The Pledge on Trial: SCOTUS Hears 'Under God' Arguments
by Bill Fancher and Fred Jackson
March 24, 2004
(AgapePress) - The U.S. Supreme Court has begun the process of deciding if God has a place in the Pledge of Allegiance. The constitutionality of the phrase "under God" has been challenged by an avowed atheist who sued on behalf of his nine-year-old daughter -- whose mother he never married and over whom the two parents are in a bitter custody dispute.Associated Press reports that observers in the courtroom chamber on Wednesday described dramatic arguments, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist threatening to clear the gallery after one outburst of applause for atheist Michael Newdow. Sandra Banning, the mother of Newdow's daughter and herself a born-again Christian, said he presented his case well.
But observers say the justices seem divided over whether Newdow, as a non-custodial parent, has standing to bring the lawsuit.
As the day began, Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council led a prayer for Newdow has he walked into the Supreme Court. "We are in need of You as much as Michael Newdow," Schenck prayed. "We ask today that You will change his heart and mind, he will find Your love, and know the joy of Your salvation."
Hundreds of supporters of the Pledge gathered for a rally and prayer on the sidewalks in front of the high court's building, many of them having spent the night there in a prayerful vigil.
The court is expected to announce its decision in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow this summer. Should the justices wish to sidestep the Church-State issues, the parents' custody quarrel offers them an easy out. They may just decide that Newdow, because he did not have custody at the time, could not sue without the mother's consent, and dismiss the case outright.
Kicking God Out Not a Good Idea
According to a recent Associated Press poll, almost 90 percent of Americans say the two-word phrase "under God" should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance -- despite constitutional questions about the so-called "separation of Church and State." Nevertheless, pro-family activist Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families is worried about the outcome because Justice Antonin Scalia, criticizing the lower-court ruling during a religious rally last year, has recused himself from the case.
That presents a problem, Bauer says. "I think it's more than possible that we will end up with a 4-4 vote in the Supreme Court ... which would have the effect of allowing the lower-court decision to stand," he says. "And the lower court said the Pledge has to go."
The conservative spokesman points out that the nation is engaged in a war against terrorism -- and that the wrong court decision could have some frightening ramifications. "Kicking the Pledge of Allegiance out of the schools because of the words 'under God' is the last thing we should be contemplating in the middle of a terrorist war, where more than ever we need God's protection," Bauer says.
Recent Debate
During a debate at American University last week, Michael Newdow stated his argument for banning the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. He contends the Pledge tells school children that their government believes there is a God.
"When you stand children up and say 'Face the flag and say "we are a nation under God -- affirm that belief," you have crossed the line far beyond whatever the Establishment Clause is supposed to mean," Newdow said during the debate with Christian Legal Society attorney Steven Aden. "This is so far on the other side of it, this is not even a close case."
He says it is bizarre to argue that his right to be an atheist comes from God. In addition, Newdow said, the United States was not founded as a nation under God. "Our nation didn't believe in God -- our nation believed in religious freedom," he said.
But Aden, chief counsel for the Christian Legal Society, said removing the words "under God" would deny the source of American liberties. "I think what we're left with is a state that doesn't know what it's based on -- that doesn't know where rights come from," he observed.
And as to Newdow's claim that by reciting the Pledge, children are taught the government believes there is a God? "The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was enacted to protect citizens from the imposition of a state religion, not to enforce a functional state atheism," Aden said.
When Newdow first brought his case to court in California, he claimed his objection had to do with his daughter's dislike for reciting the Pledge. But since the initial proceedings, information has come to light that contradicts that claim. Banning, the young girl's mother, has told justices that her daughter has no objection to reciting "under God" in school each day.
