|
A Pledge With
No God Gets Grim
Mr.
Michael Newdow, the atheist, is at it again. At a time when we
are struggling to recover from the tragedies of hurricanes and
are begging for God’s blessing upon the choice of two new
justices for the US Supreme Court, news has broken about a “terrible
crime” taking place in Sacramento city schools: Children
are repeating the words “under God” in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the American flag. U.S. District Judge Lawrence
Karlton ruled that the reference to one nation “under God”
violates a child’s right to be “free from a coercive
requirement to affirm God.” Judge Karlton has agreed to sign
a restraining order prohibiting the recitation of the pledge in
3 school districts in Sacramento County.
Mr.
Newdow, rapidly rising to the dubious status of most famous atheist
in America since Madelyn Murray O’Hare, has challenged the
American pledge to the flag once before and won the ruling both
in the lower court and in the June 2002 appeal in the U.S. 9th
Circuit Court. Judge Alfred T. Godwin wrote the following majority
decision for the panel of three judges: “Leading schoolchildren
in a pledge that says the United States is "one nation under
God" is as objectionable as asking them to say "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.” Godwin did, however,
block the execution of the ruling, pending its appeal. The U.S.
Supreme Court threw out the decision in 2004 on a technicality:
Mr. Newdow did not have custody of his five-year-old daughter
and could not sue on her behalf.
However,
Mr. Newdow, both a physician and an attorney, has once again filed
the same exact case representing three unnamed parents and their
children, and Judge Karlton affirmed the rights for those families
to sue. Sadly, the case has once more been appealed to the 9th
U.S Circuit Court of Appeals. The religious rights group called
the Becket Fund, which represents the opposition to the ruling,
has indicated that again, they will appeal the decision to the
Supreme Court if the Appeals Court maintains its current precedent.
In the meantime, it is possible that the Appeals Court panel might
rule to restrain nine states from the recitation of the pledge
in public schools.
Individuals
other than Michael Newdow, have raised the legal question about
acknowledging God in the pledge to the flag. In Richmond Virginia,
the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a law in the state
of Virginia requiring the leading of the pledge to the flag in
public schools. The three-judge panel in that ruling stated that
the pledge was a religious exercise and neither affirmed nor established
a religion. Judge Karen Williams wrote the decision stating: “Undoubtedly,
the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to
persons of any faith to assert that the words ‘under God’
contain no religious significance. The inclusion of those two
words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic
activity.” Despite the fact that this is the most recent
ruling on the subject, Judge Karlton’s ruling directly conflicts
with the 4th Circuit Court decision. Aren’t rulings supposed
to generally be established on previous legal precedent? If so,
what happened here?
A
number of years ago I was pastoring a small church in the suburbs
of Chicago. In one of our meetings, I made some statements about
how I grieved because prayer was taken out of public schools.
I was approached by a well-meaning parishioner who said, “Pastor,
wait a minute. I think they did the right thing in taking prayer
out of public schools, because no child should be forced to pray
against their will.” I responded by assuring him that I agreed
that no one should ever be forced to pray at any time, or any
place, much less a public school. However, I am convinced that
coercive prayer has never been a problem in public schools in
America with perhaps extremely rare and isolated occurrences.
Even in the very few cases where someone fanatically pushed religion
on students, legal authorities could handle it in a way that did
not require the outlawing of the practice of prayer in public
schools. What, then, is the reason that the U.S. Supreme Court
would rule against voluntary, student-led, or any other kind of
prayer in a public school?
We
live in a society, today, which prides itself in having an open
mind. There is certainly nothing wrong with having an open mind.
Our problem is the fact that we, as American people are so open
minded that we have become confused, and we don’t know what
we believe. Therefore, if there is some minority over in a corner
who says “We don’t believe in God, and it offends us
to hear the word ‘God’ spoken in public!”, we say
“Oh my, that’s bad. We don’t want that to happen,
so let’s not mention God in public.” We believe that
solves our problem. However, in taking such a posture, we have
opened ourselves, our families, and our posterity to a directionless
and meaningless way of life that will plunge us into chaos, and
finally into intellectual madness and moral darkness.
The
human life and existence, on a personal level, a community level,
and even a national level, must exist based upon a cultural identity.
We are Americans, proud of the fact that we have always been strong
and free. That pride and strength comes only through a force of
conviction that we should honor the freedom that God gives to
men. That is our cultural identity. As long as we believe in that
code of life, we will be secure within our cultural beliefs and
we will resonate with patriotic strength. However, if we allow
any part of that cultural identity to slip away, particularly
our conviction that God intends for men to be free, then we will
not only lose our American culture, but we will lose the sense
of purpose for which we exist.
If
we strip our belief in God out of our government and our patriotic
expressions, we will strip away our national culture and national
identity. Our belief in God in America is who we are, regardless
of what the atheists say. If we take that away, we will plunge
America into a nightmare of chaos, because we will no longer know
who we are as nation. Then others will force us to become religious
in a way we don’t want to be religious. Humankind is inherently,
subconsciously, and naturally religious. If we take God out of
our culture and society, another god will soon replace Him, perhaps
a god far from our own choosing.
But
what of the suffering atheist who has to endure the words “under
God” in the pledge to the flag? Keep in mind; no child is
ever forced to recite the pledge. Jehovah’s Witnesses have
refused to recite the pledge for years, because it is against
their religion. If they are offended when they hear the words
“under God” spoken by someone else, when they don’t
have to say those words themselves, my best response is “too
bad.” I am offended every time I get out in public and hear
offensive language, but no one gets arrested for that. Many things
offended me when I attended public school, but no one sued the
school on my behalf. The pledge to the flag with the words, “under
God”, is a part of American culture. If the atheist doesn’t
like the American culture, he can always try the culture of Iran,
Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Libya, or any one of dozens of other Islamic
cultures. Like the atheist, Islamic governments also despise American
Christianity. Of course, we’ll have to wait and see how well
the atheist fares when he goes to that country, and sues the government
because his children are reciting a pledge that says, “under
Allah”.
James
Sanders
Pastor,
Email: sandersjc@yahoo.com
|
