In evaluating things like the Pledge of Allegiance or intelligent design, we'd best bear in mind the Supreme Court's Lemon test, which is used to determine whether or not a government act relating to religion violates the First Amendment. The case is called Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Reversing a lower court decision, the Supreme Court, in an 8-0 opinion, ruled that a Pennsylvania law allowing the state to "'purchase' certain 'secular educational services' from nonpublic schools" was unconstitutional.

From Lemon emerged the test to see if there were "excessive entanglement between government and religion." A government policy must meet three criteria:

1. "The statute must have a secular legislative purpose." This is pretty clear: there has to be a non-religious intention behind the legislation.
2. "Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion." Note that word effect. So, not only can the intent not relate to religion, the main result of the legislation must be that it doesn't affect religion.
3. "The statute must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion.'" Religious activities end up being supervised by the government, curricula end up being regulated by the government. These are the kinds of things that this third prong seeks to avoid.

A government act that fails one or more of these criteria is deemed to be unconstitutional.

How would this relate to something like, oh, I don't know, intelligent design? Well, in Selman et. al v. Cobb County, a U.S. District Court in Georgia ruled unconstitutional a Cobb County school board requirement that warning stickers be placed on biology textbooks used by the district. The stickers advised, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." The U.S. District Court judge found this sticker to be unconstitutional and cited a history of the Supreme Court and circuit courts striking down "balanced treatment" laws, the primary effect of which were to endorse a particular religious viewpoint. While the District Court found that the sticker did have a secular legislative purpose, the sticker failed the second prong in that "the Sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the Sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." The court also cleverly observed that "encouraging the teaching of evolution as a theory rather than as a fact is one of the latest strategies to dilute evolution instruction employed by antievolutionists with religious motivations."

In the upcoming Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, the ACLU will be arguing that intelligent design is far too religious to be taught in public schools. Ostensibly, the U.S. District Court in Harrisburg, Pa. will be required to acknowledge the ruling of its sister court in Georgia. The real test will come at the circuit court level, as a circuit court can overrule a district court.

Now that you know about the Court's requirements for religious entanglement, do you think the Pledge of Allegiance passes or fails the Lemon test? In evaluating this, keep in mind Congress' purpose in adding the words "under God" in 1954. Consider the legislative history of the 1954 act that added the words "under God," which reveals the purpose of the act ("legislative history" is part of a piece of legislation; it's the authors of the legislation telling us why they're writing it):

At this moment of our history the principles underlying our American Government and the American way of life are under attack by a system whose philosophy is at direct odds with our own. Our American Government is founded on the concept of the individuality and the dignity of the human being. Underlying this concept is the belief that the human person is important because he was created by God and endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights which no civil authority may usurp. The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator. At the same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual. [Qtd. in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 00-16423.]