'ONE NATION UNDER GOD'

ReligionWriters, October 3, 2003 - On Oct. 14, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider whether it is a violation of the First Amendment to have public school teachers lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance when it includes the phrase, “Under God.” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed its earlier decision that called the pledge unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court lets the Ninth Circuit opinion stand, public school students in nine Western states will then recite the pledge without the phrase "Under God," while students in the rest of the country include it. The Supreme Court will also consider whether Michael Newdow has standing to challenge his daughter’s school's policy on the pledge. The girl’s mother has custody and has said she has no problem with her saying the pledge.

In 1943 the Supreme Court ruled that schoolchildren cannot be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance, but the court has never addressed the issue of whether language added since then - "one nation, under God" - amounts to government endorsement of religion. Most Americans and the Bush administration say they want to keep the language in the pledge. What will the Supreme Court do?

Why it Matters
At the heart of the case lie core questions: Is the United States really one nation, under God? Is the phrase a religious statement, or a symbolic one? If nine out of 10 Americans say they believe in God (see poll), should the pledge include "Under God"?

SUPPORT 'UNDER GOD' IN PLEDGE
• Jay Sekulow is chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, a public interest law firm based in Washington, D.C., that specializes in constitutional law. It filed an amicus brief in May with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to take the Pledge of Allegiance case from California in which a federal appeals court has declared the phrase "one nation, under God" to be unconstitutional. The ACLJ, which supports the position of the U.S. Department of Justice, represents more than 30 members of Congress, who are listed in a news release. See the ACLJ's Pledge of Allegiance resource page. Contact Gene Kapp, 757-575-9520.
• The Anti-Defamation League, which fights anti-Semitism and bigotry, disagrees with the federal appeals court ruling that the phrase "one nation, under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Read a June 2002 news release. Regional office contacts are posted here.
• Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar for religious freedom at the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va. He says that the words "under God" should stay in the pledge but that the government should be wary of future attempts to promote religion through government. Read his column "The pledge flap: Let's brush up our civics," which first appeared in The Christian Science Monitor on July 1, 2002. Contact 703-284-2859, chaynes@freedomforum.org.
• Robert A. Destro is professor of law at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., and co-director and founder of the Interdisciplinary Program in Law & Religion. He is helping represent the Knights of Columbus, the source of the "under God" wording in the pledge. He helped file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, contending that the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional. Contact 202-319-5202, destro@law.cua.edu.

AGAINST 'UNDER GOD' IN PLEDGE
• The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, supports the 9th Circuit's ruling. Read a June 2002 news release, a February 2003 news release and FAQs. Contact 202-466-3234.
• Stephen Wermiel, an associate professor of law at American University Washington College of Law, specializes in the Supreme Court and in constitutional law. He agrees with the 9th Circuit ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of the "under God" wording. Contact 202-274-4263, swermiel@wcl.american.edu.
• Douglas Laycock is Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law and associate dean for research at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin. He supports removal of the words "under God" from the pledge. Read his article for the summer 2002 issue of Religion in the News, "Vouching Towards Bethlehem." Contact 512-232-1341, dlaycock@mail.law.utexas.edu.

OTHER SOURCES
• K. Hollyn Hollman is general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. She and Brent Walker, executive director of the BJC, have predicted that the 9th Circuit ruling will be overturned. Read a July 1, 2002, news release and a July 1, 2002, Baptist Standard article. Contact 202-544-4226, hhollman@bjcpa.org.
• Mark J. Pelavin is associate director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and an expert on church-state issues. Contact 202-387-2800, mpelavin@rac.org. Rabbi David Saperstein is director of the center. Contact 202-387-2800, Saperstein@rac.org.
• Derek Davis directs the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. He edits the Journal of Church and State. Contact 254-710-1510, Derek_davis@baylor.edu.
• Carolyn Marvin, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication, is co-author of the book Blood Sacrifice and the Nation: Totem Rituals and the American Flag (Cambridge University Press, 1999). Contact 215-898-7374, cmarvin@asc.upenn.edu.

