Although I believe in God, and although I recite the "Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America" without hesitation or reservation, I have long wondered why it now includes the words "under God." God doesn’t need them. The United States of America doesn’t need them. Its students don’t need them. The families from which its students come don’t need them. Its churches, synagogues, temples, and civic organizations don’t need them. After all, the United States did not have a pledge that included these words until Congress added them in 1954; it did at least as well before that date as after.

Defending these words can be difficult. If they are so void of theological content that they do not violate the U.S. Constitution, few should notice or care if we take them out. If these words are theologically significant enough to ignite controversy if we consider removing them, they probably violate the Constitution. Either way, the words "under God" probably shouldn’t be in the Pledge.

It might be socially too disruptive to remove them at this time, however. Sometimes it is wise to leave a bullet in the body of someone who has been shot because the harms of doing so are less than the dangers of removing it. With regard to our body politic, maybe this is one of those cases.

Michael A. Newdow, a physician with a law degree, resides near Sacramento, California, and he doesn’t think so. He sued the President, the Congress, the State of California, the public school district his daughter attends, the one she will probably attend in the future, and the superintendents of both school districts over the matter. An atheist who represented himself in court, Newdow asserted that the frequent recital of the Pledge, as now worded, at her public school injures his daughter in ways that violate the U.S. Constitution, even though she is not required to participate.

On June 26, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which covers nine states plus Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, agreed with Newdow. However, it swiftly issued an order that postpones any changes in U.S. public schools for the time being.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." During the last three decades, wrote Judge Alfred T. Goodwin for the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court of the United States has used three interrelated tests in such cases.

The so-called Lemon standards declare that government action must have a secular purpose, must neither advance nor inhibit religion in its primary or principal effects, and must not foster excessive entanglement of government in religion. Citing the words of those in Congress who introduced the words "under God," Judge Goodwin found that the 1954 legislation fails the first of the Lemon criteria, and that the policies of the school district where Newdow’s daughter studies violate the second.

According to one of the legislation’s 1954 sponsors, the addition of the words in question would "further acknowledge the dependence of our people and of our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator. At the same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual." Judge Goodwin found that these words frankly announce the legislation’s religious, and unconstitutional, purpose.

The endorsement test specifies that governmental action may not make religious considerations relevant in any way to a person’s standing in the political community. It particularly prohibits governmental references to religion that signal that some citizens are "insiders" and others "outsiders." In the case of Michael A. Newdow and his daughter, and many others like them, the Pledge as now written fails this test, wrote Judge Goodwin.

The coercion test prohibits government from pressuring people either way regarding religious matters. Judge Goodwin wrote that the 1954 legislation fails this test as well. In support of this conclusion he cites what the President of the United States said when he signed it into law.

"From this day forward," declared Dwight David Eisenhower," the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our Nation and our people, to the Almighty." When the president of the United States declares that our children "will" do something, Judge Goodwin held, it is difficult to ignore the presence of pressure.

Some agree that the 1954 legislation technically violated the U.S. Constitution, but that it did so in such a minor way that this infraction is best overlooked, much like a driver who travels 56 miles per hour where the speed limit is 55. Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez, who wrote the minority opinion in this case, made a related but different point. He held that inserting the words "under God" into the Pledge, and placing expressions like "In God We Trust" upon U.S. coins, do so little damage that they do not amount to violations. This is like saying that driving 56 miles an hour in a 55 zone is so well within the expectations of the law that there is no infraction for the courts to overlook. Judge Fernandez also wrote that the legislative branch of government best settles such disputes.

Although I believe that Judge Goodwin wrote the better opinion, the views of Judge Fernandez, however he arrived at them, are probably more politically palatable at this time. It is therefore likely that this ruling will be overturned, either by a larger panel of judges at the Ninth Circuit or by the U.S. Supreme Court.

How difficult it is for those of us who believe in God to stop using the power of government to pressure others into believing or acting as we do! Because the ultimate power of the state is coercive, but the ultimate power of healthy religion is persuasive, our inability to relinquish the sword as we advance our religious convictions and practices strikes me as regrettable. Do we actually believe?

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE