Pledge controversy about to make a comeback

September 14, 2005

A little over a year after the Supreme Court sidestepped a case challenging the constitutionality of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, a federal court in San Francisco ruled this afternoon the same way the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals did — the inclusion of religious language in the Pledge is unconstitutional.

Politically, this will give the right a nice little boost and spur discussion, again, of amending the Constitution.

More soon.

Update: From the AP:

Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was declared unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge ruling in the second attempt by an atheist to have the pledge removed from classrooms. The man lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge’s reference to one nation “under God” violates school children’s right to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.”

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

Second Update: Helpful background on this lawsuit here.

Third Update: If anyone’s interested, I just so happen to have written a detailed article on the original Pledge lawsuit, which was published three years ago. A little history, some context, plenty of analysis — everything you’ll need to understand the controversy.

I cannot understand how 99 senators, various Supreme Court justices (dicta in a number of cases cited in the Newdow case), and, apparently, the majority of the country do not view an Act of Congress specifically inserting the words “under God” into the Pledge as a “law respecting the establishment of religion,” prohibited by the First Amendment. Even under Scalia’s “plain meaning” approach, this is a flagrant violation.

  • While I think ‘under God’ does not belong in the pledge, I really care very little one way or the other. The POA is pure puffery – mouthered by millions of children, who likely pay little (if any) thought to the words they are required to recite.

    If ‘under god’ stays in, I will not lose sleep. If it comes out, I won’t dance in the street. But, if a wingnut wants to get all huffy about this, I won’t be able to keep a straight face. We have too many real and tangible problems that working, breathing Americans must confront everyday, to waste time and energy on this sort of silliness.

    With the debacle in Iraq, and in the wake of Katrina, anyone who expresses outrage about ‘under God’ coming out of the POA deserves the most scathing ridicule that can be mustered.

  • We have too many real and tangible problems that working, breathing Americans must confront everyday, to waste time and energy on this sort of silliness.

    We have to waste time and energy on this sort of silliness precisely because we have too many real and tangible problems.

    It’s displacement activity, pure and simple.

    And the point that this is all it is has to be relentlessly driven home, or it will swamp any attempt to address real and tangible problems.

    Given a small, and manageable ‘problem’ that Joe Average can wrap his brain around, and a complex, societal, multi-causal actual problem, Joe Average is going to go with the former over the latter every time.

    It’s easy, it feels good, and it doesn’t make him feel stupid.

  • If anything, this will be viewed positively by Bushco because it will take the administration out of the glare of public scorn – including among many Republicans – regarding Katrina and Iraq, and get them right back “on message” about God, abortion, gay marriage, etc.

    We’ll hear about “activist liberal judges” attacking religion. We’ll hear about the leftists trying to take God out of public life. Blah, blah, blah, blah.

    Was this a set up? I know the judge in this case was appointed by Carter in 1979. Is he in Republican pockets now?

  • If anything, this will be viewed positively by Bushco because it will take the administration out of the glare of public scorn – including among many Republicans – regarding Katrina and Iraq, and get them right back “on message” about God, abortion, gay marriage, etc.

    Exactly. I agree with the ruling on principle, but politically, it’s awful. Right in the midst of a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, and with another vacancy still to be filled, the right gets a new talking point — on which the public overwhelmingly agrees with them.

  • Drew,

    It’s entirely inappropriate to suggest that a federal judge is “in Republican pockets” when he rules than the outcome of a case before him is controlled by binding precedent of the circuit court. I don’t entirely understand how the 9th Circuit’s ruling in Newdow is binding, since it was reversed by the Supreme Court, but at the very least the appellate decision is persuasive evidence of the appellate court’s opinion on the matter, which Judge Karlton rightly considered. Even if the resurgence of this issue does ultimately benefit the Republicans politically, the idea that the judge ruling on the case (and probably the atheists who filed the case in the first place, if we want to be consistent?) is a Republican crony seeking to divert the public’s attention away from the administration’s recent failures is nothing more than wild-eyed paranoia.