Background

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE NEWDOW PLEDGE CASE
This case started in 2000 with Newdow v. United States Congress - a suit by Michael A. Newdow, who is an atheist, against the Sacramento-area Elk Grove Unified School District, where his daughter attends elementary school. He argued that her rights were violated by hearing the pledge, led by teachers, with the words "under God," recited in school. The case was later complicated when the child's mother, who had custody, said both she and her daughter are Christian.
• Restorethepledge.com offers a detailed timeline of the Newdow case along with links to associated court documents.
• June 26, 2002: A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules 2-1 that the phrase "under God" constitutes government endorsement of religion and therefore violates the first amendment. Students have a right not only not to say the pledge but also not to hear the words "under God" in the pledge being said by other students, the court said. Read the ruling. The Ninth Circuit includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.
• June 27, 2002: Judge Alfred Goodwin of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stays the ruling.
• Dec. 4, 2002: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel rules that Michael Newdow has standing to pursue his claim in federal court, even though he is not the custodial parent. Read the ruling.
• Feb. 28, 2003: The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' full panel of 24 judges declines to review the three-judge panel's earlier ruling. The panel did amend the ruling so that it does not restrict the use of the pledge in all public settings, but applies only to public schools where children might feel coerced to recite the words "under God." Read a March 5, 2003, Associated Baptist Press article posted by the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs.
• March 4, 2003: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stays enforcement of the ruling, pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
• April 30, 2003: The Bush Administration asks the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve the words "under God" in the pledge. Read a May 1, 2003, Associated Press story posted by the First Amendment Center. Read the petition United States v. Newdow.
• June 10, 2003: A petition, filed by all 50 state attorneys general, urges the Supreme Court of the United States to consider reversal of the 9th Circuit's judgment. Read the June 10 announcement by the National Association of Attorneys General.
• June 27, 2003: Michael Newdow files a brief in opposition to the Bush Administration's request. Check on filings in the case by searching under "Supreme Court Docket Files" for keyword "Newdow." Documents list the names of petitioners, defendants, attorneys as well as those who filed amicus briefs, along with contact information for all.
• Oct. 14, 2003: The U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear the pledge case. Read an Oct. 14, 2003, Associated Press story posted by the Freedom Forum.

U.S. GOVERNMENT REACTION TO RULING
• The U.S. Senate passed a resolution 99-0 the day of the June 26, 2002 ruling, supporting the use of "under God" in the pledge and asking the appeals court to overturn the ruling.
• The U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution 416-3 on June 27, 2002, opposing the ruling.
• On Nov. 13, 2002, President Bush signed into law a bill that reaffirmed keeping "under God" in the pledge and "In God We Trust" as the national motto. Read an Associated Press story posted on Beliefnet.com.
• U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., has sponsored a bill allowing only the Supreme Court to review a constitutional challenge of the pledge. Read a news release about the bill, "Pledge Protection Act" H.R. 2028. More than 220 members of the U.S. House support it the bill. Read and check the status of the bill here by searching for "Pledge Protection Act." Contact Akin staffer Steve Taylor at 314-590-0029.

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE PLEDGE
• In 1940, in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, the Supreme Court ruled that school districts could oblige students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. But three years later, the court overturned that ruling with West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, which said government schools cannot force students to recite the pledge. (Both cases are posted by FindLaw.)
• Read a June 29 Philadelphia Inquirer story about the Jehovah's Witness children behind Minersville School District v. Gobitis.
• In 1963, Justice William Brennan said that patriotic phrases - such as "under God" in the pledge - "no longer have a religious purpose or meaning."
• The American Center for Law and Justice lists past Supreme Court cases that have mentioned the Pledge of Allegiance.

HISTORY OF THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
• Read a history of the origin and changes to the Pledge of Allegiance in a June 27, 2002, Associated Press story posted on CBSNews.com.
• Read a history of the Pledge in a June 27, 2002, story from FoxNews.com.

POLLS
• A June 30, 2002, Newsweek poll found that 9 in 10 Americans think the phrase "Under God" belongs in the Pledge of Allegiance.
• Almost 7 in 10 respondents said that including "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the separation of church and state, according to the 2003 State of the First Amendment Survey, conducted by the First Amendment Center and American Journalism Review.
• Ninety percent of Americans say they believe in God, according to a February 2003 Harris Interactive poll.

OTHER BACKGROUND
• Read a commentary by James D. McWilliams on issues involved in the pledge case from the First Amendment Center.
• Read a Sept. 29, 2003, Los Angeles Times article posted by the Contra Costa Times about the Supreme Court's options in the Pledge of Allegiance case.
http://www.religionwriters.com/public/tips/100303/100303a.shtml