School Prayer: A Historical Analysis of Church-State Relations in Public Schools

In 1962 the Supreme Court outlawed school-mandated prayer in public schools, ruling that it was unconstitutional ("School Prayer”). The next year, it banned non compulsory religious readings. Over the next 30 years, the Court would continue to protect American students from the establishment of religion in public schools while protecting the equality of all beliefs. But in 2000 when Atheist Dr. Michael Newdow filed against the Broward County school board for the use of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, stating that it encroached on his daughter’s right to be free from religious coercion from the government, local courts decided to deny to view the case. Newdow appealed and the case eventually got to the Supreme Court who, instead of serving its intended purpose

and making important decisions, denied that the Newdow had the standing to bring about the case because he did not have custody of his daughter. This was a crucial decision that needed to be made, yet it was avoided and ignored. If students should not be subject to prayers in public schools, then why should they be subject to the words “under God”, which sound eerily similar to a prayer? Students, and Americans, should have a choice about their religious views, which the government needs to both respect and protect, not hide from and ignore. The United States government needs to remove the phrase “under god” from the Pledge of Allegiance because it neither respects nor represents the American people or the core notion of equality that our nation was founded upon.
To begin, the Pledge of Allegiance was composed in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a minister’s son from New York (Jones).

At the time of its composure, the pledge read "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands—one Nation indivisible—with liberty and justice for all.” The piece was originally written to serve as new flag salute for children celebrating Columbus Day, and was adopted later adopted as part of the United States Flag Code. A series of changes later took place but in 1954 the seemingly most significant, and controversial, phrase was added: “under God”. This addition accompanied the Cold War, and these words were meant to “[juxtapose] the American foundation for rights and for civil liberties against that of the socialist system, which begins from an atheistic presupposition.” (NPR) Essentially, this states that Congress wanted to distance the United States as much as possible from the Soviet Union and its views, one of which they considered to be atheism, which they attempted to do by increasing nationalism though the use of distinctively non-Soviet ideals such as religion. However, it would not be long before this phrase would begin to spark

