Pledge of Alligiance - Unconstitutional?

[Ramo]

You'll note that the establishment clause is seperate from the freedom of worship clause.

[DinoDoc]

Here's the relevent bit of an interesting article I found on a similar topic:

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT LAW

2. Public schools' expression of patriotism

As a first principle, of course, there simply is no such thing in the Constitution as "separation of church and state." Instead, the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a church for the country by Congress. The concept of "separation of church and state" is a poorly crafted metaphor intended to illuminate Thomas Jefferson's approach to the relationship between religious entities and government. That metaphor never was enacted into law by the States as an amendment to the Constitution, and whatever its worth is, it cannot overmatch the actual meaning of the Establishment Clause.

Under current law, it is entirely permissible for a public school or other government body to display a "God Bless America" or "In God We Trust" sign or to institute voluntary recital of the "Pledge of Allegiance" by its students.

The words "God Bless America" are the title of a well-known patriotic song, which has been commonly performed at various events throughout our country for a long time, including its regular singing by children in public schools. These words are also part of the customary Presidential benediction spoken at the conclusion of most Presidential speeches. Although there may be some limits to such displays of "ceremonial deism," (4) the display of a sign containing the phrase, "God Bless America" is well-within the bounds of accepted and acceptable practices. It is thus a species of "ceremonial deism" such as our national motto, "One Nation Under God," and "In God We Trust," on our currency, as well as proclamation of "God save the United States and this honorable Court" by the Supreme Court bailiff in the beginning of oral arguments.

Likewise, the "Pledge of Allegiance" is entirely a patriotic exercise expressing loyalty to our nation. As history shows, objections to the words "under God" in the pledge would be without merit. The words "under God" were added in 1954. The pledge was originally printed (1892) in the magazine Youth's Companion. Since 1939 its authorship has been officially attributed to Francis Bellamy, who had been on the staff of the magazine. The original text has been altered twice. In 1923, the words "the flag of the United States of America" were substituted for the words "my flag," and in 1954 an act of Congress added the words "under God." (5)

The phrase "under God" first appeared in President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which concluded that "this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." (6)

The Supreme Court has considered the words "One Nation under God" in the pledge to be one of many "illustrations of the Government's acknowledgment of our religious heritage." And just recently, in ACLU v. Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd., (7) the Sixth Circuit upheld Ohio's motto "With God All Things Are Possible" as a species of ceremonial deism immune to establishment clause challenges and noted the similarity of the Ohio motto to the national pledge. (8)

Similarly, the national motto "In God We Trust" falls into the same category of permissible ceremonial deism. The history of the national motto "In God We Trust" goes back to 1814. In September of that year, during the British bombardment of Fort McHenry in Baltimore, Francis Scott Key composed the poem the "Star Spangled Banner," of which one line in the final stanza is "And this be our motto – ‘In God is our trust.'" (10) In 1955 Congress mandated the inscription of "In God We Trust" on all coins and paper currency. (11) The following year, Congress codified "In God We Trust" as the national motto. (12) Congress's rationale for doing so can be found in the relevant House Report:

It will be of great spiritual and psychological value to our country to have a clearly designated national motto of inspirational quality in plain, popularly accepted English. The Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives recognizes that the phrase "E pluribus unum" has also received wide usage in the United States. However, the committee considers "In God We Trust" a superior and more acceptable motto for the United States.

The Supreme Court and other courts have since noted a number of times the permissibility of the national motto as one of the numerous official references to our religious heritage. (14)

Additionally, to date the Supreme Court has never held that the expression of patriotic sentiments, such as "God Bless America" slogans or recitation of the pledge or the national motto, on public school grounds is subject to special restriction because those sentiments may be couched in common terms used by people of faith. And, in fact, one United States Court of Appeals, outside of the realm of expression of patriotic sentiment and inside the arena of religious observances and celebrations, has held that the Constitution is not violated by the performance of Christmas carols, even with religious content. In Florey v. Sioux Falls School Dist. 49-5, (15) a case touching on official public school observance of religious holidays, the Eighth Circuit concluded that religious songs and symbols can be used in the public schools if they are "presented in a prudent and objective manner and only as part of the cultural and religious heritage of the holiday . . . ." (16) The Eighth Circuit stated that the study and performance of religious songs is constitutional if the purpose is the "advancement of the students' knowledge of society's cultural and religious heritage, as well as the provision of an opportunity for students to perform a full range of music, poetry and drama that is likely to be of interest to the students and their audience." (17)

Here, no such extensive study of materials and performance of songs is at issue. Consequently, the risks that attend such extensive study and the performance for public school students of such songs are not presented here. Instead, a statement "God Bless America" or "In God We Trust" appears on a school's marquee, or the recitation of the pledge is made by voluntary participants, during a time when the Nation is reeling from the shock and horror of an act of unspeakable horror and evil. It is hardly likely that such expressions present a threat of Establishment Clause violation greater than the study and performance of religious songs and hymns associated with Christmas (or other) observances.

