WASHINGTON — God was put into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 at the urging of the Knights of Columbus. So when Michael Newdow sought Supreme Court standing to remove the Almighty, the Knights girded for legal battle — and won.
“We are very happy,” said Knights’ vice president Patrick Korten. “This is a victory for human rights.”
The Supreme Court decided June 13 simply not to consider an appeal by Newdow of a New Hampshire case he has argued in before the First Circuit Court of Appeals for parents objecting to their children being forced to witness classmates saying the pledge. The Knights decided to join in the case as a co-defendant.
Newdow, who first gained prominence when he won an initial ruling in the Ninth Circuit in 2004 on behalf of his own children, only to lose in the Supreme Court, is president of the First Atheist Church of True Science. “It’s not surprising,” Newdow said about the defeat. “We’ll keep trying.”
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which was a co-plaintiff with the parents in the case, also promised to carry on the fight to remove religion from public life.
“We have other cases we are working on, and we are waiting for the composition of the Supreme Court to change,” said the foundation’s president, Annie Laurie Gaylor.
Until 1954, the pledge said by schoolchildren each morning across America stated: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Article of Faith?
But a strong lobbying effort that year by the Knights of Columbus, the international Catholic fraternity headquartered in New Haven, Conn., produced near unanimous support in Congress for a law inserting “under God” after “one nation.”
The argument all along by the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Newdow has been that the reference to God violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause by coercing children to participate in a statement of religious faith.
“The phrase is a lie,” said Gaylor. “The U.S. is not one nation under God. It is a secular republic. There is no mention of God in the Constitution.”
But the phrase’s defenders claim, in Korten’s words, that “the words ‘under God’ do not impose a state religion, but instead express the belief that there are fundamental rights that come before the state which the state is bound to defend but cannot remove.”
And so far, apart from the initial 2004 loss, the courts have always agreed with this argument.
Korten says Newdow has tried to use the Knights’ affiliation with the Catholic Church to prove that the phrase is an expression of faith. And this gave the Knights pause when they pondered whether to participate in the New Hampshire case.
“But then [in 1954] and now, the Knights have argued that the phrase is about how our basic rights are unalienable,” Korten said. “And I searched through volumes of our files and never found any reference to it being an expression of faith.”
More tellingly, he adds, Newdow has never been able to come up with any evidence to that effect either.
“This came up in the throes of the Cold War,” Korten explained. “The Knights argued for the phrase because it would emphasize how the United States differed from Communist regimes, which believe that the state grants rights and can take them away.”
Eric Rassbach, litigation director for the Becket Fund, calls Newdow’s efforts to remove “under God” a “quixotic quest that gets more quixotic with every failure.”
But the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Gaylor, calling the recent contrary decisions “an affront to nonbelievers and an injustice for everyone,” said neither her organization nor Newdow will stop. “We are going to look for cases to bring in other circuits. And we will wait for a slight change in the composition of the Supreme Court. For now, we are stuck with a 5-4 bloc [opposed to our goals.]”
Gaylor argues that the pledge is inherently coercive, especially for elementary-school children, even though schools are prohibited by a 1940s’ Supreme Court ruling from requiring any student to participate.
“If young students stay sitting or stay silent when everyone else is standing and reciting, there’s a stigma,” Gaylor said. “There’s embarrassment.”
‘So Help Me God’
But Rassbach counters that the courts have required a “much higher standard for what constitutes coercion than a twinge of discomfort.”
Gaylor also uses the argument that religion is something the parents should be teaching. By holding the pledge ceremony daily in each classroom, the state is intruding on parental rights.
But Korten says that argument depends on the pledge being seen as a statement of faith, and not what the courts have ruled that it really is — a statement that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as freedom of speech, thought, assembly and religion are above the state.
Newdow has other irons in the fire: He is fighting against religious content in the ceremony for inaugurating U.S. presidents, including the phrase “So help me God.”
Rassbach commented: “Really they [the Foundation for Freedom From Religion] don’t just want separation of church and state. They want an end of religion. They think it is ugly and horrible.”
But the Establishment Clause, Rassbach insisted, “does not put religion under quarantine. It forbids the federal government from selecting bishops or establishing a religion — but not from making any mention of religion in public life.”
Register correspondent Steve Weatherbe writes from Victoria, British Columbia.
The Editors: Christmas in Africa
John Burger: New Light on Pius XII Cause?
Comments
Post a Comment
Intesting arguement and title of the article. Should the oath be “religionized” at all? If there is religion in it (since the K of C got it included in 1954), should it be there?
well, I guess my being an athiest here precludes me from having an opinion. Oh Well, Back to open sites.
My first comment was, SHOULD the pledge of alegance be “religionized”. I, as a veteran and atheist think it should not be. The rationalization that “under God” isn’t a religious/faith based phrase is bunk.
Rover.
“Supreme Court turns down latest attempt to dereligionize American oath”
Well, at least you admit the pledge is religious.
“This is a victory for human rights.”
No, it’s a victory for religious supremacy, and a loss for human rights, where the government stays neutral on religion instead of promoting it to everyone’s children, including the children of atheists.
As a religiously observant Catholic, and an American citizen - note that I am a Catholic and a Christian first of all - I also have problems with the reference to God in the pledge for a number of reasons (politicizing God, it seems to suggest God has a special relationship with the USA, etc. - hard to express concisely in a post and I certainly have no objections to Lincoln’s 2nd Inaugural!). I don’t think the objections to the pledge are or should be litigable, so I agree with the result here, but not with the overly simplistic view that this is a “victory” for religion.
