In Daniel 11:40, the pattern is set:

1. The king of the south pushes.
2. The king of the north comes against him like a whirlwind.

Michael A. Newdow, in this case, represents the king of the south. Acting the part for atheism, he did not want his 8-year-old daughter to have to say "One Nation Under God" when pledging allegiance to the flag in her second grade classroom.

Taking the matter to court, his position was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals on June 26, 2002. The "under God" phrase was ruled unconstitutional. Here we see the king of the south "pushing".

The phrase in question had been added in 1954 to the 1892 pledge in an effort to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator" and "to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism*." In the words of President Eisenhower, by inserting the "under God" phrase, "we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future."

The Ninth Circuit Court saw the insertion as a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947) the Supreme Court defined the Establishment Clause in terms of a "wall of separation" between church and state. This wall is America's built-in safeguard from tyrannical persecution of those holding minority religious convictions. Subsequent Supreme Court rulings set up a series of tests to determine if a government policy violated the establishment clause. These tests are:

1. A policy must have a "secular purpose"; its primary effect must be neutral; and it must not promote an "excessive entanglement" between government and religion (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971)
2. A policy should not make some people feel as "outsiders" and others as "insiders" because of the government’s sending a signal that a religion or particular belief is favored (Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985)
3. There may be no form of coercion that forces citizens to support or to participate in any religion or religious exercise (Lee v. Weisman, 1992)

The king of the north, spiritual Babylon, is represented in this case by the popular religious and political elements in America. Their reaction was immediate and definite.

• Polls showed 90% of Americans opposed the ruling
• The Senate immediately voted unanimously against it
• The House of Representatives opposed it 416-3
• Senate majority leader Tom Daschle called it "nuts"
• President George W. Bush called it "ridiculous"
• The U.S. Dept. of Justice promised to appeal the ruling

Considering the reaction, will the decision stand? At the time of this writing it does not look likely. The judge who wrote the majority opinion soon placed the ruling on hold indefinitely. What would be the impact of a Supreme Court overruling on the issue? C. Welton Gaddy has made this thoughtful observation:

"Given the careful reasoning of the Ninth Circuit, based on clear precedents set by the Supreme Court over the years, a reversal of this decision by the Supreme Court will unravel a half century’s worth of jurisprudence concerning the establishment clause. In a zealousness to protect assertions of patriotism entangled in religious language, all precedent regarding the proper relationship of church and state might be done away with in one broad stroke**."

Such an effect would definitely promote a stronger church-state union in America, symbolized as the king of the north in Daniel 11:40-45.