The hosts at The Truth Laid Bear and Dreaded Purple Master have both blogged on the ruling in Newdow v. Congress today, and both are hanging a lot on the idea that children in schools where the Pledge of Allegiance is recited, are pressured into reciting it.
Of course Michael Newdow himself didn't raise the issue of coercion -- he was objecting to the two words, "under God", because he doesn't want the G-word tainting anything related in any way to the government. Had coercion been an issue at all in the lawsuit, and if there had been any merit to such a complaint, the 9th Circus could simply have found, under a 1943 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, that California and the school district had acted unconstitutionally -- without even touching on the words.
I argued to Bear that coercion was not an issue, but his answer is that pressure surely must have existed. However I'm confident that our courts have long understood the difference between official coercion and peer pressure. Sorry, friends, there just isn't any "there" there. Coercion, pressure, whatever you call it, you're hanging your argument on a definition of compulsion that no responsible court would uphold.
Which is not to say that the 9th wouldn't have gone for it...
UPDATE: I forget now whether it was Bear or Dan who used the phrase in arguing his position -- maybe both have used it -- but there was something about how, if we are to have a "truly secular society", God must be removed from the Pledge.
Well, as currently interpreted, the Constitution does mandate a secular government but not a secular society. So like the words "under God" themselves, the question of a secular society is rightly a political one. Supporters of this notion will have to convince the American people that a secular society is a good thing. Just as soon as they themselves figure out how it differs from a secular government.
