The Pledge of Allegiance: One Nation, under God?

Background:
On June 14, 2004 (Flag Day), the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on the case known as Elk Grove School District and David W. Gordon, Superintendent, v. Michael A. Newdow, et al., No. 02-1624 finding that Newdow could not challenge the pledge since he was not the custodial parent of his daughter, but sidestepped the broader question of separation of church and state. ''When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law,'' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas agreed with him.

Reacting to the decision, the Rev. William Sinkford, UUA President, said, "The debate over the inclusion of the words 'under God' in the pledge raises questions about what it means to be an American, what it means to be patriotic. While the language of God is an affirmation for many, it is not language that resonates with all Americans. But the metaphor we use for the holy has nothing to do with our patriotism; and in a nation as religiously varied as ours, the assumption that any one metaphor should serve for everyone is mistaken. Our pluralism is a blessing, and 'justice for all' requires that we carefully protect the religious freedom of all." A full copy of Rev. Sinkford's statement is available here.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the court ''ducked this constitutional issue today,'' and that students ''should not feel compelled by school officials to subscribe to a particular religious belief in order to show love of country.'' Several other cases challenging various parts of the Pledge of Allegiance are expected to work their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court within the next year.

The case began when, on June 26, 2002, in the case of Newdow v. U.S Congress , the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled 2-1 that a 1954 act of Congress inserting the phrase "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional . This means, the court held, that the Pledge may no longer be required in public schools. The opinion stated, "A profession that we are a nation 'Under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu', 'a nation under Zeus.'"

The Elk Grove School District and the United States government petitioned for re-hearing of the case by the three-judge panel and by the full Ninth Circuit. On February 28, 2003, the Court amended its earlier ruling and announced that neither the panel nor the full Ninth Circuit would rehear the case. The amended opinion affirmed the earlier ruling that the school district's policy of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge with the inclusion of the words "under God" was unconstitutional, but it pulled back from its earlier conclusion that the 1954 Act adding the words "under God" to the Pledge was unconstitutional. The ruling was subsequently stayed, allowing schools in Western states, located in the Ninth Circuit's area of jurisdiction, to continue public recitations of the Pledge.

On October 14, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case, but only, in effect, the amended opinion. The Court framed the question before it as "[w]hether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words 'under God,' violates the Constitution." The Supreme Court has also asked the parties to address an issue of legal standing. Michael Newdow, the parent who objects to his daughter's school policy of requiring the daily recitation of the Pledge, is not married to his daughter's mother, Sandra Banning. Ms. Banning had sole legal custody of the child at the time of the Ninth Circuit's rulings. Banning has said that she supports the school's Pledge policy.

The case was accepted by the Court on January 12, 2004, with Justice Antonin Scalia recusing himself, and arguments were presented on March 24, 2004. The respondent's brief (upholding the Ninth Circuit) and that of supporting amici was submitted on December 28, 2003. The Unitarian Universalist Association signed an amicus brief of Rev. Dr. Betty Jane Bailey et al, submitted by an interfaith coalition. The HUUmanists, a Unitarian Universalist affiliate organization, signed a brief submitted by the American Humanist Association.

UU Statements, Sermons, and Published Articles

• "Scary Times" - A sermon by the Rev. Grace Simons, UU Fellowship of Stanislaus County, CA (October 26, 2003)
• Church-State Relations: the Next Generation (UUA General Assembly 2003 web coverage of a workshop with Barry Lynn, Executive Director, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the Rev. Tom Goldsmith, First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City)
• 'Are You with the Atheists?' by Dan Kennedy: UU World (January/February 2003)
• A Victory for the Heretics by Kimberly French: UU World (January/February 2003)
• 'Under God?' - A Sermon by the Rev. Ken Sawyer for First Parish, Wayland, MA
• Remarks delivered by Ellery Schempp at the UUA event, "Ahead of the Wave: UU Defense of Civil Liberties" (October 17, 2002) Note: Ellery Schempp was lead plaintiff in the case, Abington vs. Schempp and Murray vs. Curlett, ecided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1963.
• "The Pledge of Allegiance and God" - A Sermon by the Reverend Arthur S. Vaeni (August 11, 2002)
• "The Thin Line of Liberty" - A Sermon by the Rev. Jan Carlsson-Bull for All Souls Unitarian Church, New York, NY
  Preached on WQXR Radio (July 7, 2002)
• "One Nation, Under Law!" - A sermon by the Rev. Dr. Robert P. Tucker, Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Lakeland, Florida (June 30, 2002)
• UUA President's Statement on Pledge Ruling (June 27, 2002)
• "Crown Thy Good" - A sermon preached by the Reverend Diane Teichert, First Parish Unitarian Universalist-Canton, MA (May 26, 2002)

Resources:

• The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life offers an excellent resource package on this issue including a discussion on Pledge of Allegiance constitutionality which took place at the National Press Club on March 19, 2004.
• The Pledge of Allegiance: A Short History, by Dr. John W. Baer
• Curriculum: "Visions and Values in a Post-9/11 World," Session One

Media Links:

• June 14, 2004 - The Associated Press (in Boston.com): "Supreme Court rules father cannot sue over reference to God in Pledge of Allegiance" by Anne Gearan
• March 26, 2004 - The New York Times (op-ed piece): "Jefferson, Madison, Newdow?" by Kenneth C. Davis
  
• November 5, 2003 - Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "When it comes to The Pledge, these kids are in the visible" by M.L. Lyke
• October 23, 2003 - Wakefield Item: "Focus On Faith" (Op-Ed Article) by the Rev. Edmund Robinson, UU Church of Wakefield, Wakefield, MA
• July 3, 2002 - The Fresno Bee: "An 'F' in civics: Local leaders trample basic rights in their rush to pander to passions."
• July 2, 2002 - The Fresno Bee: "Right of dissent gets short shrift" by Erin Kennedy
• June 30, 2002 - The Fresno Bee: "Autry leads Pledge rally: Fresno mayor, backed by other leaders, calls court decision 'dangerous.' " by Lisa Aleman-Padilla
• June 28, 2002 - beliefnet.com: "One Nation, Under God(s)? The pledge ruling raised a fundamental question: Is America really monotheistic?" by Rebecca Phillips

For Further Information:

Contact the UUA Washington Office for Advocacy's Megan Joiner for assistance and to share your congregation's actions.

Unitarian Universalist Association
25 Beacon St. | Boston, MA 02108 | 617-742-2100