|
On Faith George Tanabe |
Effect of ‘under God’
in pledge unclearOn March 24 the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether it is constitutionally permissible to retain two words, "under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that the two words are not constitutional.
This case affects Hawaii in two significant ways. The first is that our state is part of the 9th Circuit, and the final decision will affect us directly. The second is that Buddhist organizations in Hawaii have supported the 9th Circuit ruling, saying that government should remain neutral in matters of religion.
In 2002 the Hawaii State Federation of Honpa Hongwanji Lay Associations passed a resolution to support the pledge as it existed before Congress added "under God" in 1954 to combat atheistic communism. Last month, an amicus (friendly) brief supporting the 9th Circuit ruling was filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of 23 Buddhist groups, including the Honpa Hongwanji Hawaii Betsuin and Soka Gakkai International-USA. The brief argues that the phrase "under God" forces Buddhists and others to affirm a monotheism in which they do not believe.
The 9th Circuit ruling has been widely denounced by politicians and others. Most observers feel that the Supreme Court will overturn the ruling and uphold "under God" because it represents civic rather than religious sentiment, puts forth a "ceremonial deism" and imposes only a de minimus affront to Buddhists and others.
Many have noted the absence of any problem caused by the motto "In God We Trust" printed on U.S. currency.
Since the motto is ceremonial, Buddhists and atheists are not affected by their use of currency.
A dollar spent by them has the same value as a dollar spent by a believer in God. The Pledge of Allegiance case raises the question of whether "under God" is merely ceremonial or religiously significant.
One of the standards applied to church-state cases is the so-called Lemon test (from Lemon v. Kurtzman), in which it is asked whether a government policy is secular or whether it attempts to establish or inhibit religion. In order to meet the constitutional expectation of the separation of church and state, government must show that its purpose is secular.
Good Friday has been justified as a state holiday on grounds that its purpose is not religious. In response to a legal challenge from the ACLU in 1987, the state argued that the purpose of Good Friday was to increase the number of holidays.
Federal District Judge Alan Kay agreed with the state and suggested that Good Friday transcended religious purposes. Because its purpose is secular, it does not pose a constitutional problem. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Kay's ruling.
Is "under God" secular or religious? If it is religious, it likely stands in violation of the Constitution. If it is secular, the Supreme Court should overturn the 9th Circuit ruling and allow the pledge to affirm -- ceremoniously -- that our nation is "under God."
The Supreme Court is expected to rule in June.
George Tanabe is a professor of religion in the University of Hawaii Department of Religion.
Religion Calendar