Off-topic personal view -- on pledging allegiance to "one nation under God"

Oral argument on the pledge of allegiance case (Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624) was one of yesterday's top news stories

Let's start with a summary from Yahoo News ( Reuters -- James Vicini): "Atheist in Supreme Court Objects to 'Under God' Phrase"

Atheist Michael Newdow sought to convince [the] U.S. Supreme Court . . . Wednesday that schoolchildren reciting "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance amounts to a government-imposed religious exercise.

He argued it violates constitutional church-state separation, winning applause in the courtroom at one point, but several skeptical justices said students can be excused from the recitations or can simply not say the "under God" part.

The justices questioned whether Newdow also objected to singing "God Bless America" in classrooms, to the use of "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency and to "God save the United States and this honorable court" as part of its opening invocation.

Newdow, an emergency room doctor from California who has a law degree and is acting as his own attorney, said the pledge in schools was different, almost like a prayer.

Read more


Warren Richey writes about the case for the Christian Science Monitor: "'One nation' - but under what?" He summarizes some of the opposing viewpoints on this seemingly trivial, but highly symbolic case:

When the nation's Founding Fathers declared their independence . . . , they stressed that their actions were authorized by a higher authority . . . . They based this revolutionary credo on their understanding that the fundamental rights of men did not flow from man-made institutions. Rather, those rights flowed from what they saw as deeper truths - "That all men are created equal," and "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." To those who signed the Declaration of Independence, these "truths" were self-evident.

Now, 228 years later, the US Supreme Court is at the center of a debate - over the Pledge of Allegiance - that suggests such views about the religious underpinnings of American government may no longer be self-evident. Indeed, government attempts to highlight religious concepts may be unconstitutional. . . .

Why would America's Founding Fathers, who wrote so eloquently of their "firm reliance on the protection of divine providence" in the Declaration of Independence, use not a single devotional word or phrase in the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Instead, the First Amendment forbids any law "respecting an establishment of religion." Courts have interpreted that provision as mandating a "wall" between church and state. But justices, judges, lawyers, scholars, political leaders, and members of the clergy differ over how high or low that wall should be. . . .

"When you make the argument that this [reference to God in the Pledge] is no longer religious but is civil, or political, or patriotic in its orientation, you are trivializing religion. You are trivializing the meaning of God," says Derek Davis, director of the Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor University. "One of the reasons for the separation of church and state is it allows religion to operate freely of [government] so it maintains its sacredness." . . . .

Supporters of the Pledge in its current form see no constitutional difficulty in the government acknowledging the role of religion in national life by including the words "under God" in the Pledge.

Those challenging the 1954 insertion of "God" into the Pledge say it amounts to an impermissible government endorsement of religion over nonreligion, and that it forces schoolchildren to embrace a particular religious belief (monotheism) in order to express patriotism. . . .

"When read as a whole, the Pledge is reasonably understood, not as establishing a state religion, but as celebrating and affirming the nation and the historical forces and ideals that formed its unique character," says US Solicitor General Theodore Olson in his brief to the court.

Newdow disagrees. "To single out that one aspect of the nation's origins, and to extol its virtues within the Pledge of Allegiance, is an endorsement contrary to the Establishment Clause's principles," he says in his brief to the court. " 'Under God' in the Pledge is an example of the majority using the machinery of the state to enforce its preferred religious orthodoxy." . . .

Two prior decisions by the high court are likely to play a key role in the resolution of the Pledge case. In 1943, the justices upheld classroom recitation of the Pledge, provided any objecting students were not forced to participate. Although that case was decided before the words "under God" were added to the Pledge, its supporters say the same opt-out principle applies to those who might object to repeating the words "under God."

In the second case, the justices ruled in 1992 that the Constitution forbids a member of the clergy from offering a prayer at a middle school graduation ceremony. The high court reasoned in a 5-to-4 decision that offering such a prayer would force students to participate in a religious exercise at a school-sanctioned event. Pledge challengers say the "under God" component of the Pledge is an even more egregious effort by the government to coerce schoolchildren into participating in a daily religious exercise.

"The Pledge puts schoolchildren who do not embrace monotheism to the Hobson's choice of affirming religious beliefs they do not hold and foregoing participation in a patriotic ritual," says Peter Irons, director of the Earl Warren Bill of Rights Project at the University of California, San Diego, in a friend-of-the-court brief.

"The 1954 law adding 'under God' to the Pledge made affirmation of religious belief an official element of patriotism and religiosity an official element of national identity," adds David Remes in a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. . . .

Not every organization strongly opposed to religious activities in public schools is opposed to the Pledge. In a friend-of-the-court brief, the National Education Association says even with the reference to God, the Pledge is a patriotic observance rather than a religious exercise.

Using the words " 'under God' does not convert the Pledge into a state-sponsored profession of religious belief," writes Robert Chanin in the NEA brief. "Rather, the words are best understood as a reflection of the simple historical fact that the founders believed in a supreme being, and that their belief led them to dedicate the nation to the fundamental secular precept that all men have unalienable rights to liberty and justice," Mr. Chanin says.

