POL120-N800
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Central Piedmont Community College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
120
Subject
Political Science
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by MasterFerret2637
Neavah Thompson
Professor Cole
POL120-N800
30 September 2023
Signature Assignment
The phrase “Under God” as stated in the Pledge of Allegiance has created quite the controversy.
In 2004, the case of
Elk Grove v. Newdow
was brought before a federal district court where a
father argued “that making students listen - even if they choose not to participate- to the words
“under God” violates the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment”. The
addition of the words “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 by a
Congressional act. It was added as part of the propaganda war against “Godless Communism” as
opposed to being used for religious promotion. The district court ultimately dismissed Newdow’s
case acknowledging that this argument would have to later be decided on. Using the very loosely
interpreted establishment clause which states “the government may not favor one religion over
another and may not favor religion over no religion”. If a similar case were to be argued in a
court again, the words “under God” would be found to be unconstitutional.
The Lemon Test is a three-part test which determines whether or not a law in regards to religion
would be valid under the religious establishment clause. Government policy requires that it must
meet all three conditions in order to be considered lawful. The first part of the test states “the
policy must have a non religious purpose; second, the primary effect must be one that neither
advances nor inhibits religion; thirdly, the policy must not foster “an excessive government
entanglement with religion” (Patterson, We the People). If found that a policy doesn’t pass all
three components of the Lemon Test, it is to be considered unlawful. In regards to the
establishment clause which is a provision to our First Amendment, the government may not
favor one religion over another and may not support religion over no religion. Families tend to
have different religious beliefs, therefore no particular religion should be imposed upon us.
First and foremost, the first tenet of the Lemon Test states “non religious purpose. The addition
of “under God” to our pledge of allegiance has a clear and concise religious purpose. To tackle
the religious aspect of this new addition we have to take the words of early proponents and
analyze the true meanings. The Supreme Court has ruled over and over against the advancement
of religion in public spaces, and a case that reinforces that the Pledge of Allegiance, as it stands,
goes against the first tenet of the Lemon Test is Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005). This
case can be seen as part of America's religious traditions and as being secular. However, in this
case, the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas Capitol Building is what was challenged.
The court, however, ruled “the monument served a valid secular purpose and would not appear to
a reasonable observer to represent a government endorsement of religion” (Oyez). The same
logic could be applied to President Eisenhower’s speech delivered on Flag Day in 1954 which
conveyed his ideas on American traditions. The addition of “under God” doesn’t uphold any kind
of secular or moral message, instead, a strictly religious one. This would render the addition to
the Pledge of Allegiance fail the first Tenet of the Lemon Test making it unconstitutional.
The second tenet of the Lemon Test, states that the primary effect must be one that neither
advances nor prohibits religion. To put into other words, government policy must remain
completely neutral in regards to religion. When the words “under God” were added to our Pledge
of Allegiance, it began to actively sponsor the advancement of religious thought, even if seen as
nondenominational and voluntary. The court case
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
lends
support to this opinion. The Court, which was faced with an Alabama Statute, which encouraged
religious prayer services in public schools, argued that not only the statute went against the
neutrality of religion, but it completely endorsed religious thought and violated the establishment
clause. While this case was surrounding the actual silent prayers set aside, and the Pledge of
Allegiance cannot be considered a religious prayer, the words “under God” do fall under the
Court’s decision. It is state sponsored advancement of religion and goes against the establishment
clause.
While the phrase “under God” already failed the first two tenets, we will now explore the third
and final tenet in regards to the Lemon Test. The third tenet states “the policy must not foster “an
excessive government entanglement with religion” (Patterson, T. E. (2021). In We the people: An
introduction to American government). By actively linking our nation and flag “under God'' this
phrase would fail the Lemon Test and be considered unlawful. By doing this it is being inferred
that every American is religious, follows a God, so therefore our government should reflect these
same exact thoughts. However, this would be untrue, as argued in the court case
Engle v. Vitale,
370 U.S. 421 (1962)
. This case, which can be seen as
similar to
Wallace v. Jaffree
, reinforced
back in its day the “Constitutional wall of separation between church and state.” It went as far as
to say that the government writing prayers for its constituents to repeat is no different than
establishing a religion, even if it is undenominational. While the Pledge of Allegiance is not a
prayer, mixing it with “under God” would render it no different. It continues to actively entangle
our government with religious thought, therefore failing under the third tenet of the Lemon Test.
While even being mostly theorists, our Founding Fathers still understood that a large number of
settlers came to America looking to escape religious persecution. They also understood the many
dangers of mixing state and church as one entity, or to even have them seen as
an influence on
one another. Therefore, they wanted our government to be freely established in a way with no
official religion by prohibiting any advancement or any kind of religious persecution. Which is
why they decided to remain completely neutral in regards to religion. However, this doesn’t seem
to be the case when it comes to the Pledge of Allegiance. Originally seen as a patriotic statement,
the addition of “under God” has now rendered it as a government endorsement to religious
thoughts now linking our Nation to religious beliefs. Nonetheless, based on the Lemon Test and
establishment clause, the addition of “under God” into our Pledge of Allegiance would be ruled
unconstitutional.
Works Cited
"Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow."
Oyez,
www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-1624.
Accessed 1 Oct. 2023.
"Engel v. Vitale."
Oyez,
www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468. Accessed 1 Oct. 2023.
Patterson, Dr Thomas.
We the People: An Introduction to American Government
. McGraw-Hill
Education, 2021.
"Van Orden v. Perry."
Oyez,
www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1500. Accessed 1
Oct. 2023.
"Wallace v. Jaffree."
Oyez,
www.oyez.org/cases/1984/83-812. Accessed 1 Oct. 2023.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help