When I was in elementary school, my big brother used to recite the Pledge of Allegiance over my school's loudspeaker. Every day I'd sleepily enter my class, put my right hand over my heart and recite the pledge with my brother. I was proud of my brother and America. I looked forward to my daily recitation as did my classmates. I'm sure we've all had fond memories of our quotidian recitations of the pledge.
Unfortunately, it seems that the beloved Pledge of Allegiance is in mortal trouble. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the ruling that the pledge is unconstitutional because it mentions God. Despite a massive public outcry and a chiding by President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft, the California court refused last Friday to review their previous decision. California Governor Gray Davis stated that the Supreme Court would surely hear this case and added, "At the start of every court session, the Supreme Court invokes God's blessing. So does the Senate and the House of Representatives. Surely the Supreme Court will permit school children to invoke God's name while reciting the pledge of allegiance." The Senate, also flabbergasted by the decision, passed two bills in support of the pledge. The first was a non-binding, cordial affirmation of the pledge. The second was rightfully entitled, "A bill to reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance."
What has caused this national ruckus? It is the warped misunderstanding of the "Separation of Church and State" article in the Constitution. It states "the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Clearly, this article prevents the creation of a national religion and prevents the government from targeting any minority religious groups or ostracizing differing sects. The "Separation of Church and State" clause is, in short, freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Nowhere does it forbid the use of the word God in our government's affairs.
Our founding fathers were religious men. In fact, the Bible is the basis of our Constitution. There are numerous references to the Lord. Does this violate the Constitution? Absolutely not. Although President Eisenhower approved the addition of "under God" on Flag Day in 1954 to separate America from the atheist Soviet Union, it is far from instituting a national religion. Our government makes countless references to God. Our currency is sprinkled with the Lord's name. So is the Declaration of Independence and the Emancipation Proclamation. I highly doubt Abraham Lincoln violated the very beliefs he fought to protect. Will we discontinue swearing on the Bible in court and stop "swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help us God?" Discontinuing the utterance of the Lord will not only make us risible to the rest of the world, but would shake the very foundation of our country. Also forbidding the mention of the Lord in our schools creates a bias against any religion -- the exact opposite of what Eisenhower and our fathers dreamed.
In October of 1961, the Supreme Court ruled against public school prayer, even denomination neutral prayer, in the case Engel vs. Vitale. This mundane prayer, "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country," stirred up a firestorm in New York, where the prayer was recited daily. The case was shuttled up to the Supreme Court; the prayer was deemed unconstitutional since the prayer implied New York State approved religion. The Pledge of Allegiance, however, is not a prayer, nor is it a religious doctrine -- it is merely a reaffirmation of our patriotism . In the context of the pledge, "under God" means that the government is subservient to individual rights and is not omnipotent. The pledge is a secular proclamation.
When the federal appellate court announced their decision, the American public demonstrated their outrage. Letters flooded the courts, and the some citizens went as far as sending death threats to Michael Newdow, an atheist and the plaintiff in this case. He questioned the constitutionality of the pledge on behalf of his daughter. In fact, when asked, his daughter stated she didn't mind reciting the pledge. Even her mother, who has sole custody of the girl, despises the suit. Not only does a vast majority of Americans love reciting the pledge as well as our lawmakers, it is totally within the realms of constitutionality. Our legal system has to stop its judicial legerdemain and start using common sense. Now, more than ever should Americans stand united behind our flag, our American traditions and our country.
