Pledge to ‘one nation under God’ spurs debate_20904
Posted: 2/06/04
Pledge to 'one nation under God' spurs debate
By Adelle Banks
Religion News Service
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is at the head of a long line of individuals and organizations urging the U.S. Supreme Court to declare the Pledge of Allegiance constitutional.
“The reference to a 'Nation under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance is an official and patriotic acknowledgment of what all students–Jewish, Christian, Muslim or atheist–may properly be taught in the public schools,” said Solicitor General Theodore Olson in a brief filed on behalf of the federal government.
The government is a party to the case to be heard by the high court later this year.
In addition, at least two dozen friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed in the case, with politicians, veterans, religious legal groups and educational associations weighing in on the attention-getting topic of whether schoolchildren should say “under God” in a daily pledge to the flag.
The case began when atheist Michael Newdow sued an Elk Grove, Calif., public school district saying his daughter should not be led by a public school teacher in saying such words. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with him in a June 2002 ruling that has sparked much controversy.
Supreme Court arguments in the case have not yet been scheduled and are not likely until after mid-March.
At least one organization, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, intends to file a brief supporting Newdow and asking the high court to uphold the appellate decision.
“The public schools are places where all students should feel welcome,” Americans United legal director Ayesha Khan told Religion News Service. “We believe that the appeals court correctly concluded that government shouldn't be mandating a religious message in this Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge has served its purposes for decades before the words 'under God' were ever added to it.”
Most of the organizations filing briefs with the high court opposed Newdow's position and argued that the pledge is a patriotic rather than a religious statement. But many had additional concerns.
The solicitor general argued that Newdow's case should be dismissed because he lacks standing due to his parental situation. His daughter spends most of her time with her mother, who does not object to her reciting the pledge.
The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives noted in its amicus brief that the words “under God” were added in 1954 to differentiate the United States from the communist Soviet Union.
“In the attempt to distinguish between the two countries, the legislators focused on the fact that the founders of this nation were theists, whereas the founders of the Soviet Union were nontheists,” the group said.
Others from Capitol Hill added to the stack of briefs filed in the high court, including the Republican members of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights.
That group was among those citing the other national documents that refer to God–such as the country's anthem and motto.
“Logic and reason dictate that these commonplace and customary references to the Almighty … do not establish an official state religion in violation of the First Amendment, any more or less than does the reference to God that is contained in the Pledge of Allegiance,” the subcommittee members argued.
In a brief filed on behalf of almost 70 Senate and House members, the American Center for Law and Justice argues the pledge should not be endangered because Newdow is offended by it.
“The First Amendment affords atheists complete freedom to disbelieve; it does not compel the federal judiciary to redact religious references in patriotic exercises in order to suit atheistic sensibilities,” said the center founded by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson.
That group also contended the First Amendment does not prevent the recitation of the pledge or other historical documents that reflect the country's religious heritage.
The ACLJ said such recitations–along with the singing of Bach's choral arrangements and African-American spirituals– would become “constitutionally suspect” in public school curricula if the appellate decision is upheld.
In the education realm, the National School Boards Association and the National Education Association both filed briefs supporting the California school district.
The school boards association said merely eliminating the words “under God” from the pledge would create rather than solve problems.
“Such parsing invites and practically guarantees future litigation against school districts in matters of educational programming,” it argued.
The NEA quoted from its policy stating that it does not believe the words “under God” in the pledge threaten the principle of separation of church and state.
Numerous groups that focus on the intersection of religion and law argued the First Amendment is not diminished by the pledge's basis on a historical belief in God's role in the founding of the country.
“It cannot be unconstitutional for America's children to be reminded of the divine source of America's rights, laws and nation,” said Liberty Counsel in a brief with the organization WallBuilders and author William J. Federer. “If it is, then God help us.”
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights viewed the battle over the pledge as part of a movement to remove public references to God.
“It will effectively impose an official atheism on an essentially religious people,” the league argued in a brief filed jointly with the Thomas More Law Society.
The National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, a group of volunteer lawyers advocating for the Orthodox Jewish community, said the pledge's divine reference is not an official endorsement of any particular faith.
“It is, rather, the expression of what has always been acknowledged by humankind–that man's destiny is shaped by a supreme being,” the Jewish group argued.
The Knights of Columbus, the Catholic fraternal organization that in 1954 first suggested “under God” be added to the pledge, cautioned that upholding the Ninth Circuit ruling would turn the American theory of rights “on its head” and “represent an earthquake in our national ethos.”
Focus on the Family, Family Research Council and Alliance Defense Fund, in a joint amicus brief, voiced similar sentiments:
“Removing the phase 'under God' would constitute an absurd repudiation of America's heritage,” they wrote.

