Monotheistic Pledge?
A
three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Newdow
v US ruled 2 to 1 that the reference to God, which was added to the pledge
by Congress in 1954, amounts to an official endorsement of monotheism. Thus,
the San Francisco-based court said, both the 1954 law and a California school
district's policy requiring teachers to lead children in the pledge violate the
First Amendment prohibition against the establishment of a state. [The opinion was later amended to only find the latter ... the law itself is still valid; teacher led recitation in the Ninth Circuit is not.] Though the resolution supported by both
houses of Congress (three representatives dissenting) and the President might
imply otherwise, the Pledge itself is not at risk, and the Pledge can still be
privately spoken, even with the troublesome words included. Also, it is quite likely the opinion
(not yet in force) will be overturned by the en banc (full) 9th
Circuit, if not the US Supreme Court. [After it was not overturned, the Supreme Court accepted review. Congress also reaffirmed the law itself. Justice Scalia commented on the issue before argument and recused himself. Materials can be found here (March 24)]
Since “A page of
history is worth a pound of logic,” a look at the history behind the addition of the
words “under God” is helpful, well as some background
materials on the decision and the reactions
that arose from it. And since our
national motto (“In God We Trust”) is quite relevant, if somewhat a separate
issue, my
thoughts on that issue also might be useful. Finally, the decision has raised various emotions on the
Pledge itself, and Teachers
and the Flag is one essay that I found particularly interesting, though
there were various others, including one by
Tobias Wolff well worth reading as well.
"The recitation that
ours is a nation 'under God' is not a mere acknowledgment 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. 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 text of the official Pledge,
codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the
purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. A profession
that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause
purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under
Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of
these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."
This is the core message of the opinion. The Pledge was originally written in
1892 as a way to promote unity among the millions of new immigrants and their
children, a way to have a short and fairly easy to understand creed to remind
us what unites us as a people. Now, it just might be that currently the only
two concepts most schoolchildren understand when they say the Pledge is “flag”
and “God,” (or maybe even just "God")
and repeating it by rote daily is actually counterproductive. Nonetheless, suffice to say, that until
the 1950s, the Pledge promoted various values, and the fact we were a nation
“under God” was not one of them. Somehow, we still survived two world wars, a
depression, various scandals, and godless socialism and communism. The addition of “under God” by federal
law (“Congress shall make no law …”) changed this. Monotheism was now part of our national creed; monotheism
was something for children to be recite daily under the direction of employees
of the state. And, yes, they did
not have to do so, but the indirect pressure is evident. If you don’t believe
me, read “Teachers and the Flag,” or tell your child not to say the
pledge. Finally, though it might
surprise some people, there are quite a few people out there who either do not
feel it is proper to say “under God” in such a public way or do not believe in
such a concept … a religious concept at that. National statements on disputed religious beliefs as well as
instructing schoolchildren on how to express them appears to me to be a rather
clear “establishment [official act] of religion [monotheism].”[1]
Many
feel the US Supreme Court has made a mess of interpreting the words: “Congress
shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof” (held to apply to the states under the Fourteenth
Amendment). The rule that public
schools should not start the day with teach led prayers is still controversial
in some areas, and enforcement of forty year old precedents on the issue are
still enforced in breach in certain areas. Nonetheless, it is generally
accepted by now that teacher led prayer is a troubling practice, including
apparently somewhat vaguely worded ones like “We thank God for providing our
blessings and liberties, and trust in Him to guide us in all that we do.” Of course, this only puts in a slightly
different form our national motto (“In God We Trust”), references in the
Declaration of Independence (which in part notes that our rights ultimately
come from God, and honors the eye of providence), and the use of “Under God” in
our Pledge of Allegiance. It is
true that those who want prayer to return to public schools feel their absence
suggests a push for an atheistic (as compared to a secular … the alternative of
course is a religious one that puts in place religious laws) state, but most
who oppose the Pledge ruling are not in this camp. No, they somehow feel that a daily pledge that honors God is
somehow different than the prayer I suggested. Perhaps, the word “prayer” is the problem … maybe, it’s all
right to promote a religious belief by state action in other ways?
