"Under God" - The Ninth District Court reinterprets American History (July 2002)

The recent decision by the Ninth District Court that the pledge of allegiance to the American flag cannot be recited in publicly funded school institutions because it endorses a religious faith has touched off a firestorm in the Christian media. Reactions from disbelief to dismay abound. Yet, through all the noise, I suspect we are trying to land our punches in the wrong place. Believers somehow thing the way to combat this is to assure the nation that there is a God, and that they need Him. I suspect that will only harm the cause. Let me explain.

In a recent article from the "Tolerance" community (i.e. the one that selectively eliminates the Biblical values I believe are at the center of my liberty and calls on me to accept the untrue as equal to the true) an article by David Corn outlines their argument well. Here is an excerpted quick review:

"Pledging Allegiance to Fundamentalism

By David Corn (David Corn is Washington editor of The Nation)

July 3, 2002 -- A Christian socialist who turned his back on religion. That's the guy whose handiwork politicians of both parties and religious right leaders rushed to defend this past week.

Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister in upstate New York who sermonized against the materialism of the Gilded Age and who resigned from his church after businessmen cut off funding because of his socialist activities and lectures, wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892.

Now his words, composed for a magazine-sponsored school program celebrating the quadricentennial of Columbus Day, are treated as a sacred writ. Holy irony!

When a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the pledge is unconstitutional and cannot be recited in public schools because of the "under God" phrase, no microphone on Capitol Hill was safe...

Rather than delve into the meaty legal issues of the case -- Is the pledge an endorsement of God? Is asking a child to say the pledge actually a request that the kid affirm monotheism? -- (Connie) Chung inquired of Newdow (the plaintiff), "Are you proud to be American?" and "Are you prepared ...
[to be] the most hated man in America?"

Newdow argued he was fighting for the Constitution. Chung replied, "The whole Pledge of Allegiance has to do with being patriotic and supporting America and supporting the flag."

Was she not listening? Newdow's objection was to the "under God" portion of the pledge, not the pledge itself. Chung also suggested Newdow's pursuit of this case "is far more damaging to" his daughter than having her feel like "an outsider" when the pledge is spoken in her classroom.

The response to the court's decision exposed the fundamentalism that weaves through American public life, where many, a la Chung, confuse the worship of God with patriotism.

If only "Hardball" could book Francis Bellamy today. Bellamy's version of the pledge did not contain a reference to God. Those two words were added in 1954, when Congress, reacting to a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, inserted those two words and turned the pledge into a public prayer of
sorts. The point was to contrast the godly United States of America with the godless Soviet Union.

So the pledge had worked just fine for 62 years without bringing the Big One into the picture. And according to a history of the pledge written by John Baer, Bellamy's granddaughter has maintained that Bellamy would have resented the alteration.

He had, she noted, been forced out of his own church and in his later years, when he lived in Florida, stopped attending services because he was put off by segregation in churches. (Back in 1892, Bellamy had considered adding "equality" to the "liberty and justice for all" phrase, but he realized that would draw objections from people opposed to equality for women and African Americans.)

Despite this history, American fundamentalists -- which includes congressional Democrats -- seem to regard the reference to God as an essential component of the pledge. On Greta van Susteren's Fox News show, the Reverend Jerry Falwell called the ruling "hostile to religion" and dubbed the judges "dumb and dumber." ...

I assume that in the Falwell-Vines view of the world, the "under God" portion of the pledge refers to a specific God, their God. This then would mean that the compulsory recitation of the pledge, per Falwell and Vines, is indeed the endorsement of a particular religion.

The court addressed this more generally:

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. And, the court noted, when President Dwight Eisenhower signed the 1954 act that mixed God with flag, he declared: "From this day
forward, millions of our school children will daily proclaim ... the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

That sure sounds like endorsing -- and enforcing -- a religious view.

It's no surprise that Falwell would use the occasion to preach fundamentalism and hatred (at least, hatred of judges). Or that flag-waving poles would wrap themselves in the pledge. Or that Bush, the son of a president who made the pledge a key issue in his 1988 campaign against Michael Dukakis, would follow suit.

But after Bush had a night to ponder the court's decision he took pledge-mania fundamentalism a giant step further. At the summit, he opened a press conference with Russian president Vladmir Putin by saying, "We need common sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God and
those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench."

That is a major -- and stunning -- policy declaration. Bush was announcing a new litmus test for judges. It's not just whether you're a conservative or constructionist. The question is, do you believe in God and believe that secular law follows the law of God? In other words, there are no atheists --
or agnostics -- in Bush's chambers.

Did Bush realize what he was saying? Is he going to ask all potential judicial nominees to tell him their view of God and the derivation of rights? How is this fundamentalism -- only believers need apply -- different from that of America's enemies?

The 9th Circuit Court panel's decision surely will not stand. Few judges -- or justices -- are going to challenge the nation's basic attitudes toward God and patriotism, no matter their constitutional obligations.

But praise these two appeal judges -- Alfred Goodwin and Stephen Reinhardt -- for rendering a gutsy decision and for flushing American fundamentalism into the open. Francis Bellamy would probably tip his hat to them -- and then cry over what his pledge has become."