I also have problems mentioning God in pledging allegiance to the “flag”. I have in another context sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, and did so happily, but the flag while an important symbol deserving of appropriate treatment, is still a secular symbol. I am sometimes uncomfortably reminded by some Americans, of the Israelites worshiping the golden calf…
I think the argument really depends on what particular definition a person wants to use to define the word “religion.” In its simplest definition, “religion” is a set of beliefs held by any particular person or persons. Logically then, Atheism, the belief that there is no God, should be included in the religion category.
“In its simplest definition, “religion” is a set of beliefs held by any particular person or persons. Logically then, Atheism, the belief that there is no God, should be included in the religion category.”
While I think that’s an unworkable definition for “religion,” I do agree that atheism should be treated as a religion for legal purposes. Which is why “god” should be removed from the pledge, to make it neutral; neither stating that god exists, nor that god does not exist, should be in a pledge for theists and atheists.
If the Pledge wasn’t an establishment of religion then there wouldn’t be the gloating here and among every other religious theocrat over this ruling.
BTW, do any of the T-partiers understand that the Pledge (with or without God) is a tool originally written and still used to gut state fights and install nationalism over federalism?
Thank goodness the right to mention God has been protected!
The fact that atheist organizations like Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) receive tax-exempt status supports the fact that their belief system is comparable to religion.
They cannot have it both ways—get tax exempt status for their “religion,” then forbid us to practice our religion publicly, while enforcing the practice of THEIR beliefs.
FFRF has been fighting similar battles for a long time, and they are jousting at windmills. They should practice the same tolerance towards the rest of America (80% Christian) as we practice towards them.
http://sytereitz.com/2011/02/ffrf-jousting-at-windmills/
“The fact that atheist organizations like Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) receive tax-exempt status supports the fact that their belief system is comparable to religion.”
No, it supports the fact that the FFRF is a non-profit, education organization, an IRS Section 501(c)3 tax-exempt like thousands of other organizations that also aren’t religions.
“They cannot have it both ways—get tax exempt status for their “religion,” then forbid us to practice our religion publicly, while enforcing the practice of THEIR beliefs.”
Removing “under god” from the pledge does absolutely NOTHING to forbid you to practice your religion.
“FFRF has been fighting similar battles for a long time, and they are jousting at windmills. They should practice the same tolerance towards the rest of America (80% Christian) as we practice towards them.”
If the FFRF did THAT, they would change the pledge to state “under NO gods”. That’s how Christian supremacists currently support a religious pledge.
Brian—
Now YOU are jousting at windmills.
A Christian majority is not the same as Christian supremacy.
You are imagining hostile motivations where none exist.
And majority rule is the definition of a democracy.
You are trying to change it to (radical, aggressive) minority rule.
“A Christian majority is not the same as Christian supremacy.”
No, but in the case of the pledge, it’s religious supremacy.
“You are imagining hostile motivations where none exist.”
Sorry, if you investigate HOW “under god” was added to the pledge, you’ll see that it was done to (illegally) promote religion.
“And majority rule is the definition of a democracy.”
No, that’s “mob rule” you have there. I prefer the system we have now, where the majority can’t just vote away the rights of minorities.
“You are trying to change it to (radical, aggressive) minority rule.”
Complete nonsense. Making the pledge neutral on religion is needed because the majority can’t infringe on the religious rights of anyone, including the minority.
Brian-
Fundamentally, you are confusing preferences with “rights.”
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone has a “right” not to hear what they disagree with. Considering the amount of variation in opinion among humanity, your wish could only be fulfilled if everyone were to fall completely silent, including yourself.
Adopting your position, which forbids the mention of religious preference in public, we would soon be forbidding rooting for one’s favorite football team in public, or offering lemonade at a public event, since some prefer a different team or a different drink.
Wishes are not rights.
Nobody has ever suffered irreparable harm by hearing something they disagree with in public.
You may wish to silence those with whom you disagree, but you have no “right” to take away their freedom of speech.
If we went along with your wish to silence religious people who wish to pray, you would also have to be silenced, because many do not wish to hear YOUR views. Soon you would not be able post your anti-religious views publicly here in this forum.
You will not re-define “rights” in this country simply by insisting loudly on new “rights” and trying to redefine the words of others.
Majority is not a dirty word, and is quite distinct from supremacy.
Majority rule is NOT mob rule. Actually, a loud litigious minority like FFRF trying to silence a majority with frivolous and expensive lawsuits is more akin to mob rule—rule by the squeaky wheels who threaten others.
Finally, calling the opinions of those who disagree with you “nonsense” is not a convincing argument. You must realize that others might consider YOUR opinion to be “nonsense.”
You are jousting at windmills—fighting enemies where there are none. Atheists enjoy perfect freedom in this country to practice their beliefs. Your “rights” are not violated when someone speaks without your approval. If you were jailed for refusing to join a particular church, THEN your rights would be violated.
“You seem to be of the opinion that everyone has a “right” not to hear what they disagree with.”
Wrong. You seem to not be able to read.
People have the right to raise their own children, right?
People have the right to decide what kind of religious instruction their children receive, right?
So the government has no business, and certainly no “right”, to try and inculcate the idea that a god exists and that the US is under that god.
“Nobody has ever suffered irreparable harm by hearing something they disagree with in public.”
So you think the almighty state gets to dictate to other people’s children whether god exists or not?
Sorry, I can’t agree with that kind of socialism.
“You may wish to silence those with whom you disagree,”
I don’t.
“but you have no “right” to take away their freedom of speech.”
I’m not. The government doesn’t have rights; the government has powers. Preventing the government from promoting religion isn’t taking away anyone’s freedom of speech.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/god-is-alive-in-the-pledge-of-allegiance/#ixzz1QinYTtCN
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.