Read more


Findlaw (AP-Gina Holland) adds some interesting facts in this story: "Supreme Court to Take Up 'Under God'"

Americans overwhelmingly want the phrase "under God" preserved in the Pledge of Allegiance, a new poll says as the Supreme Court examines whether the classroom salute crosses the division of church and state.

Almost nine in 10 people said the reference to God belongs in the pledge despite constitutional questions about the separation of church and state, according to an Associated Press poll. . . .

God was not part of the original pledge written in 1892. Congress inserted it in 1954, after lobbying by religious leaders during the Cold War. Since then, it has become a familiar part of life for a generation of students. . . .

Justices could dodge the issue altogether. They have been urged to throw out the case, without a ruling on the constitutional issue, because of questions about whether Newdow had custody when he filed the suit and needed the mother's consent.

The girl's mother, Sandra Banning, is a born-again Christian and supporter of the pledge.

Read more

Another angle on this story is that contrary to much advice, the father raising the issue, a doctor with a law degree, chose to argue the case personally to the Supreme Court. It is not unusual for even very experienced lawyers to defer to those with particular Supreme Court experience.

By all accounts, whether he wins or loses will not turn on this decision to go it alone, as he did a very fine job.

See this story: "Novice Lawyer, Atheist Gets Point Across" (Findlaw-AP-Gina Holland)

The California father who put the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance in the national spotlight brought passion and feistiness to the austere Supreme Court.

Michael Newdow, arguing his own case at the high court on Wednesday, made no rookie mistakes. He threaded his arguments with legal and human elements, winning praise all around. . . .

He sparred with several court members, and after 30 minutes seemed to have won their respect. "I think he surprised a lot of people. He was superb," said Kenneth Starr, a veteran Supreme Court lawyer who opposes Newdow's position.

"I'd give him an `A.' He remained undeterred during intense questioning," said Jay Sekulow, chief attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, which also supports keeping the Pledge of Allegiance as is.

As an atheist, Newdow said, hearing the phrase one nation under God is like "getting slapped in the face.". . .

A graduate of one of the country's top law schools, the University of Michigan, Newdow took part in more than 10 practice courts to prepare.

"He was passionate and eloquent and responsive and thoughtful," said Ayesha Khan, an attorney for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which supports Newdow. "He was confronting some closed minds. I thought he opened some of them. Whether he convinced them of the opposite position than they came in with, we'll just have to wait and see."

Read more


And finally, "Many kids don't see Pledge as religious," by Daniel B. Wood for the Christian Science Monitor

Grayson Cady is making a beeline for the swings at Houston's Memorial Park. This Monday, as on every other, he recited the Pledge of Allegiance with his third-grade class - and for him, as for many children nationwide, saying "under God" is no big deal. "Everybody says it," he says - then corrects himself. "I guess there's one kid in my class that doesn't say it. But he's kinda weird."

Read more

Now, what do I think (and why am I writing about this)?

This issue hits home for me. You see, when I entered first grade in the early 1960s and began saying the Pledge, I was a died-in-the-wool atheist, having been raised that way by both parents -- not just one like the girl whose Dad just argued this in the Supreme Court. (I'm not an atheist anymore, but that's another story.)

How did it make me feel to hear the words "one nation under God"?

I don't even remember if I said them or was a "conscientious objector." Either way, it made me feel "kinda weird," in the words of the kid quoted above. And it created a strong impression, as this is among the relatively few first-grade memories I have retained.

But I learned a valuable lesson. No, I didn't expressly understand that this was all about the Founding Fathers and their understanding of the source of human rights (in fact, it wasn't, it clearly was a Cold War reaction to Communist atheism). What I learned was that -- however unreasonable and irrational it appeared to me at the age of 5 -- the vast majority of Americans have some belief in God, or at least have no problem with paying lip service to such belief. This was not a bad lesson to learn and I never felt coerced or ridiculed.

Apparently Justice Rehnquist commented that the Pledge sounds nothing like a prayer. I disagree. Now, after being conditioned by many years of church attendance to respond to certain solemn and ritualized cadences with "Amen", I always want to say "Amen" at the end of the Pledge.

So how should the court decide the case? The most judicially conservative part of me votes to pitch the issue based on the lack of standing.

I mean, for crying out loud, this man is using a girl who doesn't even have an issue with the Pledge to further his own agenda. Rather than emphasizing his religious differences with her mother in a national forum, he should be paying serious attention to trying to honestly raise her in a way in which she can come to understand both parents' religious beliefs and their reasons for them, so that as she grows up she can come to her own conclusions on religious issues.

The next most judicially conservative part of me votes to decide the issue in favor of retaining the Pledge as is. I mean, by the time a case on such a serious constitutional issue reaches the Supreme Court, is argued, and nationally publicized, it should be decided on the merits. If not, tomorrow someone who does have standing will file a similar case. But I have a problem with deciding something like this is "unconstitutional" when it has existed unchanged for over 50 years. What happened? Did the Constitution change?

And the 5-year-old in me, who experienced the issue first hand, would honestly be pleased to see the Court decide that it is unconstitutional, removing something that divides rather than unites us and makes some of us feel "weird" and different; even unpatriotic.