Introduction
The Pledge of Allegiance is a common tradition in most public schools in the U.S. In California, all the elementary public schools are supposed to start their day with an exercise of patriotism and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of America is rightfully used to fulfill the state’s requirement. Over time, the pledge of allegiance which is used as a symbol of loyalty and pride to the nation has undergone some modifications. One of the amendments was the inclusion of the word ‘under God’. This amendment has become the basis of many court contestations. It led to the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (Supreme Court of the United States, 2004). In the case, Newdow an atheist as opposed to his daughter’s participation in the recitation of Pledge of Allegiance due to the word ‘under God.’ His claim was that the school and the state were violating First Amendment and the Establishment Clause and that the action of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance policy was religious indoctrination. Therefore, the salient points were religious indoctrination, the constitutional provision about the U.S. is not aligned with any religion which is the key to religiosity ethics, and custodial rights.
The Evolvement of the Case before Reaching Supreme Court
The case was first filed in March 2000 in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of California by complainant Newdow. Newdow listed the State of California, U.S Congress, and Elk Grove Unified School as the key respondents. The complaint was that the addition of the word ‘under God’ as declared in 1954 Act violated the ‘Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the U.S Constitution (Supreme Court of the United States, 2004). The complainant added that the state’s policy and the schools were coercion and religious indoctrination of his daughter. The court referred the case to a Magistrate Judge who counseled that the pledge did not violate the constitution. The District Court did abide by the recommendation and consequently dismissed the case. Newdow took the case to Court of Appeals that led to the reversal of the district court’s rulings. Three opinions were provided by Court of Appeals. The First opinion was that as a parent Newdow had standing and could challenge the authorities that interfered with the religious education of the girl. Also, the court held that the 1954 Act and Policy on patriotism went against the Establishment Clause as enshrined in the first amendment.
In relation to Newdow’s standing’s, Sandra Banning, the mother of Newdow’s daughter filed a case to dismiss the complaint. She argued that she was the legal custodian of the girl, and thus had the sole rights to present legal interests that pertained to her daughter. Also, she pointed out that she was legally responsible for the decision that related to religion and education of the daughter. This led to the second decision in which Newdow’s standing was reconsidered though he was not deprived of being a noncustodial parent.
On February 28, 2003, the Court of Appeals amended its first opinion relating to the conditionality of the 1954 Act and subsequently gave the School District’s petition for a writ of certiorari to consider “(a) whether Newdow has standing as a noncustodial parent to challenge the School District’s policy, and (b) if so, whether the policy offends the First Amendment” (Supreme Court of the United States, 2004 par. 13). Hence, the case reached the Supreme Court.
The Decision of the Supreme Court in Brief
The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeals. The judgment found that the Pledge of Allegiance’s word ‘God’ did not violate the Establishment Clause; Justice O’Connor noted that ‘God’ did not refer to a particular religion. As a result, the words did not portray a ceremonial deity and did not favor a particular religious belief over another. Furthermore, Justice O’Connor not that the reference ‘God’ had a minimal reference to religion and that that certain ceremonial references to God cannot be avoided due to the history of religious principles that led to the establishment of the U.S and its values; instead, it reflected the nation’s traditions that are based on religious background.
Fundamental Impacts of the Decision
Generally, the decision by the Supreme Court implied that despite the nation being secular, it cannot disregard the word ‘God’ in totality based on its traditional founding principles of liberty and justice. The implication for such judgment is that the use of the word ‘God’ is a way of ensuring that the Americans retain their values instead of absolute incantation (Thompson, 2003). The values are based on the religious attachment that the country had and that forms the basis of its originalism. Also, the ruling affirmed that the state or federal government cannot coerce anybody to a particular religion. As per O’Connor’s judgment, the use of the word God in the Pledge allegiance had a very minimal religious connotation.
In relation to the ethics of the American Society, the decision elicits religious dilemmas in relation to the spiritual matters and the influence they have on children. For example, for atheists they do not believe in any deity; therefore, the use of word ‘God’ which their children are allowed to recite amounts to indoctrination which in effect leads to adherence to ceremonial deism (Prouser, 2005).
Is Recitation a Religious Issue or a Sign of Respect for the U.S.?
The use of the word God in any place denotes a belief in some supernatural power or deity which in essence is the basis of any religion. The proclamation ‘nation under one God’ has aspects of religion and respect for the U. S. (Prouser, 2005). However, based on the context in which the word is used, it does not signify a specific religion, and it is not used as a prayer. The context is more based on values which the U.S. Flag stands for such as justice and liberty. Thus, it is more of a patriotic act and less of religious significance. Therefore, it is a sign of respect for the U.S. as the recitation leads to a promise of fidelity to the Flag and not a deity.
Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools
The sense of nationhood and pride are very critical components for patriotism. Bearing in mind that the Pledge of Allegiance is based on America’s values that are the basis of the nationhood, public schools should be allowed to recite it. In addition, the minimal religious implications due to the use of the word ‘God’ are critical in making sure that children understand the origin of the nation of the U.S. It does not coerce them to a particular religion but makes them know how the current national values came to be.
References
Prouser, R. (2005). Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 13(1), 235-15.
Supreme Court of the United States. (2004).Elk Grove Unified School District et al. v. Newdow et al.Web.
Thompson, J. (2003). What’s the big deal? The Unconstitutionality of God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 38(3), 563-97.