The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday concerning the
appropriateness of the phrase “under God” in daily
recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.
This comes just two years after the passing of
a Wisconsin law requiring all schools to offer either the pledge or
national anthem.
Dr. Michael Newdow, who sued the California
public school district his 9–year-old daughter attends,
presented his arguments against the pledge on behalf of himself and
his daughter.
“I am an atheist. I don’t believe
in God,” Newdow said.
When Justice Stephen Breyer suggested to
Newdow that the term “God” is used as a more
“broad” and “generic” term, Newdow
responded the phrase has more specific significance.
“It says ‘under God.’ That’s as purely
religious as you can get,” he said. “I don’t think that
I can include ‘under God’ to mean ‘no God.’
I deny the existence of God.”
Congress added the two-word phrase during the
Cold War as an attempt to separate America from “Godless
communism.”
A San Francisco Court of Appeals ruled in
favor of Newdow last year, saying the phrase “under
God” renders the pledge a “profession of religious
belief.”
Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who defended
the existing pledge, argued it, “is not what this Court has
said the Establishment Clause protects against.”
Brian Fahlings, senior trial attorney for the
American Family Association, agreed.
“An attempt to translate it into a
violation of the establishment clause is an absurdity,” he
said, adding that there is an “undeniable tradition in our
country of the acknowledgement of God.”
The case has prompted nationwide debate over
the pledge. Madison schools currently offer either the pledge or
the national anthem daily. Every time the pledge is read, so is a
disclaimer, reminding students “participation in the pledge
is voluntary.”
Bill Keys, president of the Madison School
Board, said controversy over the pledge started in 2001, when a
state law was passed requiring every school to offer the pledge or
national anthem every day.
“Within a week, there were parents,
teachers and students upset about having to be coerced into
participating or not participating,” Keys said, adding that
it’s hard to estimate how many students and teachers refrain from
reciting the pledge.
Keys has been active in defending
students’ right not to participate in the pledge, and says he
has received many letters and calls thanking him for taking this
stance.
The Court’s ruling will be anxiously
awaited by many. Because of criticism of the ninth circuit’s
ruling in a speech, Justice Antonin Scalia will not weigh in on the
case. This leaves the chance of a four to four tie, which would
automatically uphold the appeals court’s ruling.
“There’s a principle here,” Newdow
said at the end of his testimony, “and I’m hoping the court
will uphold this principle so that we can finally go back and have
every
American want to stand up, face the flag, place their hand over
their heart and pledge to one nation, indivisible, not divided by
religion, with liberty and justice for all.”