Supreme cop-out? High court upholds pledge on technicality

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The June 14 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that tossed out a lawsuit challenging the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance has met with mixed reaction among Christian conservatives.

In an 8-0 decision, the court ruled that the plaintiff, Michael Newdow, an atheist from California, had no legal standing to file the suit on behalf of his daughter because he was not the custodial parent.

“When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law,” Justice John Paul Stephens wrote in the unanimous opinion.

The court opted not to rule on the constitutional or freedom of expression implications, meaning similar suits across the country are likely.

“Look for more atheists to come out of the closet in the near future with new attacks on the pledge,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The high court will not be able to sidestep this issue for long.”

Three of the Supreme Court justices—Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas—said they would have preferred to rule on the constitutionality of the phrase itself. The three justices said they would have ruled that the words “under God” do not violate the Constitution.

“While we all would have liked a ruling on the merits upholding ‘under God’ in the Pledge for school children, we’re gratified that Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas took the opportunity to write separately for the purpose of saying that the pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution,” said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America.

LaRue said the unanimous decision was a bold statement for parental rights. Newdow—who acted as his own attorney in the case—sued because he objected to his daughter’s saying the pledge each day at her school in the Elk Grove School District. He wanted the phrase “under God” removed.

The girl’s mother, Sandra Banning, is a born-again Christian who has custody of her daughter and said she does not object to the girl reciting the pledge in school.

Dark cloud removed
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which represented members of Congress and hundreds of thousands of Americans in an amicus brief supporting the pledge, agreed with LaRue in praising the decision.

“While the court did not address the merits of the case, it is clear that the Pledge of Allegiance and the words ‘under God’ can continue to be recited by students across America, the ACLJ administrator said. “By dismissing this case and removing the appeals court decision, the Supreme Court has removed a dark cloud that has been hanging over one of the nation’s most important and cherished traditions—the ability of students across the nation to acknowledge the fact that our freedoms in this country come from God, not government.”

While some conservatives were relieved that the Supreme Court upheld the phrase, for now, others were frustrated that the judges dodged the larger question of freedom of religious expression in public places.

Nothing to celebrate
Gary Bauer, a political activist in Washington, D.C., said the decision offered “little reason to celebrate.”

“This is no real victory in the culture war,” Bauer said. “The clear thrust of the court’s rulings for the last several decades all point to the same conclusion—they want religion removed from the public square. It started when the court ended voluntary school prayer in 1963 and it has continued right up until today when displaying the Ten Commandments on public property is considered to be a violation of our Constitution.

“Mr. Newdow’s sin was that he was moving too fast—the activist judges prefer to strip us of our heritage slowly so as not to rouse us from our sleep. A decision to alter the Pledge of Allegiance would have been a gigantic wake-up call. Stay tuned—this one will be back.”

Dr. James C. Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, weighed in on the issue, chastising the panel for not defending America’s moral and Christian heritiage.

“In fact, it showed a lack of principle that is truly appalling,” he said. “Instead of settling this question once and for all, the court has left the nation to wonder if God’s name will be found unconstitutional if another challenge is brought in a procedurally correct fashion.”

Broader concerns
Several pro-family advocates expressed concern over even wider implications.

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute in Sacramento, said the decision underscores how critical the November election is for pro-family advocates.

“While this is a short-term victory for supporters of the pledge, we must recognize that only three of the nine justices voiced an opinion in support of its constitutionality,” Dacus said. “Consequently, whoever wins the presidency in November may well end up deciding this matter through pivotal judicial appointments to the high court.”

Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America, echoed Dacus, saying American culture is paying a high price for such rulings.

“The so-called wall of separation in the First Amendment is a myth,” he said. “Those words appear nowhere in the Constitution. The concept of separation of church and state is the invention of an activist judiciary.

The Founding Fathers—from Adams to Washington—proclaimed that America was founded on Christian principles, and that any attempt to sever this nation from those principles would prove an unmitigated disaster. And so it has.”

EP News Service contributed to this report.

Published, July 2004

Christian Examiner™, P.O. Box 2606 El Cajon, CA 92021 • 619-668-5100 • Fax 619-668-1115
Email: info@christianexaminer.com • Web site: www.christianexaminer.com