The U.S. Pledge of Allegiance

Conflicts between two court rulings
in Virginia and California

Sponsored link.

2005-AUG & SEP: California and Virginia cases:

According to the Family Research Council, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a state law in Virginia during 2005-AUG. The law requires public schools to lead their students each school day in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, including the "under God" phrase. ₁ They suggested that the Pledge was a "patriotic exercise" and not a religious affirmation like public prayer.

Individual students are guaranteed by an earlier decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to have the right to opt out of reciting the Pledge. So if they don't mind risking verbal abuse and/or physical abuse from their fellow students, they can refuse to take part.

Michael Newdow re-introduced his case before a federal court on behalf of an unidentified group of California parents and their children, who presumably have proper standing. According to the Family Research Council, on 2005-SEP-15, "...District Judge Lawrence Karlton...said he is bound by precedent set by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in 2001 that it was unconstitutional for the [current wording of the] Pledge to be recited in public schools." ₁ He declared that reciting the current version of the Pledge is unconstitutional in California. The judge ruled that students had a right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

American Atheists commented:

"The ruling is not wise public policy, in our opinion. The phrase 'under God' in the pledge is not a big enough transgression against the church-state wall to warrant outlawing. It belongs in the same category as the oaths that public officials sometimes take on Bibles, the prayer that opens deliberations in the Senate, the motto 'In God We Trust' that has graced coins since 1864 mild, tolerable exceptions to the rule of separation between government and religion."

"At the same time, some criticism of the ruling is way overblown. For instance, Randy Thomasson, president of the California-based Campaign for Children and Families, was quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle as saying: 'This is another bad ruling that warps the U.S. Constitution and dashes parents' hopes of patriotism in the next generation.' This nation depends on the inclusion of 'under God' in the pledge to keep patriotism alive in the next generation? That's ridiculous. He sells parents, the nation and kids short."

"The histrionics among foes of the ruling risks undermining our own rationale for opposing it. Our argument is that the phrase is no big thing. The apocalyptic language of some criticism suggests the phrase is a huge thing, however. The alarmists should take a deep breath and note that the country did well before 1954, when the phrase was added." ₃

There is an obvious conflict. A Court of Appeals in one area of the U.S. has declared the Pledge unconstitutional. Another Court of Appeals has ruled that reciting the Pledge is not only unconstitutional but compulsory. This can only be settled by an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Knights of Columbus and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is expected to appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the Supreme Court is under no obligation to hear the case.

References:

1. "Pledge Decision Highlights Importance of Roberts Nomination," Family Research Council special Email edition, 2005-SEP-14.
2. "A Newdow victory for a secular pledge...," AANews, 2005-SEP-18.
3. Gregory Stanford, "Editorial: 'Under God' does not breach church/state wall," Journal Sentinel, 2005-SEP-17, at: http://www.jsonline.com/