"[L]egal world
abstractions and ruminations aside, when all is said and done, the danger that
'under God' in our Pledge of Allegiance will tend to bring about a theocracy or
suppress somebody's beliefs is so minuscule as to be de minimis. The danger
that phrase presents to our First Amendment freedoms is picayune at most ...
upon Newdow's theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will
soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many
public settings. 'God Bless America' and 'America The Beautiful' will be gone
for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the 'Star Spangled
Banner' will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the
third. And currency beware! Judges can accept those results if they limit
themselves to elements and tests, while failing to look at the good sense and
principles that animated those tests in the first place."
Thus
says the dissenting judge in this case, and many opponents of the opinion share
it. The controversy that arose
after the ruling was handed down, including it being on the front page of Newsweek,
suggests the whole issue is not so “de minimis” or “picayune” at all. Not only
the legislative history of the addition of the term but current reaction
suggests that the words surely do have a meaning, and an important one at
that. We might survive, even those
who are nonbelievers and must bear having their children be looked down upon
when they do not say the words (or say them and not mean them), but something
real is being done here. Do we
tell Jews to just grin and bear it as the majority honors Jesus, since they
don’t have to say it and can leave the room as it is being said? So, why do those who do not agree with
the religious concept of God or the use it is placed here have to deal with the
thinly disguised disgust expressed here?
It is just patently untrue that “under
God” has no religious meaning in intent or execution … and a consistent “good
sense” and respect for basic “principles” of the First Amendment would respect
that. Or at least notice the
difference between leading children daily in a short pledge with a consistent
reaffirmance and honoring of a deity some do not believe any more (or less)
than some believe or disbelieve in the divinity of Christ and occasion use of
anthems that include a similar reference in one of their many stanza. After all, it is a bit too much to ask
people to realize that perhaps even those references are just a bit troubling
given that true Americans can honor flags or think America is beautiful without
religion entering the picture. In fact, the National Flag Foundation tribute to
the flag somehow manages not to mention God at all. This actually is not that surprising, since the only
reference found of God in the Constitution (the Declaration of Independence not
having the force of law, or slavery would have been gone long before 1865) is
in the date at the end of it, and the only mention of religion in the main
document is a prohibition of religious tests for office.
So why
the concern? Yes, the dissent is right that it is clear that various justices
and opinions of the Court would probably find nothing wrong with the practice
at issue, since consistency in hard cases is something not always as present as
one might hope. Thus, two federal
judges have a bit of shall we say guts to call the Court to task for allowing a
practice that violates the spirit of its precedents as well as the First
Amendment itself. Nonetheless, the
fact it took a couple judges to say something does not make it any less true,
even if it is not practicable at the current time to put their ruling in place
given current opinion. The truth is that the majority does not care that the
practice violates religious freedom because only a small unpopular group is
harmed … this is nothing new. If
agnostics, atheists and others (including those who believe God with all their soul, but do not want God honored thusly) want the rest of society to consistently honor
the First Amendment in the words of the dissent “at the price of removing a
vestige of the awe we all must feel at the immenseness of the universe and our
own small place within it, as well as the wonder we must feel at the good
fortune of our country,” it is too much for them to ask. Yes, this “awe” need not be expressed
by a disputed religious concept such as a monotheistic God, but there is no
need to worry about this. After
all, the majority shares the belief, so it therefore is totally acceptable. The
alternative view, to quote the Senate Majority Leader, is “just nuts.”
[1]
As discussed on a website that discusses this issue:
“ Some find God within their own hearts. Others believe they are part of--not
under--a sacred universe. Still others do not believe in God at all. Yet every
day the religious beliefs of these patriotic Americans are violated by our
government in schools, in public meetings...anywhere the Pledge Of Allegiance
is led and spoken.”