upset.
In 1943, a group of Jehovah’s Witness students refused to say the pledge because their religion prohibited them from “venerating a graven image (idol)” and were expelled, leading their parents to sue the schools district. Their case eventually travelled to the Supreme Court who ruled that requiring a person or students to say the Pledge of Allegiance violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments (Jones). Important to understanding this ruling is context of the First Amendment, most notably, the Establishment Clause.
The First Amendment protect infringement on the rights of the individual and protects free speech, press, religion, and assembly (Downs) . But in understanding the constitutionality of religion in America, the Establishment Clause is most significant. It states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof." ("Establishment Clause.") In essence, the Establishment Clause protects the religious freedoms or practicers while at the same time refraining from endorsing religious actions. In general, there are three tests used today to determine if a government action is in accordance with the Establishment Clause.
The first of these is the Lemon Test, which was devised by Chief Justice Warren Burger and consists of three parts. First, the purpose of the government’s action must not be religious. Second, the effects of the said government action should neither hurt nor help religion. Lastly, these actions must not serve to create more or continue an unnecessary amount of interaction between religion and the government.
Similar to the Lemon Test is the Endorsement Test, which is also used to determine the constitutionality of government actions and was crafted by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This test deems a government action unconstitutional if it sends "a message to non-adherents [of religion] that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community," ("Establishment Clause.") Basically, Justice O’Connor’s test states that the government may not act in any way that would serve to favor a particular religion and elevate the status of its followers, while demote those who follow other faiths.
The last test that determines constitutionality is the two-part Coercion Test, which was devised by Justice Anthony Kennedy. In order to pass this test, a government action must not help a religion in a way that would serve to promote it as an United States government religion. In addition, Americans must not be forced against their will to participate in that particular faith by the government.
After reviewing these requirements it becomes clear that “under God’ violates the First Amendment. To begin, this phrase is unconstitutional because it pressures American students into professing the existence of God, although they may not be required by law to recite the Pledge. However, according to Susanne Frens of the College of DuPage “the age and impressionability of schoolchildren, and their understanding that they are required to adhere to the norms set by their school” leads these children to feel pressured to say the Pledge, and because of this it doesn’t matter that they are not legally-bound. Essentially, the government is practically taking advantage of the unsculpted minds and opinions of children and using them to endorse a national religion, violating the Lemon Test.
Not only does this phrase fail the Lemon Test, but it also does not align with the requirements of the Endorsement test. Because the Pledge of Allegiance is meant to be a patriotic exercise, students who do not participate are labelled as almost un-American, leading to a view of them as “outsiders”, as mentioned by the Endorsement Test as a violation of the Constitution. Professor Martha Nussbaum of The University of Chicago Law School points out that this is the very best case scenario for students who choose not to recite the Pledge, with the worst outcome being a view of these students as “subversive and threatening.”
Additionally, other problems arise from the heightened sense of nationalism that the Pledge was meant to instill in Americans because at the time that the Pledge was crafted, America was nowhere near as diverse as it is today. One of these problems is the fact that this phrase seems to imply that God is in favor of Americans and that He seeks to protect the United States over other nations. This directly contradicts the views of American Reform Jews like Prof. Martha Nussbaum who believe that “God doesn’t play favorites: God loves justice, peace, and righteousness, and doesn’t single out a particular nation, flawed as all nations are flawed, for special loving protection.” Because of this belief, Prof. Nussbaum finds the words “under God” in the Pledge to be offensive and exclusive of her beliefs, and she is not the only one who feels this way. The some thirty percent of Americans who do not follow a Christian faith may have views that are directly contradicted by this phrase (Pew Research). This means that almost thirty percent of Americans are not having their beliefs represented by this ‘patriotic exercise’. Furthermore, some Americans who are not represented even feel that the Pledge of Allegiance is “public repudiation of their religious values, and, in essence, a public announcement that they do not belong.” (Volokh). This statement further illustrates that the words “under God” violate the Endorsement Test because they serve to alienate those who do not view God in a Christian sense.
Yet there are some who believe that the words “under God” are no longer hold religious meaning because they have been used so many times. Those who support the Pledge in its current form believe that the words “under God” are no different from the phrase “In God we Trust” on US currency in the regard that they have both lost their meaning due to large amounts of repetition (Zissou). However, I think these people are mistaken in applying this concept of loss of meaning to the Pledge of Allegiance because they overlook the fact that there are still many people who are very upset by the use of these words. I do not believe that there would be so much excitement surrounding the issue if people felt the words “under God” meaningless. Additionally, the phrase “In God We Trust” was added to American currency back at the time of the Civil War, whereas “under God” was only added to the pledge in the 1950’s (Begley). Also, the American people are more concerned with the issue of “under God” than “in God We Trust” according to The Christian Science Monitor because “[no] one feels pressure to say "In God We Trust" when they spend money… [but] children feel pressure to say "under God" in public school.” This illustrates that the circumstances for these two phrases are very different.
Still, others may argue that there is no issue with constitutionality because the pledge is not obligatory. However, this does not deal with the fact that students are pressured into saying the pledge against their will by the government because they may not know any better. Not only this, but these students usually feel socially pressured to say the pledge. Lastly, there are still some states where students are still required to say the Pledge, which is clearly unconstitutional.
Ultimately, the protection of the civil liberties of Americans and the equality of all Americans, regardless of their beliefs, is at stake here, because there is clearly a violation of the Constitution demonstrated by the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and disrespect and under-representation of the diversity of Americans. For a nation who prides ourself on tremendous diversity, we need to do a better job of making sure that all Americans feel included and that they belong. We need to do a better job of respecting the beliefs of all Americans. We need to do a better job of promoting equality. We need to redefine patriotism so that it encompasses all Americans so that we may become a unified nation. And the first step: remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance so that we may begin to respect and represent all Americans.