'Nation Under God' Goes on Trial Wednesday
by Bill Fancher and Jenni Parker
March 23, 2004
(AgapePress) - Pledge of Allegiance supporters are preparing for a prayer vigil tonight outside the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, DC. The vigil has been planned in anticipation of the high court's hearing of oral arguments Wednesday morning in a case involving the constitutionality of the phrase "under God" in the pledge.The case involves the Elk Grove Unified School District in California, which is seeking to uphold the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in its schools. Challenging that practice is Michael Newdow, an atheist who objects to the invocation of God in the Pledge and does not want his nine-year-old daughter exposed to the phrase "under God."
Rob Schenck of Faith and Action says many Christians will begin taking action this evening in order to influence the outcome of tomorrow's court hearing. "We will be holding a candlelight service in front of the Supreme Court from 7:30 to 9:00 p.m. Some people will remain all night on the steps of the Supreme Court, holding vigil and prayer," he says.
A press conference will be held Wednesday morning at 9:00, followed by a rally, after which the oral arguments before the justices are scheduled to begin. Many supporters of the Pledge of Allegiance feel there is cause to be concerned about the outcome of tomorrow's hearing.
The Constitutional Question
In June 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California, ruled that recitation of the Pledge in public schools is tantamount to an endorsement of religion and therefore unconstitutional. And now that the case is about to come up before the highest appellate court in the land, should the justices uphold the lower court's ruling, their decision could overturn what has been common practice in many of America's public schools for half a century.
But Catholic League president William Donohue believes the high court justices should uphold the Pledge, because, as he contends, "It cannot seriously be maintained that the words 'under God' ... constitute the establishment of a religion."
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, along with the Thomas More Law Center, has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the Elk Grove School District. Donohue notes that there is a dramatic difference between acknowledging the nation's religious heritage and formally establishing a religion. And while he says it is no surprise that Mr. Newdow cannot understand the difference, "the American people have every right to expect that the high court can make such a distinction."
According to Donohue, the "friend of the court" brief states that the Supreme Court should take the opportunity to affirm that distinction and make it clear that "voluntary nonsectarian invocation of God in public" does not violate the Establishment Clause, and is consistent with America's history and religious heritage.
Conservative spokesman Gary Bauer is not so sure the high court will rule in favor of the two-word phrase. "The odds makers are saying God may not have five votes on the Supreme Court to keep Him in the pledge -- and I fear they are right," Bauer says. Still, he says, "perhaps a miracle will happen and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy [who are viewed as swing votes] will decide that now ... may not be the right time to tell God He is being relegated to the closet."
A Sidetrack Issue
But according to an Associated Press report, the Supreme Court may have another issue to decide -- one that could derail the entire case. According to the AP article, should the justices choose to sidestep the church-and-state dispute, they have an easy out in the fact that Newdow, the parent who brought the original suit against his daughter's school system, did not actually have custody of her at the time. And since the non-custodial parent could not sue without the mother's consent, the court could summarily dismiss his case.
The custodial parent, Sandra Banning, is a born-again Christian. She has told the justices hearing the case that her daughter has no objection to the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, or with reciting it along with her classmates in school. And since Banning and Newdow, who were never married, are embroiled in a bitter custody dispute, the Supreme Court is taking into consideration -- along with all the other issues -- whether Newdow had legal standing to sue on his daughter's behalf in the first place.
High Court, High Stakes
Much remains to be decided. As Faith and Action and other pledge supporters plan their prayer vigil and rally, the Christian litigation experts prepare to defend their legal arguments. Meanwhile, Catholic League's William Donohue points out that what is at stake in this case is more than the matter of whether public schools will be allowed to lead children in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
"Ultimately," Donohue says, "what is at stake is the right of Americans to celebrate their religious heritage on public property without fear of reprisal."
While he acknowledges that the Bill of Rights secures rights for minorities, Donohue insists that, at the same time, "the majority does not lose its rights simply because it is the majority." He contends that court censorship of the words "under God" from the pledge would "send an unmistakably hostile message" to the estimated 94 percent of Americans who believe in God.
