The Pledge of Allegiance: Watershed Moment or Factious Fad?

Reformation and Revival ^ | July 1, 2002 | John Armstrong

[sola gracia]

Monday, July 1, 2002
The Pledge of Allegiance: Watershed Moment or Factious Fad?
by John H. Armstrong
Over the last twenty years the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has earned a reputation for being wrong more than any other federal appeals court in the United States. The court struck again last week when it ruled, by a two to one vote, that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance makes it unconstitutional to recite the historic oath in our public schools. The court, based in San Francisco, ruled that the phrase is unconstitutional because it fails several tests designed by previous Supreme Court decisions in church-state cases.

The court's ruling came about because Dr. Michael Newdow, a Sacramento father, sued the Elk Grove Unified School District, saying his daughter shouldn't be made to feel like an outsider when teachers in her elementary school lead students in reciting the Pledge.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long upheld the rights of children to opt out of reciting the Pledge for religious or political reasons. So why Newdow's suit? And more importantly, why such a wacky "out-of step" ruling by a federal court? Michael Newdow's case argued that saying the Pledge in public schools violates the First and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. For those who tend to forget, these are the "establishment of religion" portions of our Constitution that ban federal, state and local governments from formally supporting a particular religion.

Dr. Newdow's presentation to the court reasoned that even if his daughter refused to recite the Pledge, her religious freedom would be violated by, the peer pressure she felt to recite the Pledge along with her government-employed teacher in a government-funded school. Dr. Newdow cited the most recent court decisions against pre-game prayers at public-school football games in Texas as a ruling that supported his argument before the high court.

Now, how should serious Christians respond to this new church-state flap? First, it would be helpful to have a little perspective on the facts involved in this particular situation. The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892. It wasn't, however, until 1954 that President Dwight Eisenhower and the congress added the words "under God" in support of a civil religion that was increasingly popular in the early post-World War II era. This development of a renewed civil religion joined with the anti-Communistic pressures of the McCarthy era, created a perfect environment for putting God into a number of symbolic gestures in the nation. It is generally agreed, by historians, that this change was intended as a national religious statement in the face of atheistic communism, then our greatest challenge in the world.

Two of the three judges on the appeals panel agreed that addition of the words had no secular purpose, a key test used by the Supreme Court in determining whether laws are neutral with regard to religion.

Attorneys for the school district and the federal government argued that other Supreme Court cases have allowed added protection for traditional governmental references to God, such as prayer in Congress and using the national motto "In God We Trust" on money and government buildings.

As pundits scurried about looking for explanations for this factious ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court, a number of things came to light. This is the largest federal appeals court in the Untied States. It hears more cases and renders more rulings than any other jurisdiction in the land. Of this court's twenty-three active judges, seventeen were appointed by Democratic presidents. The majority in the Newdow case consisted of two justices. President Richard Nixon appointed Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, a 79-year-old jurist, to this federal court in 1971. President Jimmy Carter appointed Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a 71-year-old member of the court, in 1980. (I did find it somewhat amusing that several conservative spokespersons in the media claimed early last week that these two justices must have been appointed by Democrats!) What prompted this ruling? Was it simply a case of overstepping the bounds of civic religion, or did these judges really have a case?

Writing for the majority, Judge Goodwin noted that the Sacramento school district was "conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of the current form of the Pledge." "Given the age and impressionability of schoolchildren," Goodwin added, "particularly within the confined environment of the classroom, the policy is highly likely to convey an impermissible message of endorsement to some and disapproval to others of their beliefs regarding the existence of a monotheistic God." For Goodwin the case ultimately comes down to the interpretation of the establishment clause.

From a constitutional standpoint, the words "under God," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote in the 2-to-1 decision, were just as objectionable as a statement that "we are a nation `under Jesus,' a nation `under Vishnu,' a nation `under Zeus,' or a nation `under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."

From a thoughtful Christian perspective it must be admitted that "under God" is quite elastic and broad, given the specific context of its use in the Pledge. For just this reason it might be argued that it is an innocuous statement but I ask, nonetheless, "What God?" I dare say most evangelicals who utter the words "under God" think of the God being cited as none other than the God of the Bible, or God as Christians confess him.

The two judges issuing the decision acknowledged that the Supreme Court had occasionally commented in nonbinding decisions that the presence of "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is, in point of fact, constitutional. But, the two judges said, "the court has never been presented with the question directly." They further noted that the Supreme Court had ruled that students could not hold religious invocations at graduations.

