Solving the Pledge of Allegiance Controversy

The recent court ruling that saying “under God” in the Pledge of
Allegiance threatens our American form of government came as a shock to millions
of Americans. Even the cynical “nothing-can-surprise-us” national
media raised its collective eyebrow at the decision.

Given the popularity of the Pledge, the reaction to that ruling was not surprising.
For example, Members from both the House (mostly the Republicans) and Senate
walked outside their chambers, faced the Supreme Court, and recited the Pledge
– with a particularly loud emphasis on the “offensive” phrase. And
for days following the decision, I was inundated with radio interviewers seeking
the background of the case and its repercussions for the future. Even judges
called, offering suggestions of how to deal with their renegade brethren. Congressmen
also called, seeking help in drafting legislation to strip power from the courts
as well as to begin impeachment proceedings against the offending judges.

This decision was described by White House and congressional leaders with adjectives
such as “outrageous,” “ridiculous,” “stupid,”
“asinine,” “twisted,” etc. However, it was not, as many
might believe, far and away the single worst decision rendered by courts in
recent years; it was just the one we all heard about. This decision, for example,
was no less egregious than when the federal judge in Texas warned students that
if they used the word “Jesus” in a prayer, a federal marshal would
arrest them and give them six months in jail. Nor was this decision less despicable
than when a federal judge in Alabama ordered undercover monitors into the classrooms
to report to him if students engaged in illegal and forbidden religious conduct
– such as praying over their lunches at school. No, these unpublicized decisions
were just as unsavory as the recent one by the 9th Circuit.

Nonetheless, millions of Americans, now made aware of this absurd decision,
are properly asking whether it will be overturned. Yet the more important question
is how this decision came to be made in the first place.

The nation received its first public glimpse into what lay behind this decision
during the second presidential debate in St. Louis in 2000. Al Gore promised
that if he were elected President, he would continue the practice of his predecessor
and place judges on the courts who believed that the Constitution was a living
document. George Bush, on the other hand, pledged that his judicial nominees
would be strict constructionists.

  • A strict constructionist interprets the Constitution as it is written,
    not as he or she wished it had been written. Thus, the Constitution’s guarantee
    of the “free exercise of religion” would protect the right to use
    “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
  • A judge who believes in a “living constitution” believes that
    what the Supreme Court says about an issue is more important than what the
    Constitution says about the same issue. These judges agree with the philosophy
    set forth by former Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes that,
    “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges
    say it is.”

The decision of the three judges in the Pledge case revealed that only one of
the three was a strict constructionist – and unfortunately he was outvoted by
the two “living constitution” judges. Significantly, those two did
not use the Constitution to strike down the Pledge but instead cited three recent
tests erected by the Supreme Court to replace the express language of the Constitution.

The first test was established in 1971 when the Court decided that the language
of the religion clauses in the Constitution would be replaced with what it called
its “Lemon Test.” Under this test, unless a public religious activity
had a primarily secular purpose, that religious activity would be unconstitutional.
In 1984, the Court established its second test, the “Endorsement Test,”
declaring that if it appeared that the government was permitting a public religious
activity, then the activity would be unconstitutional because someone might
think that the government was “endorsing” religion. Then, in 1992,
the Court added its third test, the “Psychological Coercion Test.”
Under this test, if a single individual (such as the atheist in California who
objected to the Pledge) is uncomfortable in the presence of a public religious
public activity, then the Court will make that activity stop.

The two judges who ruled against the Pledge cited each of these three Tests
rather than the Constitution. They struck down the Pledge because it failed
the “Lemon Test,” the “Endorsement Test,” and the “Psychological-Coercion
Test.”

While most Americans are completely unaware of these two judicial philosophies,
those in Washington are not. In fact, it is the Senate’s clear understanding
of these two philosophies that has caused one of the biggest unreported battles
this session.

President Bush, true to his promise, has nominated 103 “strict constructionists” to fill federal judgeships. The Senate leadership, however, has refused to confirm
his judges slated for the Court of Appeals. The Senate understands that if “strict
constructionists” were placed on the courts, then the judicially-enacted
national policies against school and graduation prayers, against the protection
of innocent life, against traditional morality, etc. would be threatened. In
fact, many of President Bush’s judicial nominees have gone more than a year
without Senate action while it took President Clinton an average of only 77
days for the Senate to get his “living constitution” judicial nominees
confirmed. Therefore, even though the Senate voted a 99-0 condemnation of the
Pledge decision, for many Senators this vote was largely disingenuous since
more that half the Senate (nearly all the Democrats) is actively engaged in
keeping judges off the courts who would uphold the Pledge.

Yet, despite the Senate’s direct complicity in the Pledge decision, the Senate
is not to blame for this travesty; Christians are. Why? Because of their widespread
refusal to vote. There are 60 million evangelicals in America, and in the last
election only 15 million voted (and 24 million of those 60 million evangelicals
are not even registered to vote)! In that same election, five Senators lost
who, if still in office, would have provided a majority of Senators that would
confirm President Bush’s judicial nominees. However, those five Senators lost
by a collective total of 100,000 votes in those five States – and 45 million
evangelicals did not even vote in that election!

If Christians had voted for God-fearing Senators last election, not only would
we have a different type of judge moving into the federal judiciary but fifty-three
measures now languishing in the Senate would now be law. Those measures include
a ban on human cloning, a ban on partial-birth abortions, a ban on “aborting”
children after they are born (called the “Infants Born-Alive Protection
Act”), a reversal of the discrimination against marriage, protection for
faith-based programs, and many other measures. The President wants to sign these
bills; the House has already passed them; but the Senate leadership refuses
even to hold hearings on them.

President James A. Garfield (an ordained minister of the Gospel) foresaw a
century ago where we are today:

Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character
of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because
the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If that body be
intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities
to represent them in the national legislature. If the next centennial does not
find us a great nation, it will be because those who represent the enterprise,
the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political
forces.

Understanding the importance of Christian involvement in elections, and its
impact on the entire nation, Rev. Charles Finney (a leader in the 19th century’s
Second and Third Great Awakenings) warned:

The Church must take right ground in regard to politics. . . . The
time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and take consistent ground
in politics. . . . God cannot sustain this free and blessed country which we
love and pray for unless the Church will take right ground. Politics are a part
of a religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to
the country as a part of their duty to God. . . . God will bless or curse this
nation according to the course Christians take in politics.

If we want to see less Pledge of Allegiance type rulings, then its time that
Christians get out and vote. Thirty-three States have Senate elections this
November, and in many of those States there are solid, evangelical, God-fearing
Christians running for the Senate. In fact, many of those now running for the
U. S. Senate have been in the U. S. House passing the good bills, but now want
to move to the Senate where they can help break the logjam.

As the November elections draw near, heed the words of the Rev. Matthias Burnet,
who in 1803 properly warned:

Ye whose high prerogative it is to . . . invest with office and authority
or to withhold them and in whose power it is to save or destroy your country,
consider well the important trust . . . which God . . . has put into your hands.
To God and posterity you are accountable for them. . . . Let not your children
have reason to curse you for giving up those rights and prostrating those institutions
which your fathers delivered to you.

WallBuilders has resources that provide comprehensive information
on the Founders views on the Constitution (see Original
Intent
), the solution the Founders provided for judicial activism (see
Restraining
Judicial Activism
), and a discussion of possible remedies for the courts’
hostility towards religion (see
A Constitutional Amendment Protecting School Prayer
).

print

By |2017-03-30T16:23:30+00:00December 31st, 2016|Categories: Issues and Articles|0 Comments