Citizenship ‘Under God’: The Pledge and the Court

BreakPoint with Charles Colson ^ | 24 March 04 | Charles Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court holding that under God in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, absent Justice Scalia, who has recused himself, will hear arguments today as to whether to uphold the ruling or allow children and others to continue to recite those familiar words.

In yesterday’s New York Times, columnist David Brooks made a great suggestion for the justices. He assigned as bedtime reading the book A Stone of Hope by David L. Chappell.

Chappell’s thesis is that without America’s religious beliefs, we never would have had a successful civil rights movement. Chappell argues that there were two groups involved in the civil rights movement. First, there were “mainstream liberals, often white and Northern,” who “tended to have an optimistic view of human nature”—these are the utopians who believe that, with government help, public awareness, and education, all the world’s ills can be mended. The second group, “mostly black and Southern,” were religiously motivated. They included Martin Luther King, Jr., who saw that in a fallen world, justice can only be achieved by a commitment to religious beliefs.

One only has to read King’s speeches to see his constant references from the Old Testament prophets. And in his Letters from a Birmingham Jail he cited Augustine and Aquinas to show that an unjust law is no law at all and that God’s law sets men free.

Brooks, writing as a Jew, says that whether you believe in the Bible or not you have to agree that it has a deeper and more accurate understanding of human nature than secular social scientists.

In addition to Chappell’s book, I recommend that the justices also read For the Glory of God by Rodney Stark, an eminent secular social scientist at the University of Washington. Stark shows how Christianity led to great advances in science, the reformation of human behavior, and the end of slavery.

You see, the real question raised by this case is one posed by Phillip Johnson, the Berkeley law professor and founder of the Intelligent Design movement. “If we are not to declare ourselves one nation under God,” Johnson asks, “what are we under? The universe? The UN? The goddess Gaia? Or the Supreme Self?” The editorial board of the New York Times, which, despite Brook’s superb column, favors the elimination of the words under God, presumably leaving us as one nation under nothing.

But that is the ultimate act of hubris. We declare ourselves free from any moral law or governor higher than the imperial self, and so we become gods. I cannot imagine a more frightening prospect.

Now the fate of the republic doesn’t hang on two words, but still this is no small matter. We’ve seen the steady erosion of Christian influence in American life over the years and a growing hostility to those who hold that the one, true sovereign God called us into being and reigns over us. The Court’s decision will be one more step toward the official establishment of secularism as American religion. And it will tell much about our values, humility, and our capacity to love and respect one another.

Brooks suggests that the most important thing at the moment is to try to understand what the phrase one nation under God might mean. “That’s not proselytizing,” he concludes, “it’s citizenship.” To that I say, Amen.

[Mr. Silverback]

The Supremes need to get this right. If it's tyranny to have people voluntarily acknowledge the Deity with a generic statement, what wouldn't be tyranny?

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[grellis]

Do you know why Scalia recused himself?

[Ancesthntr]

If the Court strikes those words from the Pledge, expect a Bush landslide in the fall.

I would also advise any believers to instruct their kids to use the phrase in school, and be very public and defiant about it. I WANT to see a court case in which someone is punished for saying "...under G-d...."

This, far more than the issue of gay marriage, will bring the culture war to the forefront of our national consciousness. The G-dless liberals will lose that war at the ballot box - bigtime.

[Mr. Silverback]

Looking now.

[Ancesthntr]

Scalia recused himself because he came out against the 9th Circuit's verdict at some pro-religion function. In the best traditions of judicial ethics, he is trying to be ultra-honest by not being involved in a case where his objectivety is even questioned.

[azhenfud]

"This, far more than the issue of gay marriage, will bring the culture war to the forefront of our national consciousness."

I'm still wondering why there is no demand for the ousting and prosecutions of those mayors and official criminals who've broken the law in the QueerMarriage issue. The left wasted no time working over a judge intent on displaying the Ten, to which no express law was violated, the Right should demand the same adherence to the law until and IF the law is changed.

[Blzbba]

"In the best traditions of judicial ethics, he is trying to be ultra-honest by not being involved in a case where his objectivety is even questioned."


LOL! If that was the case, he'd recuse himself from the Cheney trial concerning Cheney's refusal of the release of records relating to his task force on energy policy. Since he's a personal friend of Cheney, I don't see how Scalia can attempt to maintain objectivity in that case with a straight face.

[grellis]

Wah! What more can I say?

[kinsman redeemer]

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. {which...: Heb. upon whom my name is called} Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine ears attent unto the prayer [that is made] in this place. {unto...: Heb. to the prayer of this place} For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there for ever: and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.

[familyofman]

How did we survive as a country before the words "under God" were added in 1954. There wasn't even a pledge until the 1870's. We were just lucky I guess.

[azhenfud]

"How did we survive as a country before the words 'under God' were added in 1954."

And wicked old me, I still own some coins without "In God We Trust". But, I won't refuse either of them...;-)

[Mr. Silverback]

First, the idea that he can't be objective because of a ride to a hunting trip involving 30 people is ludicrous.

Second, since Ruth Bader Ginsburg was involved with the ACLU since the Sixties and was the first director of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project, you think she should be recused from all ACLU and women's rights cases, right? If so, that makes two of us, because the media et al only seem to care about a hunting trip, not a decades long association leading to a paid advocacy position. When Ginsburg starts recusing herself, I'll think about caring about Scalia.

[Mr. Silverback]

How did we survive as a country before the words "under God" were added in 1954. There wasn't even a pledge until the 1870's. We were just lucky I guess.

1. Did you read the article, or do you think the civil rights movement and abolition were bad ideas?

2. A non-custodial parent has decided to impose a nonsense restriction on the entire country through judicial activism. Do you support that in all cases, or just the ones involving traditions less than 140 years old?

The Founders gave us government for the people. The Massachusetts Supreme Court is trying to make government by four people work. Michael Newdow wants government by one guy. Are you on his side?

[familyofman]

"Did you read the article, or do you think the civil rights movement and abolition were bad ideas?"

Yes, I read the article. No the civil rights movement and abolition were not bad things.

Abolition took place before 1954, along with a lot of other great things in this country (think revolution & civil war). Having the words "under God" does not either help, nor hinder further great things taking place. The nation will survive - with or without a pledge or the words "under God". There is so much more to the ideal of America that it would be in jeopardy from having that phrase deleted from the pledge.

[billbears]

I am not on Newdow's side however I do not hold that the Founders intended we say a pledge to a symbol at all. Especially when many, note I didn't say all, willingly are in support of unconstitutional acts across the board because one party or another is in charge. If you can't remember, or choose not to remember, the limitations set forth in the document the flag is supposed to represent, why bother saying the pledge?

[Blzbba]

Oh, I agree with you on that hag Ginsburg. I just think it will be impossible for Scalia to maintain objectivity in the trial of a personal friend, which Cheney was regardless of some duck hunt.

[conserv13]

David L. Chappell.

From comedy central? Is there a quote from Tyrone Biggums?

[billbears]

You may be right about the Founders, but so what?

And therein lies the problem? So what. It makes us 'feel good'. I think the only thing of worth in the entire pledge are the two words 'under God'. But as for the rest? Who cares about the intent of the Constitution or the document itself? We've got our pledge to a symbol to hang on, so everything is A-OK in the world. I'm just saying a little too much concern is being put on words to a symbol when the underlying problem of 90% of the citizens of the respective states know little if any of what is actually in the Constitution. And how many of them care?

It looks as if as long as we have the pledge to a symbol intact, the march to socialism can continue unhampered