What I find particularly interesting in this debate is that in 1984 several liberal members of the Supreme Court, including Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun, John Paul Stevens and William J. Brennan, Jr., agreed that references like "In God We Trust," which appears on United States currency and coins, were protected from the Establishment Clause because their religious significance had been lost through rote repetition (emphasis mine).

The dissenting judge in the Ninth District ruling, Ferdinand F. Fernandez, expressed concern that the ruling could be applied to other expressions of patriotism. Judge Fernandez, 63, who was appointed in 1980 by President Bush's father, wrote in his dissenting opinion: "We will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings. God Bless America and America the Beautiful will be gone for sure, and while the first and second stanzas of The Star-Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third." (The Star Spangled Banner was written by Francis Scott Key, a very thoughtful and serious Anglican, who also wrote some marvelous Christian hymns!)

If this recent ruling stands, and most agree that it will not, the decision by the nation's most liberal appellate court would take effect in several months, banning the Pledge from being recited in schools in the nine Western states under the court's jurisdiction: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

The court's decision prompted an immediate reaction in Washington, D.C. This reaction knew no political partisanship. In the middle of fractious wrangling on a host of important issues Senators took time out to unanimously pass a resolution condemning the ruling and dozens of House members gathered on the Capitol steps to recite the Pledge and sing God Bless America. White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said President Bush called the decision "ridiculous." Most legal experts said they expected it to be reversed on appeal.

Evelyn Nieves, writing for The New York Times (June 27, 2002) noted that,
"Praise for the panel's decision was muted. Joe Conn, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said that while he supported the decision, it should not be seen as a finding against the entire Pledge."

"They didn't strike down the Pledge of Allegiance," Mr. Conn said. "All they said is Congress made a mistake when they added God to the Pledge."

Arthur Hayes, a law professor at Quinnipiac University, called the decision a "well-reasoned opinion that is certain to enrage the Christian right." (It doesn't take a law degree to make such a brilliant observation!)

Criticism of the decision was swift and, on the whole, very harsh. Nieves wrote, "Politicians of all political stripes reeled off faxes to reporters condemning the decision." Gov. George E. Pataki of New York called the decision "junk justice" while liberal Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, called it "nuts."

Steve Duprey, the retired chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, said that the decision was "so out of tune with what Americans believe, I don't think it will be a hot political issue in this campaign, because I don't think Republicans or Democrats will agree with it."

Legal experts almost universally agreed that this decision would most likely be reversed by the full appeals court, if not finally by the Supreme Court. The New York Times noted that Christopher Landau, an appellate lawyer with Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, and a former clerk for Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said he was certain that the Supreme Court would reverse the decision if it came to them for a ruling. Mr. Landau said: "In their heart of hearts, I don't think the justices would ever think that this kind of a practice (i.e., saying "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance) is unconstitutional. And I think that they'll probably say that this is a tradition and that it is primarily ceremonial."

Dr. Newdow told The Associated Press that the decision validated his point and that it proved it was wrong to force his daughter to listen to the Pledge in her public school class. I find it particularly sad that Dr. Newdow reported that he had been threatened because of the lawsuit and that these threats were "personal and scary." He concluded, "I could be dead tomorrow."

Now, I would like to ask a question in light of this ruling that I will briefly comment upon this week and develop more fully next week.

The strongest reactions came from conservative religious leaders. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which is aligned with the Christian Coalition, said, "I think the decision is ridiculous. This is the first court to hold that the Pledge with the phrase `with one nation under God' is unconstitutional. They've created a constitutional crisis for no reason."

Jerry Falwell, seemingly always willing to appear on camera and tell the nation his view of such things, said the ruling was "appalling." Falwell added, "This is probably the worst ruling of any federal appellate court in history." Falwell, who generally speaks with great zeal about such symbolic religious/cultural battles, started a petition drive last week to gather a million signatures by Friday (June 28) to urge the Supreme Court to reverse the panel's ruling immediately. Is this Pledge of Allegiance controversy a great historical watershed moment or merely another factious liberal fad? Is this, as Dr. Falwell maintained last week, "probably the worst ruling of any federal appellate court ruling in history"?

I studied Constitutional law in college. My professor labored to teach us how nuanced and complicated most court decisions were. Many were made and then changed by later rulings. The time before the Civil War is a testimony to just how widely the court swung in making decisions. Now, I did not read thousands of federal appellate court rulings in my college class but I confess that I am, nonetheless, deeply suspicious of Falwell's bold claim. I doubt that he knows enough to make such a claim. A little less verbal bravado and triumphalism would go a long way in such public discourse.

So many that have commented on this issue, at least to this point, have spoken as if this is a major watershed event that threatens to destroy our republic of laws. It will remove God's blessing from our nation, some appear to be arguing, if we remove his name from our daily recitation of the Pledge in our public schools. Afterall, we have already removed public prayers from the schools so what next?

An interesting perspective on this ruling was offered by Holly Hollman, general counsel for the religious-liberty watchdog group Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. Ms. Hollman said she was surprised by the 9th Circuit's decision because of previous Supreme Court opinions on what former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan called "ceremonial deism."

That is worth thinking about. The court has generally ruled in favor of keeping such phrases as "In God We Trust" on our currency and "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance because of its understanding of a kind of "ceremonial deism." I think this gets a lot closer to the real significance of the issue here than many conservative Christians understand.

[sola gracia]

Pledge PING. Lately, I have been thinking that the sooner we ride ourselves of this "ceremonial deism" the sooner the Church may be purified and reach it's fullest potential in America. Surely, the "having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof" has gone on long enough. Any thoughts?

[LurkedLongEnough]

When are judges going to stop contradicting the will of the people, as expressed by the Constitution instead of common or case law?

"Congress made a mistake when they added God to the Pledge"

The people's representatives once again play second fiddle to the judicial branch.

[anniegetyourgun]

I have no problem with the pledge, currency, etc. as is because they are the will of the people. However, a day will come when the will of the people (in the majority) will be to extract God or codify a definition of Him as some amorphous combo-diety. Syncretism has gained a foothold in this country and will ultimately play directly into the hand of the Lawless one -the man of sin - who will only allow such a diety to exist, prior to demanding the people to worship him.

That is the future. But in the hear and now, I'm not inclined to suggest we cede the territory to the enemies of the cross.

[anniegetyourgun]

hear = here

[Jerry_M]

I have a dime that I will bet against your donut that you get pummelled for this thread. I wish it wasn't so, but am afraid that it is.

[Constitutions Grandchild]

I agree with the article. I'm of the opinion that it is worse to slap God in the face with mindless lip service than to omit the phrase altogether from the Pledge of Allegiance.

When the story first broke, it was advertised in the media as, "the Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional," which I thought was absurd and wrong. As I thought about it further, it has never been obligatory to recite the pledge in any forum nor, when reciting it, necessary to say the words, "under God," if it conflicts with individual beliefs. It is not unconstitutional in either form with, or without, God.

In retrospect, I can understand why the Knights of Columbus lobbied for the words, "under God," why the Congress approved the addition and the 9th Circuit's opinion that to a non-believer it would seem to convey, by not believing, he/she is somehow not included as an American.

My true concern is that for believers everywhere, if they don't really think about the words they recite, they are truly not including God. That breaks my heart and does His no good either. I only hope He understands, and I think He does as He gave us free will to choose for ourselves, individually.

[stands2reason]

Steve Duprey, the retired chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, said that the decision was "so out of tune with what Americans believe, I don't think it will be a hot political issue in this campaign, because I don't think Republicans or Democrats will agree with it."

And heeeeere 's the Stupid Party... the appointment of judges can't even be considered by this idiot. Of course, notice they chose a New England Republican for comment on this ruling....

[Tribune7]

A nation with Christian or (Judeo-Christian) values will be blessed. A nation without will fall. There is a real attempt to strip us of these values. In many ways it has succeeded.

We should fight to keep "under God" in our pledge but it is far more important that we fight to get back the ability to teach His existence as fact in our schools, and that the reason we should "love," and be "merciful" is because He wants us to.

We should throw out the idea that unqualified "tolerance" or undefined "diversity" are good things.

[kjam22]

A ceremonial "ridding" ourselves of the words "under God" in the pledge will not help the church. It will send a negative message to millions of kids.

The fact that kids say "under God" in the pledge every morning is not in any way what the Church's problem is today.... in my opinion.

[Diamond]

Lately, I have been thinking that the sooner we ride ourselves of this "ceremonial deism" the sooner the Church may be purified and reach it's fullest potential in America.

Well I think you're right; if the Church is operating on "ceremonial deism", it ought to get rid of it. Respectfully, though, the court decision does not concern church government. It does concern civil government. And it is wrong. The court's notion that a state government school recitation of the phrase "under God" is an unconstitutional ecclesiastical establishment, ie, an interference in church government, is idiotic, and diametrically opposed to the the intentions of those who wrote the Constition.

I agree with the article's wry observation that, "... references like "In God We Trust," which appears on United States currency and coins, were protected from the Establishment Clause because their religious significance had been lost through rote repetition" (emphasis mine). In other words, leftists have taken a constitutional phrase, "establishment of religion", which referred to civil government interference in church government, and distorted it beyond recognition into a requirement of extirpation of religious language from civil government, so that the only time such language can be uttered by civil government is when it is meaningless. Such liberal insanity stems not from any coherent legal or Constitutional principle, but simply from a willful ignorance and hatred of God.

I believe that the Founders view was that there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits civil government from being Christian in principle. The Constition simply prohibits the civil government from interfering in Church government, doctrines and practices, etc. Both can (and should be) Christian, but the two simply have different spheres of responsibility. That very separation of roles is itself a Biblical idea; witness for example Moses' separation of the levitial priesthood, and king Uzziah's (civil government) wrongful intrusion into the temple (levitical) government. I believe the evidence shows that from the Mayflower Compact onward to the time that men who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, and who wrote the Constitution, were not doing so simply of "ceremonial deism", but simply out of a very Biblical worldview.

That elitist, national socialistic judges seek to prevent us from having the more local types of self- government that some of us may desire is maddening to me.

Cordially,

[My2Cents]

the sooner we rid ourselves of this "ceremonial deism" the sooner the Church may be purified and reach it's fullest potential in America.

I think the church's purification depends very little on whether or not the term "under God" is in the pledge of allegience or not. The church's purification is only dependent on putting the living Christ back in his rightful position as head of the church and removing the stranglehold of the doctrines and methods of men from the church. A "Christless" Christianity was in full bloom way before the Congress ever put "under God" into the pledge.

And if you've seen my previous comments on this thread, you'll note that the concept of this nation being "under God" is not a proclamation of civil religion, but is the recognition of a historical fact, that the Founders attributed the "inalienable rights" upon which the country was founded as having their source in God. The rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence are larger than a civic religion, and larger than popular consensus. Whether anyone likes it or not, this is a nation born "under God," who is recognized as a creator who created all men and women equal. Anyone who disagrees with the term "under God" in the pledge must also, by necessity, have an issue with the Declaration of Independence.

[CCWoody]

It will remove God's blessing from our nation, some appear to be arguing, if we remove his name from our daily recitation of the Pledge in our public schools.

Sorry, but it does appear to be quite plain that God began to remove His blessing from this nation years ago. Our land is stained with the blood of the unborn and until we repent as a nation of our Blasphemey, Butchery, and Barbarism I think that God will continue to remove even His name from the lips of idolaterous people. How long will He suffer to be mocked before He removes His hand completely and 911 looks like a pebble in the road of ruin this nation is on?

• Psa 50:16-7 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or [that] thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee.

What right do we have as a nation to take up the Name of God to our lips seeing that we hate instruction and cast His words behind us? In a TRUE sense, every nation is a nation under God. But it cannot be said that "we" are a nation under God. We live in the Pagan nation of Baal.

[sola gracia]

I have a dime that I will bet against your donut that you get pummelled for this thread. I wish it wasn't so, but am afraid that it is.

Don't worry Jerry. As my father used to tell me, "You're big enough and ugly enough to take it."

We keep talking about "nation" and "church" but the important thing to remember is that both are made up of "individuals." And that is where the change has to start. In my heart and in yours, etc.

[sola gracia]

Sorry, but it does appear to be quite plain that God began to remove His blessing from this nation years ago.

Question: In this New Covenant age we live in, does God bless nations or individuals within a nation? I am of the understanding that blessings are given or withheld from individuals and the Church as a whole. I can't seem to find a "national" teaching in the New Testament anywhere. (Regardless of what dispensationalists say about the nation of Israel.)

[sola gracia]

I think the church's purification depends very little on whether or not the term "under God" is in the pledge of allegience or not.

I agree with you. However, sad to say the average "Christian" today lives in the world of "symbolism over substance." Let the state remove all that pertains to "religion." Even remove the tax exempt status from churches. If this would happen, Christians would have to start thinking seriously about what keeps them in the Way. As Christians, we have had it way too easy in this country. The longer we are led to believe this is a "Christian" nation, the longer it will take for persecution to come. It takes persecution to purify. I say, "Bring it on!" Let's separate the "men from the boys" so to speak. (no slam at gender here folks - so hold your cards and letters)

[My2Cents]

The court's ruling came about because Dr. Michael Newdow, a Sacramento father, sued the Elk Grove Unified School District, saying his daughter shouldn't be made to feel like an outsider when teachers in her elementary school lead students in reciting the Pledge.

