Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624

Today, The Supremes will hear the case alleging that the Pledge of Allegience, as currently recited, violates the wall of separation between church and state. I think everyone knows the details around this case and the outbreak of wingnuttery it has caused on the right.

What is not always clear in discussions of this case are the bizarre twists and turns the Pledge has undergone in its history since about 1945. It was written and introduced to the public in a wave of patriotism that swept the US during and just after WWII. There had never been any kind of general pledge prior to that and especially not to the flag. The flag had always been held in high regard, but in a way similar to the flags of other countries. Once the the hot war of WWII cooled off, the Cold War with the "godless communists" began to heat up. It was this concern with communism that prompted congress to "amend" the pledge with "...one nation, under god..." where once it had just said "...one nation, indivisible..."

The issue here is, I think, plain to see and very explicable by the court. "Under god" is government tacitly saying that we are a nation under god. Some will argue that those who don't agree can remove themselves from the classroom, or that it is just an historical recognition of the founders' religiosity or a nod to tradition. But these are specious arguments. Like prayer in the classroom - or anywhere at school sanctioned events - those who's religions prevent them from claiming allegiance, or who's primary figure is something other than the "christian god" would rightly feel ostracized. Agnostics and atheists (Brights) would as well. And the tradition argument doesn't hold water either as it was inserted well after the original was penned. At any rate, all this twisting and spinning just results in proponents trying to have it both ways. It just doesn't work.

I have no special insights into how the Supremes will decide this case. I have been surprised too many times in the past to make predictions. However, past rulings on separation cases have generally upheld a rather strict wall of separation. I hope they continue this trend.