the right to present the case before a three-judge panel, which shocked the nation when it ruled 2-1 in his favour in June 2002.

In February the court refused to reconsider its ruling, prompting the attorney general, John Ashcroft, to ask the supreme court to review the case.

A few days later the US Senate passed a vote in support of keeping the phrase "under God" by 99-0. President Bush has described the ruling as "ridiculous".

The pledge was first written in 1892 without the phrase "under God" in it and was endorsed by Congress in 1942, just after the US joined the second world war.

In 1954, at the height of McCarthyism, "under God" was added to distinguish the "inalienable" rights of US democracy from those of communist nations, where rights were conferred by the states.

"We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism through the time-honoured tradition of voluntarily reciting the pledge," he said.

One complication for Mr Newdow is his relationship with his former partner and the mother of the child, Sandra Banning.

She says that their daughter, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is a regular church-goer who likes to lead her class in reciting the pledge and should not be included in the suit.

If the supreme court judges decide that his daughter's name should not be on the suit, the case could be dismissed.

In the US, the case has at times degenerated into an unseemly slanging match between Mr Newdow and Ms Banning. He has claimed that their child was conceived after Ms Banning, 44, forced him to have sex during a trip to Yosemite National Park - an allegation she has flatly denied.