School pledge ruled unconstitutional

In San Francisco, California, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton has ruled compulsory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional. Next, the case will go to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against “under God” in the Pledge a few years ago, and then to the United States Supreme Court, which ducked the “under God” issue before, but now won’t be able to do so.

The last time the American court system grappled with “under God” in the Pledge, Michael Newdow represented himself, and he sued on behalf of his daughter against the Pledge in public schools, on the grounds it contained “under God.” Newdow argued that constituted government endorsement of religion. The Ninth Circuit agreed, ruling the 1954 law that introduced “under God” into the Pledge unconstitutional. The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, though without resolving the underlying constitutional question. They chickened out of that by saying Newdow didn’t have standing to file a lawsuit on behalf of his daughter, of whom he didn’t have custody.

Now, though, Newdow has sued against “under God” again, this time as a lawyer representing three parents who do have custody of their children. With the standing of the plaintiffs in this case unquestionable, the Supreme Court won’t be able cowardly to dodge the constitutional issue. They’ll have to resolve the matter one way or another.

(Read from the Washington Post: School Pledge is Unconstitutional.)

I champion the separation of church and state. As per the First Amendment of the Constitution, the government has no business endorsing religion. Forcing children in public schools to acknowledge the United States as “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance constitutes government support for monotheistic religion. If you don’t believe me, believe the man who signed the 1954 bill adding “under God” to the Pledge, President Dwight D. Eisenhower:

From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.

Eisenhower admits the intent of the bill was to impress upon schoolchildren belief in Christianity! For the American government to do this flouts our Constitution.

So I applaud today’s ruling against compelling kids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Still, I have quibbles with it. Judge Karlton maintains the 1954 “under God” law isn’t unconstitutional in and of itself; only forcing students in class to proclaim they’re “under God” defies the Constitution. I disagree. The Pledge of Allegiance receives the sponsorship of the United States government. With “under God” in the Pledge, the government is thereby acting unconstitutionally.

Also, concentrating on “under God” instead of the whole Pledge of Allegiance would make the findings of the decision more palatable to the citizenry. It wouldn’t be such a radical change from what they experienced in school, so it wouldn’t scare them as much. Children would still recite the Pledge every morning, just without proclaiming subservience to God. (I actually think compulsory recitation of any version of the Pledge evokes Fascism, but that’s another argument for another screed. )

I hope the Ninth Circuit tweaks the findings more sensibly, to reflect the Constitution more accurately and to increase the acceptability of a decision in favor of Newdow.

---

Tags: "Under God", atheism, Dwight Eisenhower, Lawrence Karlton, Michael Newdow, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Pledge of Allegiance, Supreme Court