« Whoa | Main | No Comment »

By golly (not God), I think this man has a case. I watched Newdow debate on C-Span the other day, and I was struck by the consistency and simplicity of his argument. As this WashPo analysis points out, maintaining "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance really has little obvious legal rationale, and certainly could be defined as a coercive endorsement of religion by the state. And while a ruling against the phrase could be interpreted as encouragement for the subsequent removal of all references to "God" on currency, monuments and other symbols of government, I happen to believe that the pledge is a much more viable, unique case, because it is a coercive act by the very nature of being an active, public, daily pledge. Having a quarter in your pocket with the declaration "In God We Trust" could likely meet the innocuous standard of "ceremonial deism;" a child being pressured to declare and equate patriotism with faith in a group setting does not.

My own personal experience ratifies this thought, since I was an atheist from an early age. Every day I stood up an repeated the pledge without a hitch, until about sometime in middle school, when I really absorbed the reference and basically started omitting that part during my recitation. This was a practical solution to a very minor problem, and perhaps an example the 90% of the public that supports "under God" might suggest to atheist children, but technically it's unconstitutional. Ask yourself:

How isolated would I feel in school if I would have decided to take a stand about my convictions and been forced to become a public spectacle by virtue of having to explain a daily denial to say the pledge?

Why didn't I have the opportunity to express my patriotism towards the secular institution of the state without having to violate my (non)religious beliefs?

Given the fact that deism is practiced by over 96% of America, how would expressing a public disbelief in God have affected my social standing?

And why should any child be coerced into even coming close to making this silent choice?

As Newdow expressed in the debate, the idea would hardly be tolerated if the Pledge said "under Allah" or "under Jesus." So essentially America is clinging to the notion that the phrase belongs in this public ritual because most of us "feel" that it belongs, not because it's continued inclusion has any serious legal rationale. In contrast, there exists significant precedent that indicates the expression does not belong.

Imagine for a second some other "majority" opinions in our history that have thankfully been overturned to protect and establish fundamental equality for minority positions. The fact that this case is a relatively pointless exercise for some people does not trump the rights and potentially strong opinions of a non-religious minority.

Advantage - Newdow.

UPDATE: More details from Newdow's argument:

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist noted that Congress unanimously added the words "under God" in the pledge in 1954.

Some in the audience erupted in applause in the courtroom, and were threatened with expulsion by the chief justice.

Posted by Bill at March 24, 2004 01:24 PM | TrackBack (1)