EDITORIAL: Sky won’t fall, however court rules_102003

Posted: 10/17/03

EDITORIAL:
Sky won't fall, however court rules

Sometime next year, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether public schools can lead children to say the words “under God” when they recite the Pledge of Allegiance. While this case will further define the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …”), it will herald neither the dawn of a new era nor the end of the world as we know it.

The case has been brought by Michael Newdow, a California atheist and father of a child who attends public school. Newdow claims his daughter's constitutional rights are violated when a teacher leads her class in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance because it includes “under God.” The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined the words themselves are not unconstitutional but recitation of the pledge in public schools violates the Constitution. Following torrents of protest, the Supreme Court voted to hear the case.

A couple of approaches cast light on how this case might turn out.

An accommodationist approach would affirm inclusion of “under God” in the pledge, no matter when or where it is said. This theory holds that the First Amendment forbids Congress from establishing or supporting a specific religion. Short of that, government at any level can accommodate the religious beliefs of citizens and their religious practices. Reciting “under God” in the pledge would not constitute establishment of religion and consequently would be acceptable.

A strict separationist approach, however, would demand removal of the words, at least when the Pledge of Allegiance is said in public schools. According to this theory, the government violates the Establishment Clause any time it promotes religion or coerces citizens to participate in religion, both generically and specifically. So, a public schoolteacher, as an employee of the government, would violate the First Amendment by leading students to recite the pledge if it includes “under God.”

“Under God” supporters face a unique challenge in this case. Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the court's most conservative justices who normally could be counted as a vote for the accommodationist approach, has recused himself. He did not cite his reason, but it's presumably because his impartiality has been questioned, since he publicly criticized the 9th Circuit Court's decision. Since a 4-4 tie would affirm the lower court, at least five justices, not counting Scalia, must agree “under God” should stay.

Even before the case is heard, we can expect a victory for “under God” very well may be hollow. Searching for a way to counter the charge that overt religious acts or statements violate the rights of religious minorities, advocates often claim the words and deeds do not have significant religious meaning. Whether it's stamping “In God We Trust” on money, placing a nativity scene in a city park or delivering a “To Whom it May Concern” prayer at a public function, defenders often fall back on the notion the action does not serve a specifically religious function and therefore does not violate the Constitution.

This raises an obvious question: If a religious act doesn't serve a religious purpose, why bother? Of course, many faithful Americans worry about the erosion of culture. The very idea of dropping “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance seems like one more victory for God-haters. However, one can argue that the pervasiveness of half-hearted, watered-down religion provides most Americans an inoculation of “god” sufficient to prevent them from experiencing the real God Almighty.

For example, poll after poll shows the majority of Americans claim to be Christians and affirm the value of prayer, Bible reading and church attendance in their lives. But you'd be hard-pressed to prove it by attendance at church on Sunday, not to mention the way they live their lives and make moral decisions.

No one knows how the Supreme Court will rule on “under God.” But however the case turns out, the challenge will not arise when children rise and say the pledge, but when Christians try to convince a lost and dying world the only hope is to live under submission to God.
–Marv Knox
E-mail the editor at marvknox@baptiststandard.com