The legal question about the addition of “Under God” should focus on the intent of the Knights of Columbus, Congress and the President of the United States.

The first amendment to the US Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Today the Knights of Columbus describe themselves as follows:

The Order has been called "the strong right arm of the Church," and has been praised by popes, presidents and other world leaders, for support of the Church, programs of Evangelization and Catholic education, civic involvement and aid to those in need.

1954 – Deploying “Spiritual Weapons”:

In 1954 the intentions of the Knights of Columbus, Congress and the President were two fold:

1) To promote a monotheistic belief.

· In 1954 President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words "under God". As he authorized this change he said: "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

· On August 21, 1952, the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus at its annual meeting adopted a resolution urging that the change be made general and copies of this resolution were sent to the President, the Vice President (as Presiding Officer of the Senate) and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The National Fraternal Congress meeting in Boston on September 24, 1952, adopted a similar resolution upon the recommendation of its President, Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart. Several State Fraternal Congresses acted likewise almost immediately thereafter.

· At its annual meeting the following year, on August 20, 1953, the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus repeated its resolution to make the amendment to the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag general and to send copies of this resolve to the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, and to each member of both Houses of Congress. From this latter action, many favorable replies were received, and a total of seventeen resolutions were introduced into the House of Representatives to so amend the Pledge of Allegiance as set forth in Public Law relating to the Flag. The resolution introduced by Congressman Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan was adopted by both Houses of Congress, and it was signed by President Eisenhower on Flag Day, June 14, 1954, thereby making the official amendment conceived, sponsored and put into practice by the Knights of Columbus more than three years before.

· In a message to Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart at the meeting of the Supreme Council in Louisville, August 17, 1954, President Eisenhower, in recognition of the initiative of the Knights of Columbus in originating and sponsoring the amendment to the Pledge of Allegiance, said:

We are particularly thankful to you for your part in the movement to have the words 'under God' added to our Pledge of Allegiance. These words will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded. For the contribution which your organization has made to this cause, we must be genuinely grateful."

2) McCarthyism – In the days of McCarthy it was known by definition that a communist was an atheist. So swearing to believe in god automatically eliminates the possibility of being a “commie.”

Supreme Court Justices:

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

There us an interesting point in that the justice has the right to affirm and leave out the “So help me God” part of their oath. This comes from the fact that the U.S. Constitution Article VI, Section II specifically states that "no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the "United States.”

What is the Lemon Test?

The Lemon Test came about as a result of a case, Lemon v. Kurtzman, which went before the Supreme Court in 1971. The test has 3 components. If any of these three tests is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Lemon test asks if the government conduct:

1) Has a Secular Purpose,

2) Coercion - has the primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religions

3) Endorsement - fosters an excessive entanglement of religion.

When the 9th Circuit Court applied the Lemon Test to the Newdow case The justices had the following conclusions.

Secular Purpose:

The 9th Circuit, in applying the test, found that the Pledge of Allegiance stumbles at part one of the Lemon test. By adding the words "under God" in an a 1954 Act modifying the Pledge. The reason being was that Congress' "sole purpose was to advance religion, in order to differentiate the United States from nations under communist rule." Since the purpose of adding such words was not secular, the Court declared that the Pledge failed part 1 of the Lemon test.

Coercion Test:

While the Court recognized that a student is not required to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance, as established in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (319 U.S. 624, 1943), the Court said that students, especially at a young age, may not understand that they have the option to not follow their teacher and fellow students as they recite the Pledge. The Court further stated that, "the mere fact that a pupil is required to listen every day to the statement, 'one nation under God' has a coercive effect." As such, the 9th Circuit held that the practice of reciting the pledge is impermissibly coercive thus failing part 2 of the Lemon Test.

Entanglement Test:

The Court declared that by including the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, codified under federal law, the government, "impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God." By requiring public school teachers to lead school children in the recitation of the Pledge, the 9th Circuit said that the teachers are inculcating, and thereby endorsing, the ideals set forth in the Pledge of Allegiance. The inclusion of "Under God" and the subsequent participation by teachers in the recitation led the Court to determine that the practice in question fails part 3, the Endorsement Test.

Entanglement of Passions:

One of the biggest problems regarding this case and the others like it is that there is a large number of Americans that regardless of fact or law, believe that the words “Under God” should stay because they are "American". While that opinion may have the appearance of truth for some, it is not true for all Americans. These entanglements of passion with law are what can lead to erosion of liberty and religion when reason and logic are the right tools for this job. In addition feelings or passionate beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with the law, unless you commit a violent crime that is considered “an act of passion.” The bottom line here though is that it has absolutely no relevance to this case or cases like it.

Obligation to Truth:

We cannot choose what is and is not truth. As Americans we have an obligation to the truth, even if we find it unpleasant. Therefore, as Americans, we need to keep educating our fellow Americans, our Elected Officials, the Press and the Religious Right in regards to these well documented facts. We can not just sit back while a campaign of intentional disinformation is waged by well funded and ill intended groups seeking to undermine the Unites States Constitution.

The well documented historical evidence is crystal clear on the intent; the evidence of that intent and application of the law as it was originally passed then will have to be applied to all three parts of the Lemon Test.

The Supreme Court has a sworn obligation to the Constitution and not to their religious beliefs first and foremost and to operate within the oath to which they swore. They have to make a stand and say to the world that “in America the Law of the Land is higher than the law of any Church.” If they strike down Newdow’s case, or any case like it, they are invalidating the sacrifices made by every American in every war to defend the Constitution and the American way of life.