Is public school use of the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance an unconstitutional Establishment of Religion?

Liberal censorship increasingly seeks to expunge Christian phrases from public schools and the public square. “Before Christ” is converted to “Before the Common Era” (B.C.E.) and Christian music is often banned from school concerts, even when no words are used. But atheists met their match when they challenged “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

On March 11th, the most liberal federal appellate court in our nation – the Ninth Circuit – upheld the use of “under God” in public school as fully constitutional. Newdow v. Rio Linda Union Sch. Dist. The Court ruled in favor of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge with the phrase “under God” in it, and rejected a challenge to it by plaintiffs who included the atheist Michael Newdow.

“The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded and for which we continue to strive,” the Court held. One of those ideals, the Court noted, was “the Founding Fathers’ belief that the people of this nation are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,” and this is captured by the phrase “one Nation under God.”

Congress’s motives for including “Under God” were “(1) to underscore the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers that God granted certain inalienable rights to the people which the government cannot take away; and (2) to add the note of importance which a Pledge to our Nation ought to have and which ceremonial references to God invoke.”

“The Founders did not see these two ideas – that individuals possessed certain God-given rights which no government can take away, and that we do not want our nation to establish a religion – as being in conflict.”

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, whose decisions have repeatedly and unanimously been reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, dissented. He asserted that the “under God” phrase in the Pledge is an “attempt at religious indoctrination” (if so, which religion?). The majority dismissed this same argument by the plaintiffs. “In contending the Pledge is an unconstitutional religious exercise, plaintiffs erroneously fixate solely on the words ‘under God’ and disregard the context in which those words appear.”

The dissent went further and took a gratuitous swipe at Sarah Palin, who had no connection with the case whatsoever. Going outside the court record, which is something that appellate judges admonish attorneys not to do, the dissent quoted this response by Palin in 2006 to an Eagle Forum questionnaire: “Are you offended by the phrase ‘Under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not? Sarah Palin: “Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its [sic] good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.”

Palin’s view was essentially what the majority held, and consistent with the historical fact that George Washington was the first to use the “under God” phrase. But the dissent ridiculed Palin by altering her quote to read, “If [the Pledge] was good enough for the founding fathers ….” The Pledge did not exist at the time of the Founding Fathers, and “under God” was not added to it until 1954, but note the judicial activism by the dissent in departing so far from the facts in order to insult a conservative politician.

On the same day, the same three-judge panel rejected an atheistic challenge to “In God We Trust” on our money. That decision was unanimous.