    I also don’t think this issue is quite as trivial as Joe and Davis seem to, though it’s certainly not at the same level as Iraq and Katrina. It is a matter of principle, and the principle that no American should be compelled to offer an affirmation of religious faith is an important one. Whether most school children pay attention to the meaning of the Pledge (I recall learning it in kindergarten, when I had no idea what most of the words meant, and never really considering the meaning behind the words until college), the fact remains that even small cracks in the wall of separation between church and state need to be repaired.

  • Sorry, James, but I guess I did a poor job of making my facetiousness come through. No, I don’t believe the judge ruled based on partisan favor toward Republicans. In fact, I agree with CB that the ruling is appropriate. I merely found the ruling interesting in that it likely will engorge the right with renewed bloodthirstyness for one of their pet issues.

    Good ruling. Not so good political consequences.

    I’ve also noted some of the irony of this issue in my blog.

  • I never considered this before but I somehow I find this oath of fealty somewhat creepy. I say throw out the whole thing and spend the available time teaching kids what liberty and justice really mean.

  • Davis, you hit the nail on the head. The simpletons on the right will get all pumped up about this, because they THINK they understand it. It’s like the stupid flag burning issue. And James Dillon is right, too. In both of these issues, there is a real and important principle at stake – but that isn’t what informs the reactions of the rightwing nutjobs.

    Your argument is one reason why I was hoping Katrina might tip the scales. There were lots and lots of pictures of the devastation and human suffering in the gulf coast states, and you know how we Americans love visuals. Words bore the pants off most folks, but pictures are a whole other story. Pictures they can understand. And because of the criminally slow federal response, the media was able to get uncensored access to all of it. By the time they fired up the spin cycle virtually everyone in the country (outside of the administration) had seen hours upon hours of coverage.

    I wonder if anything would be different if we were able to broadcast the same uncensored 24/7 video of the war in Iraq. Would the American appetite for this war diminish even further if we saw dead and mutilated soliders and civilians all day every day? I know some say that it would be in bad taste or hurtful to families of the fallen, but I say if you’re going to wage war you need to be able to look at the consequences up close and personal. It’s not a video game. It’s ugly and awful and it should be exposed as such.

    Shannon

  • I’d regret to see the POA go. It’s such a good training in critical thinking for smart kids. When they reach 6th grade, they all have a healthy detestation for compelled patriotism and Godly pablum. All of that, thanks to the POA.

  • No.4 comment is very insightful. If this is not a “ser up” it is a “lay up to’
    some thngs never die because people constantly keep digging them up how ridiculous.

  • Shannon…you’re absolutely correct about how uncensored video of the war in Iraq would alter many Americans’ appetite for this war. Many tend to glamorize somewhat the death of U.S. soldiers, in particular. Dying for one’s country, facing the enemy with courage, etc. But if the war supporters were subjected to the actual photos and video of the carnage, they wouldn’t be so quick to jump on the Bush bandwagon, certainly not for a war that had no need to be fought. These brave men and women are not taking a bullet and dying quietly. On the contrary, their bodies are being shredded to bits and pieces. Arms, legs and heads flying in all directions. Is that kind of carnage happening to our young men and women worthwhile for THIS cause?!

    Honestly, when Bush talks hollowly about the need for sacrifice in this country, the real acrifice necessary is for all of us to see what’s really happening to our troops over there. They say that “war is hell.” Most Americans don’t know the meaning of that phrase. But if they/we were to see the carnage day after day after day, how long do you think it would be before we pulled out? Days. Not years. Not months. Not weeks. Days.

    I think many, maybe most, of us would be willing to die for our country. Neither we nor our noble volunteer troops, however, should not be forced to die for Iraq. That’s wrong. Maybe one day soon the rest of the country will wake up to that fact.

    • Comments are closed.