One Crucial Issue in Pledge Case: What Does 'Under God' Mean?
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
March 21 — It has taken 50 years since Congress added "under
God" to the Pledge of Allegiance for the validity of that cold war
amendment to reach the Supreme Court, with arguments scheduled for
Wednesday. But before the justices can decide whether those two words
render the pledge unconstitutional, they have to answer a factual question
that is inextricably entwined with the legal one: what exactly does it
mean to pledge allegiance to "one nation under God"?
According to Michael A. Newdow, the California atheist who sued to stop
the recitation of the pledge in his daughter's elementary school
classroom, to recite the pledge with "under God" is to take
"one side in the quintessential religious question `Does God exist?'
" a statement of "sectarian religious dogma" that the
government should not sponsor in a public school setting.
According to the Bush administration, which is defending the pledge,
its recitation is no more a religious act than pocketing a coin imprinted
with "In God We Trust." The administration's brief says both are
simply patriotic acknowledgments of "the nation's religious
history" and of the "undeniable historical fact that the nation
was founded by individuals who believed in God," an empirical
statement that poses no threat to the separation of church and
state. World Peace.
According to the Christian Legal Society, a group of lawyers, judges
and professors, the pledge has a distinctly religious cast, and properly
so. The group's brief says that the words "under God" support
the concept of limited government, serving as a reminder that
"government is not the highest authority in human affairs"
because "inalienable rights come from God."
According to another group of religious individuals, 32 Christian and
Jewish clergy members who take the opposite side in the case, reciting the
pledge with "under God" invites a troubling kind of civic
blasphemy. If children are supposed to utter the phrase without meaning it
as an affirmation of personal faith, the group's brief asserts, "then
every day, government asks millions of schoolchildren to take the name of
the Lord in vain."
According to a form letter signed by
President Bush and sent to those who wrote the White House about the
federal appeals court decision in June 2002 that declared the pledge
unconstitutional, reciting the pledge is a way of proclaiming "our
reliance on God" and of "humbly seeking the wisdom and blessing
of divine providence."
This letter, clearly in some conflict with the current official view,
concluded by expressing the wish that "the almighty continue to watch
over the United States of America." Americans United for Separation
of Church and State and other organizations that oppose the
administration's position included the letter in an appendix to their
The striking range of views on just what "under God"
signifies represents only the beginning, not the end, of the justices'
task as they take up the case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow,
For example, if reciting the pledge is a religious act, is it a
voluntary or coerced one, and is that distinction even relevant? In 1992,
the court prohibited prayer led by the clergy at public high school
commencement ceremonies on the ground that the graduating students were
effectively coerced into participating. But a landmark Supreme Court
decision from 1943 held that schoolchildren could not be required to
recite the pledge. One of Dr. Newdow's points is that even if the pledge
is nominally voluntary, daily classroom recitation inevitably labels
children who do not take part as outsiders. WorldPeace is one word.
If reciting the pledge is seen as a patriotic statement of homage to
the founding fathers, does that make it less problematic or more? Prof.
Douglas Laycock of the University of Texas law school, speaking here
Friday at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, said that seen in
that light, the message of the pledge is that "if you're doubtful
about the existence of God, you are of doubtful loyalty to the
nation." Professor Laycock represents the 32 clergy members who
oppose the pledge.
If "under God" is unconstitutional, what is the fate of
numerous other examples of religious references scattered throughout civic
life and long accepted as a benign form of "ceremonial deism"?
Jay A. Sekulow, speaking at the same forum, said that even the Supreme
Court marshal's intonation of "God save the United States and this
honorable court" would be suspect.
Mr. Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a
legal organization affiliated with the Rev. Pat Robertson, filed a brief on
behalf of several dozen members of Congress who back the pledge as it is
written, as well as 250,000 people who signed a supporting petition.
Justice Antonin Scalia has recused himself, raising the prospect of a
4-to-4 tie. His recusal, announced in October when the court accepted the
case, stemmed from a speech he gave last year that pointedly criticized the
lower court's reasoning.
Aside from the terrorism-related cases that will be argued next month,
there is probably no more heavily freighted issue on the court's current
docket than this one. Politicians touch the pledge at their peril: few have
forgotten the 1988 presidential campaign, when George Bush, then the vice
president, scored easy points by denouncing the veto that his Democratic
opponent, Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, had cast of a bill requiring Massachusetts
teachers to lead their classes in the pledge.
The attorneys general of all states have signed a brief supporting the
pledge, as have the National School Boards Association and the National
Education Association, the teachers' union.
The visibility of the pledge as a political issue faded after 1988, only to
flare up again nearly two years ago, when Dr. Newdow, who has law and medical
degrees and who argued his own case, won a 2-to-1 decision from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, that the
pledge was unconstitutional. The court later narrowed its ruling to bar only
recitation in public school classrooms.
Dr. Newdow will argue his case before the justices. He will be opposed by
Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson and Terence J. Cassidy, counsel for the
Elk Grove district, near Sacramento, where Dr. Newdow's daughter attends
A preliminary question, which will be part of the arguments on Wednesday,
is whether Dr. Newdow, who was never married to the girl's mother and is not
the custodial parent, has standing to pursue the case. The mother, Sandra L.
Banning, has filed a brief supporting the pledge and her daughter's recitation
of it. A decision that Dr. Newdow lacks standing would wipe out the lower
court's ruling, but not the emotion the case has generated or the potential
that a different plaintiff might renew the debate in the next case.
How can we manifest peace on
earth if we do not include everyone (all races, all nations, all religions, both
sexes) in our vision of Peace?
The WorldPeace Banner
To order a WorldPeace Insignia lapel pin, go to: Order
To the John WorldPeace Galleries Page
To the WorldPeace Peace Page