What do you think about the Pledge of Allegiance case the Supreme Court is due to hear today? Here’s the quick background on the case:
Michael Newdow, a non-religious California father, lawyer, and doctor, objected to his daughter reciting the words “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. He took the school to court and won, but the district appealed. It is due to be heard before the Supreme Court today.
Until 1954, the phrase “Under God” was not in the Pledge of Allegiance. It was added by Congress due to lobbying by the “Knights of Columbus”, a religious organization. Additionally, in 1940, the Court decided that it was unconstitutional to require any citizen to recite the pledge.
There are a few interesting facets to the case that, in my opinion, may cause the Supremes to ignore it:
- Newdow is not the custodial parent
- Justice Antonin Scalia, noted conservative Supreme Court Justice, bowed out of hearing this case due to his outspoken opposition to Newdow’s arguments at a religious rally last year
- The girl’s mother is a Born-Again Christian, opposed to the case — and so is the daughter
- Bringing this case to bear may cause him to lose his California Bar Certification. Several religious organizations have begun a petition for him to lose his license to practice law.
As for me, this morning I heard arch-conservative Bob Lonsberry refer to Newdow as “this evil man” and his offspring the result of a “hippy-dippy fling”. Although I don’t think the phrase “under God” does any harm in the Pledge, at the same time, I think ad hominem attacks against Newdow due to him following his conscience are simply wrong.
The interesting thing for me here is the question: is the act of putting into law that the Pledge of Allegiance contains the phrase “Under God” a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? And will striking the same from the Pledge be an abridgement of the free speech of those for whom the public prayer aspect of the Pledge makes patriotism more palatable? What I mean is, does prohibiting religious speech in government oaths impinge the freedom of speech of those who wish to express their religious convictions in those oaths?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The small addition by Congress of “under God” turns the Pledge into both a patriotic oath, and a public prayer. People are free not to say it when reciting the Pledge, but the removal of it from the official Pledge will deny religious people the opportunity of saying it.
Don’t know how it’s going to turn out, but my gut reaction is that if the court does anything but refuse to hear the case, or rule in favor of the school district, there is going to be a great deal of civil uproar over, really, what seems to be an inconsequential thing. Throughout Elementary School, I recited the Pledge daily. Throughout Middle and High schools, I recited it once a week. Since then, I’ve only said it a handful of times. Seems like a bit of a tempest in a teapot to me, yet the long-term ramifications of the decision are both unknown, and probably far-reaching.
Update: More details now available on CNN about Newdow’s appeal.