High court upholds pledge without addressing ‘under God’

By Tom Strode - Jun 15, 2004 - comment

The Supreme Court protected the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance June 14 but did so without deciding whether the reference to deity is constitutional.

All eight justices involved in the case agreed to overrule a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that a California school district’s policy requiring recitation of the pledge by willing students is unconstitutional. A majority of five based the court’s opinion on a technical rather than a constitutional matter, deciding atheist Michael Newdow did not have legal standing to represent his daughter in the challenge to the pledge. While agreeing with the outcome, three other justices said “under God” is constitutional.

The result is American schools maintain the right to have the recitation of the pledge as part of their classroom practice, but the possibility remains the high court may rule in a later case “under God” violates the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.

Supporters of the pledge’s current language applauded the decision, even though the Flag Day ruling fell short of a total victory.

“We’re back now to the status quo . . . and I’m happy with that,” ERLC President Richard Land said. “As long as American children can voluntarily say the Pledge of Allegiance, then I’ve got no problems.

“I don’t think the Supreme Court wanted the American people amending the Constitution with record rapidity, which they would have done [had the justices ruled against the pledge],” Land said. “So they chose what they often do when they don’t want to really confront an issue, and that is the path of least resistance.”

The high court, with Associate Justice John Paul Stevens writing the majority opinion, said a California Superior Court ruling that Sandra Banning, the mother of Newdow’s elementary-age daughter, “makes the final decisions” when there is a disagreement between the parents means he “lacks the right to litigate as [his daughter’s] next friend.”

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and associates Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas wrote opinions concurring with the majority’s judgment while saying the pledge does not violate the establishment clause.

The opinion in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow may be accessed on the Internet at www.supremecourtus.gov .

Further Learning

Learn more about: Citizenship, Christian Citizenship, Church and State, Racial Reconciliation

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com