Pledge of Allegiance

The Pledge of Allegiance is a promise or oath of allegiance to the United States, and to its national flag. It is commonly recited in unison at public events, and especially in public school classrooms, where the Pledge is often a morning ritual. In its present form, the words of the Pledge are:

"Under God" ruling

The original pledge did not contain the words "under God". Those words were added on 14 June 1954 when then U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a bill into law that placed the words "under God" into the pledge. At the time, Eisenhower stated that:

Related Topics:
14 June - 1954 - Dwight D. Eisenhower

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

: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.http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/index.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The matter of the Pledge's constitutionality simmered for decades below the public eye. On June 26, 2002, in a case (Newdow v. United States Congress) brought by an atheist father objecting to the Pledge being taught in his daughter's school, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled the addition of under God an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism.

Related Topics:
June 26 - 2002 - Newdow v. United States Congress - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - San Francisco

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Opposition to the ruling was vehement by many. Some conservative Christians, heirs to a tradition long believing itself persecuted by secularism in government, considered it an attack on faith in God. Some moderates and liberals felt that pursuing the matter was stirring up trouble, but many supported the ruling, especially atheists, secularists, and civil libertarians, most of them on the grounds that including the phrase "under God" in the Pledge violated the separation of church and state.

Related Topics:
Atheist - Secularists - Civil libertarians - Separation of church and state

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Shortly after the ruling's release, Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, author of the opinion in the 2-1 ruling, signed an order staying its enforcement until the full Ninth Circuit court could decide whether to hear an appeal.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The day after the ruling, the Senate voted in favor of the Pledge as it stood (Senate debate records). The House followed on, accepting a similar resolution. The Senate resolution was 99-0 (Senator Jesse Helms could not attend, but would have voted "yes"); the House 416-3 with 11 abstaining. President George W. Bush and many other politicians spoke out in favor of the existing pledge.

Related Topics:
Senate - House - Jesse Helms - George W. Bush

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The stay on the ruling was lifted on February 28, 2003 when the full Ninth Circuit court of appeals decided not to take the case, letting the ruling stand. A second stay was granted however, to give the school district time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it had held, the court's ruling would have affected more than 9.6 million students in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Guam.

Related Topics:
February 28 - 2003 - Alaska - Arizona - California - Hawaii - Idaho - Montana - Nevada - Oregon - Washington - Guam

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In the months following the court's decision, attorneys general 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.

Related Topics:
Attorneys general - Supreme Court of the United States - Brief - Oklahoma - Drew Edmondson - Idaho - Lawrence Wasden

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On January 12, 2004, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal on March 24 of the same year. Justice Antonin Scalia recused himself from the case after criticising past court judgements secularising public schools. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100104,00.html

Related Topics:
January 12 - 2004 - March 24 - Antonin Scalia

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court rejected Newdow's claim by a 8-0 vote, stating that as a non-custodial parent, he did not have sufficient custody to act as his daughter's legal representative. The Court did not address the constitutionality of the pledge.

Related Topics:
June 14 - 2004 - Newdow

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2005 District ruling

On September 14, 2005, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that requiring the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance illegal. The judge said he was bound by 2002 precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The finding said that the words "one nation under God" violate the right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Related Topics:
September 14 - 2005 - Lawrence Karlton - 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty "object to the ruling that the pledge violates any part of the establishment clause". Derek Gaubatz, director of litigation for the fund, said his group would appeal the decision to a federal appeals court "and if necessary to the Supreme Court to get that ruling reversed to secure the constitutionality of the pledge once and for all."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Background patterns: Inconsistency in interpretation?

The points-of-view, compromises, and personal interests in the matter are viewed by some as more general patterns in the ongoing struggle over religion in government in the United States.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some people believe that the American judges are repressive in their decisions about "God". For example, Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia concluded, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed, that "it seems to me the Court's position is the repressive one" when the Court approved of the lower court refusing to hear evidence on "God". (Wallace v. Jaffree, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=482&page=578#633). Justice Scalia has also said that courts have gone too far to keep religion out of public schools and other forums, and that the Pledge of Allegiance question would be better decided by lawmakers than judges.

Related Topics:
Antonin Scalia - William Rehnquist - Wallace v. Jaffree

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

And, in fact the Supreme Court has banned some expressions of "God" from public schools. For example, in 1962 the Supreme Court banned the teacher-led recitation of the invocation, "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country". http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=370&page=421#422 This objectionable "Almighty God" recitation was voluntary and followed the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag which itself consisted of the teacher-led repetition of the words noted above at the top of this article, claiming that America was "under God".

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Also, in that 1962 case, the Court admitted that the "God save this honorable court" invocation uttered at the beginning of each Court session was a "prayer". However, the Court also said that "A religion is not established in the usual sense merely by letting those who choose to do so say the prayer that the public school teacher leads". Rather, the Court found fault with the teacher-led prayer because the State of New York had financed a religious exercise in requiring the teacher-led recitation of the prayer. The parents and the Court did not complain that the state had also "financed" the "religious exercise" in the teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance that contains the under God phrase that the 2002 ruling initially banned from California public schools. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=370&page=421#440

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Definition of "religious exercise"

The dissenting justice in the 2002 ruling stated that the ruling conflicted with the Supreme Court's explicit statements that the "under God" part of the pledge of allegiance was merely a ceremonial reference to history and was not of religious faith. Justice brief at 1. This contrasts with the 1954 House Report of the legislators who inserted the "under God" phrase into the pledge of allegiance. It said that the "under God" phrase was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator." 154 U.S.C.A.A.N 2339, 2340.

Related Topics:
History - Faith

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The plaintiff, Michael Newdow, an atheist, was offended by the phrase "In God we trust" on the coins in his pocket, believing that "In God We Trust" is a state sponsored statement of religious faith - illegal under the separation of church and state. http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/Newdow.cnna/ He argued that he had a right to bring up his daughter "without God being imposed into her life by her schoolteachers". CNN phone interview.

Related Topics:
In God We Trust - Separation of church and state

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some of the judges in the 2002 ruling agreed that Mr. Newdow had a right to direct the religious education of his daughter. Justice brief at 3. Mr. Newdow explained his view of 'freedom of religious exercise': by asking whether Christians would be glad if the atheists were in the majority and if the atheists inserted into the pledge of allegiance the phrase "one nation under NO God". CNN phone interview. Thus Michael Newdow, an atheist, claims that the reference to God is meaningful, and hence the court should recognize, and correct, the resulting religious bias. Meanwhile, the "under God" clause is often defended as "ceremonial deism", acceptable because religiously meaningless.

Related Topics:
Religious education - Ceremonial deism

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~