This Is Not A Form Of Brainwashing--The Pledge of Allegiance

"If it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me."

—Sarah Palin, as quoted in a 2006 Alaska gubernatorial race questionnaire after being asked whether the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance is offensive. Just days after she was selected as John McCain's running mate, the old questionnaire surfaced on political blogs across the U.S., with pundits pointing out that the Alaska Governor doesn't seem to know her American history. The pledge of allegiance wasn't written until 1892, and the phrase "under God" wasn't added until the 1950s.

The ideals represented in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights written by the founding fathers constitute one of the noblest endeavors at self governance ever attempted.  I have nothing but the highest regard for them.  People (especially Glenn Beck and his ilk) should take the time and effort to learn them.

The original pledge of allegiance, which first appeared in the September 8, 1892 issue of "The Youth's Companion," and a month later recited in schools across the nation read:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag 
and to the Republic for which it stands:  
one Nation indivisible, 
with Liberty and Justice for all.

In was in the beginning of the Cold War anti-communism movement in the U.S. that the words "under God" were added to the Pledge. On June 14, 1954, then U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a bill into law adding the phrase, declaring "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty" (Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297, 68 Stat. 249).

I pledge allegiance to the Flag 
of the United States of America, 
and to the Republic for which it stands:  
one Nation under God, indivisible, 
with Liberty and Justice for all.

Under California law, “every public elementary school” must begin each day with “appropriate patriotic exercises.” Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The statute provides that “[t]he giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy” this requirement.

Newdow I-IV:  Does The Pledge of Allegiance Violate The Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses?

On June 26, 2002, an atheist father in California objected to the Pledge being taught in his daughter's school and sued the School District, arguing that the addition of under God was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.    The complaint sought a declaration that the 1954 Act’s addition of the words “under God” violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution, as well as an injunction against the School District’s policy requiring daily recitation of the Pledge.  This court found that the pledge did not violate the Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses.

Newdow then appealed.  In June 2002 a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "(1) the 1954 Act adding the words ‘under God’ to the Pledge, and (2) [the Elk Grove School District's] policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included, violate the Establishment Clause [of the Constitution]". Newdow v. U. S. Congress, 292 F. 3d 597, 602 (CA9 2002) (Newdow I).

The Elk Grove School District appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court which, in June 2004, refused to hear the case stating that Michael Newdow "[lacked] standing to bring this suit in federal court."

On September 14, 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence K. Karlton again denied Dr. Newdow's standing.  However, he affirmed the standing of the new plaintiffs who were represented by Dr. Newdow.  Bound by the 9th Circuit's previous ruling, Judge Karlton once again held "that the school district's policy with regard to the pledge is an unconstitutional violation of the children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God. . ..  [T]he school districts' policies violate the Establishment Clause."    The opinion continues;"

"The recitation that ours is a nation 'under God' is not a mere acknowledgement that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase 'one nation under God' in the context of the pledge is normative," the court said in its decision.

 

"To recite the pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism," the court continued. "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical ... to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god.'"

Newdow's estranged partner, now a fundamentalist, appealed, and argued that their daughter was a Christian who believes in God and has no objection either to reciting or hearing others recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or to its reference to God. Newdow v. United States Congress, 313 F.3d 500, 502 (9thCir. 2002) (“Newdow II”).  The court affirmed it's original holding.  

The reaction was strong.  President George W. Bush said that the court's decision was "ridiculous." Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle described it as just nuts." House Majority Whip Tom DeLay called it "sad" and "absurd." Senator Robert Byrd labeled the judges "stupid." The Senate unanimously approved a resolution in support of the Pledge. Members of the House of Representatives gathered on the front steps of the Capitol recite the Pledge en masse. After the 9th Circuit rejected a petition to review the decision en banc the following February, the panel stood by its holding but issued an amended opinion.  Newdow v. United States Congress, 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir.2003) (“Newdow III”).

In the months following the court's decision, Attorney Generals from all 50 states filed papers asking the Supreme Court of the United States to review the decision, 49 of which joined a legal brief sponsored by Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson and Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden. California filed a separate brief, also urging the Supreme Court to hear the case.

In 2004, the Supreme Court heard Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, (2004), an appeal of the ruling, and rejected Newdow's claim on the grounds that he was not the custodial parent, and therefore lacked standing, thus avoiding ruling on the merits of whether the phrase was constitutional in a school-sponsored recitation. 

(Justice Thomas in his dissent wrote that "[t]he text and history of the Establishment Clause strongly suggest that it is a federalism provision intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments."  For Justice Thomas, an official State religion would apparently be constitutional.)

Almost immediately the Becket Fund, a religious group, led a group of plaintiffs and appealed the 9th Circuit's original ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Newdow v. United States Congress, 383 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (“Newdow IV”). On Mar. 11, 2010, the court published its opinion upholding the constitutionality of the teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by students in public schools. The 2–1 majority found that the recitation did not constitute an establishment of religion prohibited by the United States Constitution.

So, we are back to where we started.  However, I'm sure we haven't see the end of this.  Of course my opinion, as an atheist, is that any law that espouses any religion is a violation of the Establishment Clause.  To have my government force me to acknowledge the existence of a supernatural being for which there is zero evidence seems crazy and, certainly, deeply offensive.  But then again, the government is also forcing me to go to A.A. meetings where I'm coerced into holding hands and saying the Lord's prayer, too.