Obviously, it is no secret that I disagree with most of Mr. Corn's argument I do not disagree merely with his conclusions, but with the logic of his statements. He cut corners on the facts to make his case. I cut some of the more hateful mudslinging aspects he wrote to analyze the essence of the writer's claim. To make sense of what he is talking about, it may help to have a few salient historical points:

Fact #1. A youth magazine called "The Youth's Companion" published the pledge first on September 8,1892 for students to repeat on Columbus Day. It was written by Francis Bellamy (the circulation manager) and reprints were sent out to public schools across the country. At its "debut" (October 12,
1892) more than 12 million children recited the "Pledge of Allegiance" thus beginning a required school-day ritual.

Fact #2. At the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C., on June 14, 1923, a change was made. For clarity, the words "the Flag of the United States" replaced "my flag".

Fact #3. In 1942, Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance.

Fact #4. One year later (June 1943) the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. According to a recent survey, only half of our fifty states have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom!

Fact #5. In June of 1954 an amendment was made to add the words "under God". President Dwight D. Eisenhower said "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever
will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

There are two issues that I believe we should examine: First, what is wrong with the argument of the "tolerance" camp as illustrated in Mr. Corn's article. The second issue is how can we address the nation with a new dynamic that will not simply be more mudslinging and haranguing over different points of view in the value of religion in public life. Let's take these two issues apart.

The Missing Points to Mr. Corn's analysis:

I believe strongly that Mr. Corn either does not understand the essential makeup of America and its legal structures, or is not able to see the lack of logic in his own argument. He makes, as I see it, three distinct arguments as he builds his article:

1. Francis Bellamy lived a sad life that fell out of favor with the churches he attended, did not include the statement "Under God" in his original writing, and would resent the change later made by President Eisenhower.

2. The pledge as it stands is an endorsement of God, and therefore should be changed.

3. President Bush should be upbraided for including the belief in God as a part of his selection of judges. His choices cannot include such a criteria.

These premises are all fundamentally flawed. In the first argument, Mr. Corn would have us believe that Francis Bellamy and his legacy have some "veto" rights to the continued content of the pledge. He simply does not. He published a pledge for the school children of his day (for which he was paid). In his copyright he intended it for public use. It reflected some great ideas, and may have had a significant role in allowing generations of students to succinctly state some of the values that reflect America. What he did was to begin a way for students to pronounce a set of values. Congress appreciated the sentiment and endorsed the idea. A later President added an important expression of a value he thought (as did the founding fathers of the nation) should be included in the basic values of each
American. The Supreme Court, to protect people like the plaintiff in this case, protected the rights of Atheists by stating clearly that no one could be coerced by the state to say the words "under God", but allowed the language of the pledge to remain intact because it reflected a basic value of America. The value of belief can be traced through the words of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and a host of other important American leaders in history. It is no secret, the republic was founded with an appreciation that we are a spiritual people, and that we acknowledge our liberties are rooted in a Divine right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We are not a group of fundamentalist Bible slingers from some
uneducated pocket of the society that is imposing a religious value. What is happening is quite the opposite, the plaintiff would like to remove a statement that still reflects a basic American value, and has been so since the establishment of the country.

If Mr. Corn would have us believe that the late date of the pledge addition "under God" meant that the sense of value in faith was a new thing in the 1950's, he needs to read the words of the first President. Washington had no fear that religious life would ruin liberty, he counted on it:

(selection from the "farewell address" by George Washington, 1796):

"Observe good faith & justice toward all Nations. Cultivate peace & harmony with all--Religion & morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice & benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human Nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?"

Francis Bellamy had no veto rights, he made a contribution to a living country, whose values have remained where our founding fathers began, liberty rooted in the rights given by a Divine creator. The recognition of that value was clearly stated numerous times in our official documents, and President Eisenhower's addition to the pledge reflected what was (and is) the historical position of the country. We believe as a people that there is a God, and that He entitles us to be free men, not bound by tyranny. We further harbor on our shores those who choose not believe in God, because there lack of belief does not mean that He is not there, and that those of us who know Him should not protect the others in our free society.

The third point that Mr. Corn makes is that we should be stunned when our President upholds the very same value that made the signers of the Declaration of Independence risk their lives before King George. They boldly proclaimed the belief that there was ONE GOD that created us:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

They created a nation rooted in this fundamental belief: Liberty is rooted in Divine entitlement. If they did not mean that, I cannot understand what they were truly saying at all. Why should my President apologize for using a value used by our Founding Fathers in selecting judges? He can and should,
regardless of those that are offended. We elected him because of his values, if we wanted Mr. Corn's values, we could elect him.

Finally, (yes there is an end) in my introduction I suggested that believers will attempt to battle the charge by telling Americans they need God. I suggested that was a mistake, and I think it is. The better approach is to drive home the illegality of the Ninth District ruling. Illegality? You bet!

Courts are to address the intent of the constitution and its writers. They make laws by applying the principles of the Constitution. I believe we can, and should, carefully point out who wrote the document, and what they historically believed. In the light of the framers of the country, the pledge fits an American value. Especially with the protections afforded to those who choose not believe as our Founding Fathers, by allowing them to omit the pledge, there is no violation of the church and state barrier. We are a country with freedom of religion, not a ban on belief in the public sector. If Mr. Corn and the tolerance camp want to change the rules, let them consider this: Our ethic and beliefs have given us the country we have. With all its faults, we love it. What will their new ethic of "freedom from
any public acknowledgement that liberty and God are related bring us?" I suspect the answer is a new form of tyranny. Been there, done that, don't want the pictures.

Just the view from my chair,

Dr. Randall Smith
Director