A three judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The context? An atheist mother, whose child refused to say the Pledge, sued her child's school. The school had a policy, mandated by state law, that had teachers lead "willing" students in the Pledge. The child didn't participate, but the mother said that the teacher-led recitation was indoctrinating her child into the belief that God exists. That indoctrination, she asserted, violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion").
The panel, in a 2-1 opinion, upheld the school's practice. The opinion can be found here. The main justification the majority seems to have used to support the teacher leading the Pledge is as follows:
(Also, by the way, the Court relied on the preamble to the law which established the Pledge in its current form. That preamble apparently made it clear that the intent of the Pledge was a patriotic, not a religious one. The reliance on that preamble is remarkably naive. Congress is not composed of complete morons. If they were engaged in an attempt to indoctrinate school children into a belief in God in the 1950s, they wouldn't announce it in the preamble to the law.)
The dissenting judge puts it this way:
The difference between a teacher leading school children through an affirmation of a belief in God and a teacher telling children that they have to be Christian or else risk going to hell is only a matter of degree.
As a side note: I very much enjoyed this reference to a failure by Sarah Palin:
The panel, in a 2-1 opinion, upheld the school's practice. The opinion can be found here. The main justification the majority seems to have used to support the teacher leading the Pledge is as follows:
...we find the Pledge is one of allegiance to our Republic, not of allegiance to the God or to any religion. Furthermore, Congress’ ostensible and predominant purpose when it enacted and amended the Pledge over time was patriotic, not religious...Of course, these findings (which are stated at the beginning as though a summary of the entire opinion, and which seem to be in line with my skimming of the rest of the opinion) do not really address the claim in the case. The plaintiff did not claim that that the Pledge was of "allegiance to God," she merely claimed that its recitation in an official capacity was in effect teaching her son that there is a god, and that this is only one God. Whether or not the Pledge is predominantly patriotic and whether or not it demands allegiance to God, it establishes a belief in God, a belief that can really only be considered religious.
We hold that the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause because Congress’ ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism and that the context of the Pledge—its wording as a whole, the preamble to the statute, and this nation’s history—demonstrate that it is a predominantly patriotic exercise. For these reasons, the phrase “one Nation under God” does not turn this patriotic exercise into a religious activity.
(Also, by the way, the Court relied on the preamble to the law which established the Pledge in its current form. That preamble apparently made it clear that the intent of the Pledge was a patriotic, not a religious one. The reliance on that preamble is remarkably naive. Congress is not composed of complete morons. If they were engaged in an attempt to indoctrinate school children into a belief in God in the 1950s, they wouldn't announce it in the preamble to the law.)
The dissenting judge puts it this way:
The undeniably religious purpose of the “under God” amendment to the Pledge and the inherently coercive nature of its teacher-led daily recitation in public schools ought to be sufficient under any Establishment Clause analysis to vindicate Jan Roe and her child’s constitutional claim, and to require that the Pledge of Allegiance, when recited as part of a daily state-directed, teacher-led program, be performed in its original, pre-amendment secular incarnation that served us so well for generations.Judge Reinhardt seems to get the point perfectly. Using the words "under God" in the Pledge inexorably links the idea of "God" with the idea of patriotism. When a teacher does so, students might reasonably feel that they must accept it, since the entire student-teacher relationship (especially at a young age) is based on that type of interaction.
The difference between a teacher leading school children through an affirmation of a belief in God and a teacher telling children that they have to be Christian or else risk going to hell is only a matter of degree.
As a side note: I very much enjoyed this reference to a failure by Sarah Palin:
For many Americans, the current version of the Pledge is the only version they have ever known. Some individuals not familiar with our political history may even be under the impression that its language dates back to the founding fathers.4
[FN4] See, for example, the words of former Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska: “If [the Pledge] was good enough for the founding fathers, its [sic] good enough for me . . . .” Eagle Forum Alaska, 2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire, July 31, 2006, http://irregulartimes.com/eagle-forum-2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I encourage commenters to use their real name, although I do not require it.
Blogger employs an automatic spam filtering algorithm for comments. If a non-spam comment has been filtered out, email source4politics@gmail.com and the issue will be investigated.