Meaning of "Under God"

[Marty Lederman]

Okay:  I'm no savant, but here's the link to the Steinfels article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/27/national/27beliefs.html

And, more importantly, here's the link to Sandy's colleague Doug Laycock's
excellent brief making the same argument at greater length:

http://goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/newdow.laycock.pdf.

In the final question of the oral argument on Wednesday, Justice Stevens
quoted the following line from Doug's brief:  "If the religious portion of
the Pledge is not intended as a serious affirmation of faith, then every
day, government asks millions of school children to take the name of the
Lord in vain."  Here's the surrounding text in which that quote appears:

“'I pledge allegiance to . . . one Nation, under God.'  This statement is
inherently and unavoidably a personal affirmation of religious faith. Either
it is intended seriously, or it is not.  If it is intended seriously, then
every day, government asks millions of school children to affirm and
reaffirm their religious faith. This request is made to children who believe
in a single God Whom the nation is under, and equally to children who
believe in no god, many gods, or god as a concept so abstract and remote
that it is meaningless or inaccurate to speak of being 'under' God.  If the
religious portion of the Pledge is not intended as a serious affirmation of
faith, then every day, government asks millions of school children to take
the name of the Lord in vain. Children are asked to recite what sounds like
a serious religious affirmation, but it is not intended to have any real
religious meaning. This is just as bad from a perspective of religious
liberty, and it is worse from a perspective of religious faith.  This
governmental use of religious sentiments arises in a peculiarly sensitive
context. It is not like similar affirmations by government leaders or on
government-issued coins, which citizens so inclined can easily ignore. It is
a unique and dispositive feature of this case that each student is asked to
personally affirm a statement of religious belief. This religious
affirmation is embedded in an affirmation of loyalty to the nation. If a
child cannot in conscience affirm the existence of a single God and God’s
authority over the nation, that child cannot affirm his loyalty to the
nation in the legally prescribed form. The inevitable implication is that
children who have doubts about God are of doubtful loyalty to the nation.
This is a clear violation of this Court’s repeated concern that a person’s
religious views should have no impact on her standing in the political
community."

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Levinson" <SLevinson at mail.law.utexas.edu>
To: <CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: RE: Meaning of "Under God"




Robert Sheridan writes:

It is interesting to see that in order to oppose Newdow's objection to
"under God," S-G Ted Olsen had practically to de-nature God, as though
saying "under God" is okay because God or the idea of God is of so
little import or just nonsense anyway, sorta like "In God We Trust," this
historical anachronism that means nothing in terms of profession of
faith....


I strongly commend Peter Steinfels column in today's New York Times (I will
leave it to the savants on the list to set up the link to the article), in
which he notes the insulting implications of Olson's argument.  I am
curious.  Would Rick Duncan and other devotees of retaining "under God"
prefer to win under the "Olson theory" or lose with the Court writing an
opinion saying that it really does mean something important to affirm that
the nation is "under God"?

sandy

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof