Church/State Matters
The Pledge of Allegiance

Remember back in the summer of 2002 when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a California case (Surprise!), declared the phrase “under God” in the US Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. [Elk Grove United School Distric, et al. v. Newdow et al]? There was an immediate firestorm of protest. Even those not prone to comment on “separation” decisions made by federal appeals courts weighed in. Then Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle called the decision “just nuts”. Dick Gephardt, then House Minority Leader, saw “no reason to challenge the time tested venerable pledge.” Two who deemed themselves liberal Democrats chimed in on a “values matter”. Both, interestingly, are out of government today [I am not implying a connection.].

A fair reading of “separation” jurisprudence does not make the decision foolish. The course of church/state decisions has been steady in the direction of sanitizing the public domain from any religious [actually Christian] references. The “under God” phrase was added in 1954, so technically, it is a late addition to Gephardt’s “time tested venerable pledge.”

The suspicion is that the Pledge Case was really not illogical based on case law, but it gave the willies to even those indifferent to religion in the public square. The 9th Circuit presented the question: What next? And, that is a question no politician who has to run for office wants to ponder. Will all coins have to be taken out of circulation? Will Congressional chaplains have to stop praying in the House and Senate? Will George W. Bush be enjoined from saying “God bless America”?

It is more than a little disingenuous for those who have not responded to the “separation” decisions until now to suddenly be champions of religious expression. They were responding to the hew and cry of the public, worried about what the courts may do next and, more importantly, how it would affect them. It was hardly a consciously motivated decision to upbraid the 9th Circuit. If the august 3 judge panel is wrong on the Pledge it is not because they went too far in this case. It is because the whole line of reasoning that desires to purge reference to the Biblical God from the public is, to steal a phrase, “just nuts”. Religious expression has never been prohibited by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution—in a classroom, football game, commencement, or on our coins. The courts created the morass we find ourselves in and the 9th Circuit merely followed the path laid out by their brethren.

The USSC eventually ruled in the case that Newdow did not have legal standing to sue on behalf of his daughter as “next friend”. The child’s mother, Sharon Banning, had exclusive custody of their daughter and she had intervened in the case objecting that the child should be a party to Newdow’s lawsuit. In an 8-0 decision, the Court dodged the constitutional question based on a procedural matter, although 3 of the justices believed the decision should have been on the merits, affirming the Pledge as a patriotic exercise without the establishment of any particular faith or religion. [Read the full decision www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZC.html ]

This decision did, however, bring to the attention of professing Christians some issues with The Pledge not considered since Jehovah’s Witnesses were exonerated from reciting it. Some Christians want the pledge thrown out completely. Why? Because it requires reciting allegiance to the state rather than to God. Others object to the phrase, “with liberty and justice for all”, a fantasy and fallacy in 21st Century USA. Still others object to “indivisible” as a deistic claim of immortality without division. Christians know a division is coming—goats and sheep. So this God of the pledge is not the Biblical God, but the faceless, nameless god of unity without distinction in Christ.

As well meaning as the objections are to The Pledge, there is a symbolic meaning to The Pledge. There can be no doubt that there is a call to unity in The Pledge, the National Anthem and various other patriotic expressions. This country is still the most diverse in the world. All colors, races, ethic backgrounds, and countries of origin are represented in the citizens of the USA. The illegal immigration issue, is in some measure, a test of unity in language and living under the law. That we seek a sense of indivisibility is not homogenizing our religions beliefs or forcing anyone to bow down to Dagon the State. After all, Christians agree with Paul that no state has authority except from God (Rom. 13:1) and we are to be subject to the state for conscious sake (Rom. 13:5).

In addition, the statement in the pledge “under God”, is a recognition of the One true, Biblical God. Why else the cry that it should be stripped? And, with this statement, there is a concession to the role the providential and sovereign God of the Universe has played in the founding and prospering of our country. It is not establishing the Biblical God as the God of the country, but an expression of recognition for what He has done. Hence, it does not violate principles of “establishment” of religion set forth in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

Anyone is free not to believe that the Biblical God is important to this country. But, their unbelief is not a basis for calling The Pledge unconstitutional. The Biblical God is not forced to be their God. For the confessing Christian, his faith is in Christ. By reciting The Pledge, he merely reaffirms his obedience to the state as ordained by God. The nation is, after all, “under God” as is all else.