http://www.au.org/churchstate/03-12-editorial.htm#1
The Supreme Court And The Pledge Case
Trouble On The Horizon
Like it or not, the Supreme Court is going to hear a legal case challenging
the use of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance at public
schools.
On strictly constitutional grounds, this ought to be an easy decision. The
Constitution is a secular document. Founders like Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison made it clear that they believed an American’s religious or
philosophical beliefs should be irrelevant to the government.
It’s also an easy case from a pragmatic policy perspective. Our country is
becoming increasingly diverse. Public schools serve children of many faiths
(and none). They should stop requiring students to make a religious
profession as the price of expressing patriotism.
When the Rev. Francis Bellamy penned the Pledge in 1892, he spoke of “one
nation, indivisible.” The last thing Bellamy wanted was a Pledge that would
divide Americans along religious lines. To the extent that the current
Pledge does that, it has the exact opposite of its intended effect.
Legally and pragmatically this dispute may be simple. Politically, it is
something else entirely.
It would be foolish to pretend that this controversy does not present a
significant threat. If the high court strikes down recitation of the Pledge
in public schools, a political firestorm will occur. Religious Right groups
will quickly mobilize and demand a constitutional amendment. What’s worse,
the ruling is likely to come down in late June of 2004 – a few months
before what is expected to be a hard-fought national election. In that
environment, it’s doubtful that many political leaders will have the
backbone to stand up and say why altering the First Amendment is a bad
idea.
True, the Constitution is difficult to amend, but the pressure in this
instance could easily outstrip anything we’ve seen before. No one should
assume that it cannot happen.
What if the high court overturns the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and
approves the Pledge for public school use? Then we face a different set of
problems. Such a decision would mark the first time the justices have ever
approved any type of government-sponsored religious activity in public
schools. Religious Right groups will begin pushing the envelope, trying to
see what other types of “ceremonial” uses of religion they can slip into
schools.
No matter how this case is decided, Americans United and other defenders of
church-state separation will face daunting challenges (unless the justices
toss out the case on grounds of “standing” – an unlikely, but possible,
scenario.)
It is too late to say it might have been best to let the sleeping dogs lie.
The issue has been joined; we can’t sit this one out. In the next few
months, all of us have a job to do. We must explain this issue to our
neighbors and friends and especially urge sympathetic clergy to speak out.
An enormous educational task is before us. Let’s get to it.
Sign Of The Times
The Religious Right Has Arrived In Washington
Anyone who thinks the Religious Right is no longer a potent force in
American politics needs to take a look at the front page of the Nov. 6 New
York Times. (See page 14.)
There, in living color, you will find a large photograph of several of the
invitees who came to the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C., to
watch President George W. Bush sign a bill banning one type of late-term
abortion.
Depicted in the photo sitting in a row are Dr. Adrian Rogers, former head
of the Southern Baptist Convention; the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon of the
Traditional Values Coalition; the Rev. Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral
Majority; Janet Parshall, a right-wing Christian radio talk show host; Jay
Sekulow, top attorney for TV preacher Pat Robertson’s American Center for
Law and Justice, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Roman Catholic Cardinal
Edward M. Egan.
Over the years, all of these individuals have, to some degree, attacked the
separation of church and state and engaged in activities designed to
undermine the protective church-state wall.
Incredibly, Falwell – who actually had the gall to blame America for the
horrific terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001 – is welcomed with open arms by
White House staffers alongside some 400 other Religious Right luminaries
and their allies.
Americans have mixed opinions about the law Bush signed. But a look at its
history shows one thing clearly: It came about thanks largely to incessant
lobbying by Religious Right groups that see the measure as one step toward
a larger goal of making Americans’ reproductive choices conform to
theological dictates.
The Religious Right uses the same strategy with other “culture war” issues.
They focus on a constitutional right and start chipping away at it.
Eventually, they hope to eliminate it entirely.
Americans should not assume that the courts will always protect our
freedoms. Bush has already named more than 160 federal judges. He has
sought to put several nominees with radical views on the bench. A federal
court system stacked with ideologues hostile to church-state separation
will not protect us; it will merely rubber stamp the legislative handiwork
of the Religious Right as implemented by its congressional allies.
Even without the use of words, The Times photo tells an alarming story. And
the story will have a very unhappy ending unless the American people wake
up and repudiate the Religious Right’s extreme agenda.
.
|
