Religious Freedom and the Pledge of Allegiance

Boisi event image

Michael Newdow, Plaintiff
Wendy Kaminer, Lawyer and social critic
Phillip Mu帽oz, Tufts University
Alan Wolfe, md传媒国产剧 College

Date:听October 18, 2006

Read Interview

Abstract

Every day millions of Americans, many of them schoolchildren, are asked to pledge their allegiance to the American flag and to "the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." By invoking God, does this familiar act of citizenship constitute a profession of faith or simply an acknowledgement that Americans have historically believed in God? In either case, does it imply that a good citizen must believe in God? This panel will discuss the Pledge's invocation of a nation "under God," and its implications for religious freedom in this country.

Among the panelists is Michael Newdow, who sued the U.S. Congress over this issue and personally argued his case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004. A federal appeals court in California had caused a national uproar two years earlier when it agreed with Newdow in a ruling that would have banned the phrase "under God" from schoolhouse recitations of the Pledge. Despite hearing the case (Elk Grove v. Newdow), the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately declined to rule on the issue for technical legal reasons, but Mr. Newdow has re-filed his case, which many expect to return to the Supreme Court in the coming years for final resolution. Joining Mr. Newdow on the panel are lawyer and social critic Wendy Kaminer, and constitutional scholar Phillip Mu帽oz. Professor Alan Wolfe, Director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life, will moderate the event.

Speaker Bio

Wendy Kaminer

Wendy Kaminer, a lawyer and social critic, writes about law, liberty, feminism, religion, and popular culture. Her latest book is Free for All: Defending Liberty in America Today. A former Guggenheim fellow, she is the author of six previous books, including聽Sleeping with Extra-Terrestrials: The Rise of Irrationalism and Perils of Piety;听True Love Waits: Essays and Criticism;听It's All the Rage:听Crime and Culture;听I'm Dysfunctional, You're Dysfunctional: The Recovery Movement & Other Self-Help Fashions; 补苍诲听A Fearful Freedom: Women's Flight from Equality. Her articles and reviews have appeared in numerous publications including聽The New York Times, The Atlantic Monthly, The Wall Street Journal, The American Prospect, Dissent, The Nation, Newsweek, and Free Inquiry. She is currently working (slowly) on a book about ethics for Beacon Press.聽

Michael Newdow

Michael Newdow聽is a lawyer, physician and First Amendment activist whose legal challenge to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance reached the Supreme Court in 2004 (Elk Grove v. Newdow). Newdow personally argued the case before the Court, and although he lost 5-3 on standing grounds, his performance was called "spellbinding" by聽The New York Times, "virtuoso" by NPR, and the "Best Oral Argument" of the entire Supreme Court term by the Daily Journal. He practices emergency medicine in Sacramento, California, where he has also filed a legal challenge in federal court to the national motto "In God We Trust." Newdow holds a B.A. from Brown University, an M.D. from the UCLA School of Medicine, and a J.D from the University of Michigan Law School.

Phillip Mu帽oz

Phillip Mu帽oz聽teaches and studies political philosophy and American constitutional law. His recent scholarly articles include, "James Madison's Principles of Religious Liberty" and "George Washington on Religious Liberty." His writings have appeared in American Political Science Review, The Review of Politics, First Things, The Claremont Review of Books, and The Wall Street Journal. In 2004 he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the matter of "Religion in the Public Square." Professor Mu帽oz received his BA in Economics and Government from Claremont McKenna College, his MA in Political Science from md传媒国产剧 College, and his PhD in Political Science from Claremont Graduate School. He is currently completing a book on religious freedom and the American Founders.聽

Alan Wolfe

Alan Wolfe聽is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at md传媒国产剧 College. His most recent books include聽Does American Democracy Still Work?聽(Yale University Press)聽Return to Greatness: How America Lost Its Sense of Purpose and What it Needs to Do to Recover It聽(Princeton University Press, 2005),聽The Transformation of American Religion: How We actually Practice our Faith聽(Free Press, 2003), 补苍诲听An Intellectual in Public聽(University of Michigan Press, 2003). Both聽One Nation, After All聽补苍诲听Moral Freedom聽were selected as New York Times Notable Books of the Year.

