# First Circuit to Newdow: Pledge w/ "Under God" is Constitutional **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 15, 2010, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755 "2010-11-15T17:30:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/1 "2010-11-15T17:30:17Z")
[PDF of opinion](http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/09-2473P-01A.pdf) is here. > [@](#): > > he Supreme Court has upheld a wide variety of governmental actions that have some religious content. See, e.g., Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 681 (upholding the display of the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds); County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 578-79 (upholding the display of a Chanukah menorah outside a government building); Lynch, 465 U.S. at 670-72 (upholding the display of a Nativity scene in a public Christmas display); Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 784-86 (1983) (upholding a state legislature’s practice of opening each day with a prayer led by a chaplain paid with state funds). > > ``` > The Pledge and the phrase "under God" are not themselves prayers, nor are they readings from or recitations of a sacred text of a religion. > > ``` > > . > . > . > Under the Lemon analysis, Footnote a court must consider three factors: “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’” > . > . > . > By design, the recitation of the Pledge in New Hampshire public schools is meant to further “the policy of teaching our country’s history to the elementary and secondary pupils of this state.” N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 194:15-c. “The very purpose of a national flag is to serve as a symbol of our country.” Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 6 (2004) (quoting Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 405 (1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted). As the Court has observed, “the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgment of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles.” Id. In reciting the Pledge, students promise fidelity to our flag and our nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church. > . > . > . > Adopting the view of the objective observer fully aware of the relevant circumstances, we conclude there has been no endorsement of religion. The state legislature passed the New Hampshire Act in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 with the intent of fostering patriotism, see, e.g., N.H.S. Jour. 945-67 (2002), and that is the statute’s effect. Taken in the context of the words of the whole Pledge, the phrase “under God” does not convey a message of endorsement. 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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/2 "2010-11-15T17:38:35Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/3 "2010-11-15T17:41:14Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/4 "2010-11-15T17:41:47Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/5 "2010-11-15T17:45:43Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/6 "2010-11-15T17:46:10Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/7 "2010-11-15T17:47:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Napier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Napier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Napier)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/8 "2010-11-15T17:49:19Z")
“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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/9 "2010-11-15T17:56:53Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/10 "2010-11-15T18:02:20Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/11 "2010-11-15T18:20:44Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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…” ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/12 "2010-11-15T18:31:29Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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 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. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/13 "2010-11-15T18:37:19Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/14 "2010-11-15T18:38:29Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > 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. Does it promote religion-yes or no? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/15 "2010-11-15T18:42:51Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. 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”. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/16 "2010-11-15T18:44:14Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Does it promote religion-yes or no? No. It promotes loyalty to the flag and country. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/17 "2010-11-15T18:50:42Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/18 "2010-11-15T18:51:48Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > No. It promotes loyalty to the flag and country. And requires the reciter to acknowledge a monotheistic uber-authority. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/19 "2010-11-15T18:56:44Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > No. It promotes loyalty to the flag and country. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755/20 "2010-11-15T19:06:37Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > They should have no problem with removing any of those things, and there is no push to secularize marketing strategies. 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-circuit-to-newdow-pledge-w-under-god-is-constitutional/560755.md?page=2)