Something's awry here. I have some close friends who attend a church in Elk Grove, CA, and they know some people who know the Newdows. They report that Michael Newdow's ex-wife and daughter are Christians. So, his claim that his daughter was made to feel like an "outsider" as others pledged allegience to a nation "under God" is, reportedly, baloney, or at the very least is "hypothetical". If so, he's pushing a personal agenda, and using his daughter as the foil in his personal crusade.

it would be helpful to have a little perspective on the facts involved in this particular situation. The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892. It wasn't, however, until 1954 that President Dwight Eisenhower and the congress added the words "under God" in support of a civil religion that was increasingly popular in the early post-World War II era. This development of a renewed civil religion joined with the anti-Communistic pressures of the McCarthy era

If the author wants to give a historical perspective to this issue, he needs to go back to the founding, where the Founding Fathers expressed our independence from England by asserting certain "inalienable rights" conferred upon man by God -- rights that transcend the laws of man and states. This is the true context in which our nation is "under God" -- a context the author ignores.

From a constitutional standpoint, the words "under God," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote in the 2-to-1 decision, were just as objectionable as a statement that "we are a nation `under Jesus,'...

No, not from a "constitutional" standpoint, but from the personal standpoint of Judge Goodwin. "Under God" tells us nothing about the nature or character of God. "God", to the little secular humanist elementary school child, could be "We the People," for all the term conveys.

Jerry Falwell, seemingly always willing to appear on camera and tell the nation his view of such things

Only because he's always invited to do so by the news programs...

[My2Cents]

And if you've seen my previous comments on this thread

Sorry. Other threads.

[My2Cents]

sad to say the average "Christian" today lives in the world of "symbolism over substance."

I agree with you on this. But would the removing of our sanctioned religious symbolism help? I doubt it would help or hinder the health of the church.

The particular axe I grind is over the formalized, organized church. Having a format in which hundreds of people sit in pews, have minimal interaction with the people around them, and then stare at the back of someone's head while a professional religionist gives a monologue (which often is a presentation of half-truths about our relationship with God) is not my idea of an optimal church experience. I don't know that the church will be purified until we are all driven away from the formal organization, and back into the catacombs or at least into home churches. I'm a strong advocate of the cell church movement, but cell churches apparently are not what American Christians want. I'm also a strong believer in revivals (e.g. The Great Awakening; the Wesleyian Revivals in England; the various Welsh Revivals, as examples). I understand from church history that revivals are when God supernaturally pours out His Spirit in a major and unusual way, and hoses out the cobwebs of complacency within the church. We need that more than we need worry about the phrase "under God" and what that represents as symbolic civil religion.

[CCWoody]

Question: In this New Covenant age we live in, does God bless nations or individuals within a nation? I am of the understanding that blessings are given or withheld from individuals and the Church as a whole. I can't seem to find a "national" teaching in the New Testament anywhere. (Regardless of what dispensationalists say about the nation of Israel.)

Well, I doubt that anyone would contend that this nation has not at least seemed to enjoy a particular peace and prosperity that no existing nation enjoys. Even in these days where we seem to be seeing "wars and rumors of wars" this nation has enjoyed a particular isolation from that, even if we have sent our troops to fight and die in these wars. As Reformed brothers, we both believe God alone restrains the wicked. Thus, even by restraining the hand of evil men against this nation we have enjoyed a blessing.

Contrast that with a nation like Somolia. Although I will not discuss my source, at the last count there were only a little more than 100 TRUE saints in the entire country. Look at how that nation is rocked by the violence of its warlords. The saints there are telling us that to even utter the name of the Lord is to invite death.

Yet, I cannot say that we are more deserving of peace or less deserving than any other people. It is simply the unmerited blessing of the Lord that we do enjoy peace. And the godless in this country along with the saints have both equally enjoyed this blessing. It is both national and individual.

I simply conclude that this nation has enjoyed a particular blessing, whether because we were founded as a nation of believers or because God blessed this nation to be founded by believers is really not important. I simply notice that we have been spared the violence of the world until recently.

I can with certainty state that the Lord alone makes us to dwell in safety (Psa 4:8, Psa 127:1, etc.). So, I do believe that the safety under which we have lived has been a direct blessing from the Lord. And I will state that we as a nation have spit in God's face for it, by continually turning aside to other gods. We have stained our land with abortion (Psa 106:38).

And what is even more disturbing is that as a nation we claim to be a people under God in some ways that are similar to the OT nation of Israel. I do believe that God will not continue to suffer to have us as a nation profane His name. I see the continual efforts to remove the name of God from our lips as the doing of the Lord Himself. God works all things after the counsel of His own will (Eph 1:11, Acts 15:18, Psa 33:11, Isa 46:9, etc.) and He freely turns the hearts of those in authority whichever way He will (Pro 21:1).

It should be a warning to us saints that this nation has mocked God and stands at the edge of the Lord completely removing His hand of restraint for our benefit.