Event Photos

Boisi event

From left to right: Michael Newdow, Wendy Kaminer, Alan Wolfe, Phillip Mu帽oz

Boisi event

Alan Wolfe

Boisi event

Michael Newdow

Boisi event

Wendy Kaminer

Boisi event

Phillip Mu帽oz (Photos by Kerry Burke, BC Media Technology Services)

Event Recap

Every day millions of Americans, many of them schoolchildren, are asked to pledge their allegiance to the American flag and to 鈥渢he Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.鈥 By invoking God, does this familiar act of citizenship constitute a profession of faith or simply an acknowledgement that Americans have historically believed in God?聽 In either case, does it imply that a good citizen must believe in God?聽 On October 9 the Boisi Center hosted a panel to discuss the Pledge鈥檚 invocation of a nation 鈥渦nder God,鈥 and its implications for religious freedom in this country.

First among the panelists was Michael Newdow, a lawyer, physician and First Amendment activist who sued the U.S. Congress over this issue and personally argued his case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004.聽 The Court ultimately declined, for technical legal reasons, to rule on the permissibility of 鈥渦nder God鈥 in the Pledge, but Newdow has re-filed his case, which many expect to return to the Supreme Court in the coming years for final resolution.聽 At the panel discussion Newdow focused his remarks on the concept of equality, arguing that the First Amendment鈥檚 guarantee of religious freedom means that all citizens鈥攊ncluding those who reject religion鈥攎ust be treated equally. The inclusion of 鈥渦nder God鈥 in the Pledge, he said, unconstitutionally signals government support for theistic (particularly Christian) religious beliefs, making belief in God a component of good citizenship. Atheists and other non-theists are treated as unequal citizens who must suffer in silence as the majority robustly declares its faith to be integral to its patriotism.

Author, attorney and social critic Wendy Kaminer sympathized with Newdow鈥檚 principled argument for equal treatment of atheists, but said that his legal challenge was doing more harm than good to that cause. As an atheist herself, Kaminer said, 鈥淲e can鈥檛 afford to win this case鈥 because the public backlash would likely result in passage of a constitutional amendment protecting religious language in this and many other circumstances. Furthermore, she noted, religious people should be much more worried about the Pledge鈥檚 form of 鈥渃eremonial deism鈥 than non-religious people, since it signals a secularization of religious meaning.

Constitutional scholar Phillip Mu帽oz, professor of political science at Tufts University, argued that Newdow would have won his case if the Supreme Court had considered the substantive issues, because all their prevailing legal tests support his position. But while Newdow鈥檚 argument may be legally sound under present constitutional interpretation, he said, it conflicts with the Founders鈥 more capacious understanding of religious freedom. Mu帽oz, who is writing a book on religion and the American founding, argued that while the First Amendment prevents the state from rewarding or punishing people for being religious or not religious, such punishment does not include the psychological harm that comes from hearing religious people express their faith.

A vigorous discussion among panelists followed their initial presentations. When pressed by Newdow, Mu帽oz argued that it would be constitutionally permissible even to include the phrase 鈥渦nder Jesus Christ鈥 in the Pledge of Allegiance鈥攁lthough it would be a bad idea. 鈥淣ot all bad things are prohibited by the constitution,鈥 Mu帽oz said. The audience left the session energized by the debate.

Read More

Further Reading

  • Richard J. Ellis, To the Flag: The Unlikely History of the Pledge of Allegiance (Kansas, 2005)聽
  • [U.S. Supreme Court case], 542 U.S. 1 (2004). Available online with oral arguments at Oyez.com.
  • Michael Newdow, 鈥,鈥 New York Times, 21 June 2004.
  • Kenneth C. Davis, 鈥溾 New York Times, 26 March 2004.
  • Wendy Kaminer, Free For All: Defending Liberty in America Today (Beacon Press, 2002).
  • Vincent Phillip Mu帽oz, 鈥溾 National Review Online, 17 June 2004.