June 27, 2002

LATEST DEVELOPMENT (4 p.m. Central)... A federal appeals court judge who issued yesterday's ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance is now blocking that ruling from taking effect. Judge Alfred Goodwin, the author of the 2-1 ruling, has now stayed his decision. That will prevent it from taking effect until the complete 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides whether it agrees. The 9th Circuit can now re-hear the case with the same three judges, or with an 11-judge panel. The full court has often overturned controversial decisions from three judges.

(AgapePress) - Once again, the courts are attacking the Christian roots of America. In a decision which has shocked believers, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of the words "under God."

The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit declared Wednesday afternoon that the phrase "under God" amounts to a government endorsement of religion -- a violation, it says, of the Constitution's Establishment Clause which requires separation of church and state.

The three-judge panel noted professing to be a nation under God is no different than professing to be a nation under Jesus or under Zeus -- none of which, it says, can be neutral with respect to religion. The panel said when the Pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who objects is confronted with "an unacceptable choice between participating and protesting." But as AgapePress columnist David Sisler points out, America itself was founded by protestors.

The case was brought by a Sacramento atheist, Michael Newdow, who objected to his second-grade daughter being required to say the Pledge at her school.

It is expected the ruling will eventually be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Reaction? You Bet!
Even the liberal federal judges who yesterday ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional could not have imagined the amount of reaction their decision would generate. Politicians, pro-family groups, and patriots are blasting both the ruling and the court from which it originated.

Congress reacted angrily to the ruling, voting quickly and unanimously (99-0) on a resolution expressing its "strong disagreement" with the decision. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle called the ruling "nuts"; Senator Christopher Bond said the founding fathers must be "spinning in their graves"; Senator Robert Byrd called it the work of a "stupid" judge; and Senator Byron Dorgan said the judges need their "heads examined."

Across the way, members of the U.S. House voiced opinions just as descriptive. Congressman Ronnie Shows said the ruling is a "disgrace" as well as "ridiculous [and] outrageous"; Congressman Joe Pitts said the court has embarked on a "Stalinist purge"; and Congressman John Hostettler said the opinion should be treated for what it is: "a bad opinion."

What does President Bush think of the 9th Circuit's decision? White House spokesman Ari Fleischer says the Chief Executive has one word for it: "Ridiculous." In relaying the president's negative reaction, Fleischer said the Justice Department may appeal the ruling.

And according to Associated Press, lawmakers on Capitol Hill have said they would push for a constitutional amendment restoring the words "under God" if the Supreme Court does not reverse the lower court's decision.

Pro-Family Reaction
Numerous pro-family groups are ripping the 9th Circuit for its decision on Wednesday. The Mississippi-based American Family Association says the court is on a "search-and-destroy mission" to remove and all vestiges of America's religious heritage from the public square. Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the AFA Center for Law & Policy says there is no basis in law for the decision.

Brian Fahling

"It's judicial silliness on steroids," Fahling says, "and it would be laughable if it weren't so tragic in terms of its potential consequence. It would appear that the Ninth Circuit, in particular, is on a search-and-destroy mission with respect to the religious heritage of this nation. If they find it in the public square, they believe it is their divine appointment -- although they wouldn’t say 'divine' -- to stamp it out."

Fahling says the 9th Circuit has been the butt of frequent judicial jokes among Supreme Court members because the lower court has been overturned by the Supreme Court so many times. "It's the most reversed circuit in the country," he says. "There was one year not so long ago when every single case that went before the United States Supreme Court from that circuit was reversed. They don't often get it right, I think is the story there."

Fahling believes the high court will ultimately reverse this case as well.

Sandy Rios

Sandy Rios is president of Concerned Women for America. Rios says the court demonstrated quite clearly it is not "under God" and is speaking only for itself, not the nation.

"All of the convoluted decisions of all of the manmade courts in history will never be able to diminish the omnipotent power of the Creator over all mankind," Rios says. "While they may be under the foolish notion that we have surpassed the need to honor or acknowledge Him, they must not be allowed to force their damnable arrogance on the rest of us."

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family says the "abominable ruling by an imperious court" is an insult against America and people of faith. He says the decision is an example of what happens when "ultra-liberal" judges on the federal bench can "go about their social engineering without accountability to the people."

Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer of American Values expected something like this would eventually happen. "This shouldn't be that shocking because it's the natural, logical conclusion of 30 years of just bizarre church-state rulings by the federal judiciary," Bauer says.

He was angered by the court's decision, as well as the timing of the decision. "In a time like this, when the nation is at war, the court has engaged in a form of judicial terrorism," Bauer says.

David Barton of WallBuilders contends the ruling goes much deeper than the Pledge itself. "[The clause] 'under God' ... goes back to the fourth verse of the national anthem," Barton notes. "So what we're now saying is the national anthem is unconstitutional -- but it's out of the same national anthem that we get the national motto, which we put on our currency."

"So now the currency and the national motto are all unconstitutional, not to mention the fact that the Pledge only mentions God once. The Declaration [of Independence] mentions God four times -- so it's got to be four times more unconstitutional than the Pledge."

Barton says that's not all. "When you go to the Constitution, [it] actually invokes Christian beliefs twice directly ... not just 'God' beliefs but Christian beliefs. So we now understand I guess, from this court, that the Constitution is unconstitutional because it's a lot more radical than 'under God'."

Barton think a new effort will begin to put an end to judicial activism because of this ruling. He believes Congress will be out front in that battle.

Family Research Council spokesperson Genevieve Wood had this reaction from the conservative lobbying group: "We believe the Ninth Circuit is clearly out of step with the people of his country, and actually the history of its founding," she says. "This ruling we believe represents another attempt to secularize a country that was born out of religious liberty."

Another former presidential candidate, Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus, was a bit angered by the ruling. "This should be treated as the joke that it is," Phillips says. "This is arrogant folly on the part of three men who are called judges."

Phillips says people need to recognize that no court decision can change the law or the Constitution. "I hope that most Americans will realize that this has no bearing on what they can do and what they should do," he says, "and I pray ever more fervently and more comprehensively we will recite the Pledge of Allegiance and recognize that we are one nation under God."

Rich Cizik, vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, was appalled by the ruling. He says the court is suppressing religion. "There are people in this country who have absolutist views of separation of church and state, which is not to protect religious freedom but to suppress it -- and I think that's what is occurring here in this decision," he says.

Cizik feels sure that many Americans are as aghast by the ruling as he is.

And Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council had a typical reaction to the announcement. "It is absolutely the epitome of federal court idiocy," Schenck says. "To claim that the official Pledge of Allegiance of the United States is unconstitutional because it violates the imaginary separation of church and state is the height of ridiculousness."

Schenck has already begun an e-mail campaign to persuade the Supreme Court to over turn the 9th Circuit's decision. The consensus is that the ruling will not be upheld by the Supreme Court.

And In the Other Corner ...
Obviously, not everyone thinks the 9th Circuit erred in its decision. The American Civil Liberties Union, an ardent opponent of prayer in the public arena, most notably in schools, predictably agrees with the court's ruling, saying it is "consistent with recent Supreme Court rulings invalidating prayer at school events." While saying schools should teach "tolerance" and good citizenship, the ACLU says they must not favor one religion over another or belief over non-belief.

And the New Jersey-based group American Atheists says the ruling "striking down the 'religionized' [sic] version of the Pledge of Allegiance" is a victory for individuals and for separation of church and state. The group's president, Ellen Johnson, says government should stay out of the business of telling people whether or not they should acknowledge a particular deity.