CHRISTIANITY, THE COURTS, AND OUR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
by Stan Griffin

A recent decision by a federal appeals court in California, calling part of the Pledge of Allegiance an "endorsement of a religious belief" and casting doubt on its constitutionality, brings to mind a well-known television comedian of the 1950s and 1960s.

One night Red Skelton recounted a story from his childhood. During a class recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, one of his teachers (a Mr. Lasswell) became upset at the lack of feeling in the children's voices. So he gave them his reading which explained the meaning of each word. (It began: "I--me, an individual, a committee of one; PLEDGE--dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self-pity; ALLEGIANCE--my love and my devotion ...")

After completing Mr. Lasswell's version, Skelton concluded with the following: "Since I was a small boy ... two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: 'under God.' Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said 'That's a prayer' and that would be eliminated from schools, too?"

Skelton's fears seem to have been realized five years after his death with the help of the Ninth U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. On July 26, 2002 the three-judge panel, by a 2-1 ruling, decided the Pledge's inclusion in public school ceremonies is unconstitutional because of those two words.

The majority opinion, expressed by judges Alfred T. Goodwin and Stephen Reinhardt, expressed the principle that to require public school teachers to recite and lead the Pledge in its present form is unconstitutional, even if the school doesn't require students to repeat it. (Since a 1943 Supreme Court ruling, schools are not allowed to force pupils to do so.)

When the court's declaration was made public, there was an immediate outcry from politicians, religious groups, and average American citizens. Judge Goodwin, taking notice of the reaction, put the ruling on hold indefinitely to give the three justices time to reconsider their action. In any case, it wouldn't take effect until all appeals are exhausted. The court's jurisdiction extends only to nine Western states, but their actions have national implications.

The U. S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution condemning the court's actions. A sample of public responses follow: "This is outrageous." " ... the worst kind of political correctness run amok ... " ... ridiculous ..." (President Bush) " ... just nuts ..." (Sen. Daschle) "It calls into question--"'In God We Trust' on U. S. currency and 'So help me God'" (words used when judges and the president are sworn into office) "An overwhelming majority might approve the Pledge, but a tiny minority can stifle their rights." It should be noted that criticism spanned political boundaries.

Ferdinand Fernandez, the dissenting justice in the California court's decision said: "We will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings."

The Pledge was composed in 1892 to be part of the 400th anniversary of Columbus' landing in America. Its author, Rev. Francis Bellamy, hoped that it would become an international peace oath. Congress and President Eisenhower made it part of the official flag-raising ritual in 1942. Twelve years later, after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, the government added "under God," the words which are at the crux of the current controversy.