One Nation Under God

     VOLUME 1                     ISSUE 24

                  

              “ONE NATION UNDER GOD'

Courts possess very potent powers, both coercive and moral.
Although that power is asserted over an entire culture it is not
dramatic because it proceeds incrementally, but since the
increments accumulate, it is all the more potent for that. What
Judges have wrought is a coup d'etat-slow-moving and genteel,
but a coup d'etat nonetheless.   Robert Bork
                

          Each day, after a moment of silence, over 47,000 children enrolled in the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County School system begin the day by standing with their hand over their heart, facing the flag of the United States of America and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. It is the policy of the school system, a requirement for every class.  “One nation under God” each child proclaims.  For the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Constitutional rights of these children are being violated.  Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, wrote in a recent opinion:

In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation ‘under God’ is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation ‘under God’ is not a mere acknowledgement that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase ‘one nation under God’ in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and — since 1954 — monotheism. …A profession that we are a nation ‘under God’ is identical, for [constitutional] purposes, to a profession 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. 

         

          Newdow vs. Elk Grove Unified School District *will soon be decided by the United States Supreme Court.  It is a curious case.

          The Pledge of Allegiance was the authored by Francis Bellamy, who was both a socialist and a Baptist minister.  In 1892, while serving as Chairman of a committee of State School Superintendents, he introduced the Pledge to celebrate of the 400^th anniversary of the discovery of the New World by Christopher Columbus.  The word “equality” was omitted from his original draft in deference to a widely held belief by some that equality toward African Americans and women was not required.  In 1954, after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, Congress added the words “under God”.   

Michael Newdow, an atheist, is the estranged father of an eight year old student in the Elk Grove California school district. Believing that the school system was promoting religion, Newdow filed suit. Despite the fact that his ex wife has legal custody of their child, he claims that his fundamental right to direct the religious education of his child is violated by the school opening each day with the Pledge. The child, a Christian who actively participates in her church, does not object to the daily recitation . Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit considered “the coercive effect” of the Pledge upon the elementary aged child reason enough to declare it unconstitutional.

The First Amendment of the Constitution was adopted in 1789 and reads as follows:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”   Several states, including North Carolina, refused to ratify the Constitution until this Amendment was adopted. Considering the worship of God to be an unalienable natural right and owing to the fact that nine of the twelve original states had some form of established state religion, no one was in favor of a national religion.

 The Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law inhibiting the free exercise of religion.  Further it mandates that the Federal Government refrain from favoring one religion over another or  from discriminating against any citizen on account of religious belief.

Religion has always been intertwined with American government.  No serious study of the history of our Republic could conclude otherwise.  Reverent appreciation of the blessings of God toward our country has been a part of our Government since its inception.  America has been and remains a religious nation. The disestablishment of religion was a practical response to the government of a pluralistic society. It enabled citizens to reach a moral consensus concerning government without being distracted by theological differences.  It never was intended to create a secular government indifferent to the blessings of an Almighty God.

Over the years in one case after another, the Supreme Court has steadily moved our nation from its religious roots toward a secular indifference to religion. Historian Thomas West points to the obvious consequence of this movement: “Government's ban on God is particularly striking in light of this fact: the Declaration of Independence says liberty is our inalienable right only because we are "endowed" with that right by our Creator. Our principles supposedly require us never to breathe a word to school children about where those principles come from. But if we refuse to acknowledge that foundation of our principles in "the laws of nature and of nature's God," what do our principles rest on? If liberty is not the gift of God, it must be the gift of government. But what government gives, government may take away. As Jefferson said: without God, liberty will not last.”

 Liberty is not a creation of a secular world.  Liberty is a self evident expression of God’s love for mankind.  John Foster Dulles correctly observed: "Our nation was founded as an experiment in human liberty. Its institutions reflect the belief of our founders that men had their origin and destiny in God; that they were endowed by Him with unalienable rights and had duties prescribed by moral law, and that human institutions ought primarily to help men develop their God-given possibilities.”

The sovereignty of God is not affected by the removal of religion from the classrooms of this country.  It is the sovereignty of the people who are challenged by the omission. Only someone unfamiliar with religion could ever conclude that the historically descriptive phrase “one nation under God” is a prayer. Yet, if it is a prayer, let us hope that it is a prayer answered.  If it is religious coercion, let every citizen be so compelled. God speaks to the heart of mankind in a voice too loud to be muffled by the dictates of the Supreme Court of this land. Liberty is the legacy of our forefathers and the means by which life, justice and equality are secured.  For how shall we pass the blessing of liberty to the next generation?  How can “this nation, under God, have a new birth of freedom - and the government of the people, by the people, not perish from the earth” without each new generation understanding from whence our liberty comes?

As the Supreme Court considers this case,* will you pray with me a graduation prayer ruled unconstitutional in 1992:

God of the Free, Hope of the Brave –

For the liberty of America, we thank you.

May our children grow up to guard it.

May each of us strive to fulfill what you require of us: To do justly,

to love mercy,

to walk humbly with the Lord, Our God.

(* the case never reached the issue of whether the pledge contains a prayer in that it was ruled that the Plaintiff had no standing to sue- prayer answered I guess)

** Atticus penned this column years ago but with recent discussions of the Pledge in school I felt it appropriate to re-publish)