The Pledge of Allegiance and God

Yesterday senior U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is illegal if it includes the words "under God." His ruling effects only three school districts in California, but eventually the full Ninth Circuit Court will hear it, as will the Supreme Court. The case was brought by three parents in the Sacramento-area districts at the behest of Michael Newdow, a lawyer and doctor who had brought a similar case before the courts in 2002, only to have the Supreme Court rule that he did not have standing, as he did not have custody of his daughter, for whom he was fighting. The presence of the other three groups of parents made it clear to Karlton that their challenge did have standing, even if Newdow still does not.

This morning I was a guest on KCRS Talk Radio at the request of their morning show hosts. The station is very conservative, the listeners perhaps moreso, but this was the second time I had been invited, and despite our political differences, they have treated me well. Today the callers to the show ran 10-1 or more against the decision, which did not surprise me. I kept my stance fairly moderate -- I did not explicitly support or attack the decision. My main point was simply that yesterday's decision is just a step, and that this is probably the case that will compel the Supreme Court to take a stance on this contentious but, I would argue, ultimately fairly insignificant issue.

The interesting aspect of the argument of those who called in outraged over the judge's decision is how many of them asked a question without being willing to entertain its converse: Why do they care so much about these two little words? Well, yes -- why indeed do YOU care so much about these two little words? If one side of an argument is important to a group of people, it should be a fairly reasonable assumption that the other side is just as important to those who advocate it.

I am glad that the pledge is said in schools for patriotic reasons. I would just as soon remove "Under God" from the pledge for a host of reasons. not the least of these is that in the Pledge as Francis Bellamy, editor of Youth's Companion, originally wrote it in 1892 did not include those words. Bellamy thought that it would be a nice gesture for American schoolchildren to offer something to their nation in unison in conjunction with the dedication day ceremonies for the forthcoming Chicago World's Fair. (Students in my survey are reading Erik Larson's spellbinding The Devil in the White City: Murder, Magic, and Madness and the Fair That Changed America, which is where I learned the details behind the Pledge). "Under God" was only added in 1954, at the height of the Cold War. Apparently the invocation of the higher power did not have the desired effect, as our victory in that conflict would still be nearly four decades in the making.

Callers also seemed to believe that somehow by "Under God" not being included in what by any account is a pretty perfunctory undertaking their rights were being denied, but of course no one is being told that they cannot worship how they would like. They are simply being told that they cannot worship when and where they like, especially if the "when" is during public school hours and the "where" is on school grounds. Public school is an apt, perhaps ideal, place to teach civics and even to teach the values that will then promote patriotism. It is not time for demogoguery over your kids' right to worship, which is not being denied. (Interestingly, lots of people try to claim that "Under God" is not a form of enforced worship while at the same time claiming that by not being allowed to say those same words, their right to worship was being denied, an argument so ludicrous and impossible to grasp that somewhere a theology professor's head just exploded.)

In any case, it now appears that the Supreme Court will have to address this vexing but ultimately not especially consequential issue. For the record, I do not see this court, in which I will include Roberts, as he will be confirmed by a comfortable margin, striking down the Pledge as it stands. It may not even be that close of a vote.