According to Fox
News, in a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
has overturned a 1954 act of Congress that inserted the phrase "under
God" after the phrase "one nation" in the Pledge of Allegiance to the
flag of the United States.
Even as a Canadian, I can recite the Pledge by heart without
thinking:
- I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation,
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
If the ruling survives appeal, it will mean that American
schoolchildren can no longer recite the pledge in the nine Western
states covered by the 9th Circuit Court. Happily, there is reason to
believe that the decision will be quashed by a higher court.
President Bush himself has declared the ruling "ridiculous," and so
it is, but it also is fair warning that the forces of atheist
humanism are still doggedly pressing on with their agenda to trample
Western Christian cultural heritage underfoot.
The appeals court argued that the phrase "under God" amounts to a
government endorsement of religion in violation of the Constitution's
Establishment Clause, which requires a separation of church and
state. Or does it?
Separationists have achieved a highly successful propaganda coup
in convincing most Americans, including, apparently, circuit court
judges, that the "wall of separation" is enshrined in the
Constitution, but in fact, the so-called "Establishment Clause" of
the First Amendment makes no reference, explicit or implicit, to
"separation of church and state," and only inhibits government from
establishing a particular denomination as the official state
religion.
The "wall of separation" phrase appears nowhere in the
Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of
Confederation, or, indeed, in any other official American document.
One of the first acts of the first Congress of the United States was
an act to establish chaplains for the U.S. House and the Senate.
When the United States adopted its Constitution in 1789, founder
John Adams, who advocated "a government of laws and not of men,"
observed that democracy was a system of government designed for "a
religious and moral people. It is wholly unsuited for any other."
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."
declared George Washington. "Reason and experience both forbid us to
expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious
principle."
The famous "wall" phrase actually comes from an 1802 letter Thomas
Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association. However,
Jefferson attended church services in the halls of the House of
Representatives throughout his presidency.
Radical secularists have no legitimate appeal to the US founders.
The "wall of separation" Jefferson referred to in his letter to the
Baptists had nothing to do with protecting the State from religion,
but contextually pertains to protecting the free practice of religion
from meddling by the state. In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court declared,
"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any
legislation, State or national, because this is a religious people -
this is a Christian nation." - Unanimous opinion, Church of the Holy
Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 226 (1892)
Separationists love to quote the "Establishment Clause": "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." but
usually neglect to complete the sentence: "...or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." That's it. No "wall of separation." Nothing about
eliminating Christian expression from the public square.
A month before Congress approved the First Amendment, it passed
the Northwest Ordinance, article III of which declares: "Religion,
morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the
happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall
forever be encouraged."
Chief Justice William Rehnquist of the U.S. Supreme Court observed
in a 1985 dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (472 U.S. 38, 1985) that "the
wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based upon
bad history," which "should be frankly and explicitly abandoned," as
a "mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intention of the
drafters of the Bill of Rights."
Radical separationists on and off the bench have no grounds for
appeal to the historical principles that built America. Their
"freedom from religion" idea is a postmodern ideological construct
dreamed up by radical social activists. Seems like the tail is
wagging the dog, and it's a mighty short tail at that.
Charles W. Moore is a Nova Scotia based freelance writer and editor.
His articles, features, and syndicated columns have appeared in more
than 40 magazines and newspapers in Canada, the U.S., the U.K., and
Australia. He is a columnist and editorial writer for Atlantic
Fisherman and The Interim, columnist for the Halifax Daily News, news
editor and columnist for Applelinks.com, a columnist and contributing
editor for MacOpinion and Low End Mac. Mr. Moore is also a member of
the Civitas society.