Finally, even if the assertion seems doubtful to some, courts have touched on the particular phrase, "God Bless America," and have expressed doubts that the phrase violates the Establishment Clause. For instance, in Brown v. Woodland Joint Unified Sch. Dist., (18) reaching the conclusion that a children's textbook series that had been alleged to endorse the religions of Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism did not violate the Establishment Clause, a federal district court noted that the challenged series did not violate the Establishment Clause any more than did the singing of "God Bless America." (19) In like vein, as it considered a challenge to graduation prayer in public schools in Sands v. Morongo Unified Sch. Dist., (20) the California Supreme Court noted that the words "God Bless America" were constitutionally permissible and that such "commonly performed" and "traditional patriotic songs" did not run afoul of the Establishment Clause.(21)

The situation with the "Pledge of Allegiance" is similar. As long as student participation in the recitation of the pledge is not mandatory, the practice is entirely permissible. Any person having a religious or other objection to the recitation of the pledge need not participate. Therefore, if your school district displays a "God Bless America" or "In God We Trust" sign and/or merely allows the recitation of the pledge as one of the alternatives for engaging in patriotic exercises, there will be no constitutional violation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thanks Dino .

Shows that ''under God' and 'God we trust' isn't establishment of religion. I'm sorry, but I don't remember pledging to the Episcopalian Church .

[Ramo]

Taxes are used to support monotheism... That's respecting the establishment of religion.

[Ramo]

What's the criteria for this: "permissible ceremonial deism"?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Taxes are used to support monotheism... That's respecting the establishment of religion

And like I said, I disagree. There is NO state religion. Taxes can support schools that require a pledge with the phrasing 'under God' and that isn't establishing a state religion.

[mindseye]

All I can say is:

E PLURIBUS UNUM!

[Q Classic]

i honestly don't really care about the wording of the pledge. i also honestly don't really care if the 9th circuit court says anything, because as far as i'm concerned, they're a bunch of crap-- these are the guys who want to kill file transfer on the internet.

the pledge is what it is. i just wish it weren't forced on children, making them say it day after day...

it fails.

because i had to go through it, and i have to say, honestly, it means nothing to me now.

if it were reserved for special occasions, maybe it would still have meaning. but it wasn't. overuse of a symbolic oath to a nation destroys any patriotic worth it has.

[Sava]

"under god" is a statement of religion that was put into the pledge during the 1950's (McCarthy Era), it is wrong and should not be in the pledge.

Saying "under god" is forcing a child to proclaim a belief in God. It's too bad that conservatives don't understand the constitution and are too selfish to see past their own sick religious beliefs.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Sava
"under god" is a statement of religion that was put into the pledge during the 1950's (McCarthy Era), it is wrong and should not be in the pledge.

Saying "under god" is forcing a child to proclaim a belief in God. It's too bad that conservatives don't understand the constitution and are too selfish to see past their own sick religious beliefs.

How many times does it need to be said that "under God" was from the (mcCarthy Era)?

Enough already.

[Guynemer]

It needs to be said because it has roundly been ignored by some of the pro-"under God" folks here, especially Ned. He claims that this is "ignoring history", when in actually a) many Founding Fathers weren't Christian at all, and b) "ignoring history" is ignoring the fact that "under God" wasn't even in the Pledge in the first place.

A number of state laws have passed in the wake of 9/11 that REQUIRE the Pledge to be said in schools (as well as other pseudo-religious observances, i.e. "moments of silence"). I'm not familiar with all the laws, but I'm sure many, perhaps all, allow students to opt out of the activity. However, think back to when you were a kid. Could you voluntarily ostracize yourself from the rest of your classmates like that, even if it meant saying something you didn't believe. Think really hard about that kid. Be honest.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Asher

You're right, Lincoln, that shouldn't be there either.

The difference being you don't require anyone to say that on a regular basis.

Do you always say it's "The year of our Lord 2002"?

Really? I was required to recite the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, The Gettysburg Address, and a variety of other documents of US history which made referrences to God in one way or the other throughout my primary and secondary education.

One could argue that if being made to recite in school a historical work that refers to God is forcing religion down a child's throat that making them read or study it is essentially as unconstitutional. After all, if the material is read and is part of an assignment it is potentially discussable and testable, either of which would force the poor innocent to assimilate the offensive material. So congratualations, you've just outlawed the vast bulk of history.

Oh, and Canada still subsidizes a particular church with actual large sums of real money, so evidently Canada doesn't even have a doctrine of seperation opf church and state.

[DinoDoc]

Guy, could you explain your earlier post? I'd like to know how I disappointed you.

[Adam Smith]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

Seems to me that the Creator, or God if you wish, is central to the American vision of government, so the mere reference to God or Creator could not be unconstitutional, regardless of whether that reference was instituted in the Mcarthy era or on Day 1. Am I missing something here?

[Ned]

I quote the two most relevant passages from the opinion: the first from the majority; the second the concluding footnote from the dissent.

The majority focuses on "endorsement of religion."

The dissent focuses on "establishment of A religion."

These are two distinct concepts.

The majority opinion appears to accurately reflect the current views of the Supreme Court on the 1st Amendment.

What happens next will be interesting.

In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation "under God" is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation "under God" is not a mere acknowledgment that many Ameri-cans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase "one nation under God" in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear alle-giance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisi-bility, liberty, justice, and -- since 1954 -- monotheism.


From the dissent,

Lest I be misunderstood, I must emphasize that to decide this case it is not necessary to say, and I do not say, that there is such a thing as a de minimis constitutional violation. What I do say is that the de minimis ten-dency of the Pledge to establish a religion or to interfere with its free exer-cise is no constitutional violation at all.