PDF of opinion is here.
Judgment against Micheal Newdow and the “The Freedom From Religion Foundation.”
Victory for, inter alia, the Knights of Columbus, who were intervenors for the defense.
Personally, this isn’t a big deal for me, but I don’t see how it passes the second part of the Lemon test. It clearly advances religion over non-religion if the country is “under God”. It tells non-believers that our government thinks they are wrong.
Anyway, I know the courts are going to dance around this political hot potato, but let’s just admit that’s what we’re doing.
Having said that, I always found the Lemon test to be another of those 3-part tests that the SCOTUS makes up to rationalize an interpretation of the constitution that cannot be found in the actual text. It’s just that this time, the courts don’t really even use the test objectively.
A typical decision to ignore the separation between church and state. It’s an endorsement for religion, especially the Christan religion; that’s why it was put in the pledge in the first place. It’s a way of intimidating unbelievers and rubbing it into our collective faces that we are considered basically traitors.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: Michael Newdow, please, please, please stop trying to help.
Every time this man litigates on some relatively minor issue, he loses badly and creates case law that’ll end up biting some future litigant with a genuinely seriously Establishment Clause case. He does more to produce bad law than a legion of conservative lawyers could.
Maybe his friends could hold an intervention? Obviously a twelve-step program wouldn’t be appropriate here, but still.
It’s a bad decision, but this isn’t a fight we are going to win soon.
What amazes me is how they consistently ignore one element - they claim the pledge has a secular purpose, to instill love of country. That it does, but it could do so equally as well, without the offending words. In fact, in NH, patriotism is undermined by the inclusion of the owrds “under God.” The very supposed secular purpose is harmed by this, as it segements off a group of individuals who are unable to take the pledge as a reult of the inclusion of those words.
Like all of the ceremonial desim cases, this twists itself in knots to avoid the obvious conclusion.
It is incorrect to say the “under God” does not advance or inhibit a particular religious viewpoint. It does both. It’s an endorsement of state monotheism, and is a de facto declaration that non-montheistic beliefs (including not just atheism, but actual religious paradigms like polytheism, animism and ancestor worship) are false.
Having said that, this decision only a addresses a New Hampshire law requiring schools to set aside time for a voluntary recitation. Since kids don’t have to aprticipate (in theory, anyway, though we all know reality is different), it’s not that big a deal, even though Newdow is right that the state is requiring teachers to lead prayers.
I dunno. “Establishment of a religion” is pretty vague, seems like a good idea for the courts to establish some written definition, so legislators and lesser courts and future Supreme Justices have something to work with. The alternative would seem to be that everyone just guesses how the next court will choose to interpret the term and no one has any idea what the standard is.
Agree with you that “Under God” doesn’t pass though. And that its not particularly surprising that the Courts are letting it slide anyways.
“second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion”
I’d be surprised if it was the 1952 statute that added the “under God” phrase to the pledge that passed this test. The pledge itself is not principally or primarily concerned with advancing religion, though, IMHO.
If that’s not the goal, then why is it so important to the religionists to keep “under God” in the Pledge? If it’s not religious, and the Pledge has no religious function, they shouldn’t have a problem with removing it.
I think it’s disingenuous for them to deny the religiose motives for the practice when we all know that saying or not saying “under God” has very much become a religious signifyer, and the religionists would not be happy at all with a Pledge that did not endorse their God.
It’s actually a little scary, if you think about it, to say that the nation is “under God”. Not that people generally think about this sort of thing, but if you do, one could easy conclude that God’s law is above the nation’s law. And if that’s the case, then you’re justified in breaking the nation’s law if it violates God’s law.
I’ve always hated that since I really understood what it meant, or at least implied.
Hm. “One nation, in a non-aggression treaty with God…”
I don’t see how the pledge of allegiance is a prayer. A prayer is some sort of petition to or praise of a deity. This is a pledge or allegiance or loyalty that makes a declarative statement that the US is “under God”. But merely including the word “God” in the pledge doesn’t make it a prayer. If the pledge were being recited without the “under God”, I don’t think anyone would call it a prayer. So the adding of those words doesn’t change the intent.
Isn’t it basically affirming that the nation is, ultimately, ruled over by a god? It’s not a prayer; it’s effectively saying, “We acknowledge that God exists, and he’s our real ruler.”
I mean, I certainly can’t see any other meaning for it. If it’s not a religious statement, then why are so many religious groups so offended whenever atheists ask to have it removed?
Does it promote religion-yes or no?
I don’t think that’s true. I think that if the Pledge hadn’t had the “under God” language in it for the past 60 years, there wouldn’t be a big movement among the religious to add it. But right now, “under God” in the pledge is the status quo, and a lot of religious people see the efforts to remove the phrase, which they consider to be harmless, part of a concerted effort by atheists to remove any references to God or Christianity from the public sphere. So they don’t see it in isolation. They see it as happening alongside efforts to remove crosses from the Redlands City Seal and LA County Seal, to remove religious symbols from government property, and the push to call things, for example, “holiday sales” vs “Christmas sales”.
No. It promotes loyalty to the flag and country.
They should have no problem with removing any of those things, and there is no push to secularize marketing strategies. Businesses do that on their own so as not to exclude customers (why appear to be limiting a sale to Christians when there is plenty of non-Christian folding cash out there?). There is not, and has not been any effort to force businesses to change their language. The opposite is true. It’s the religious offenderati who get upset and think they’re being insulted if they see the words “Holiday Sale” instead of “Christmas Sale.” Non-Christians don’t care if they see or hear the word “Christmas” in a Target store. It’s purely a talk radio/Fox News canard that anyone has ever pressured these businesses not to use “Christmas” langage. The pressure comes from exactly the opposite direction.
And requires the reciter to acknowledge a monotheistic uber-authority.
If it “promotes loyalty to the flag and country”… why is the word “God” in there? Last time I checked, a god is not necessary to either.
First of all, there is a push to secularize marketing strategies by the companies themselves, so as not to exclude customers. And secondly, why are you telling religious people what they should or shouldn’t have a problem with removing? I think what you’re trying to say is that you don’t have a problem with removing any of those things.