Michael Newdow's challenge to forcing school children to recite "under God" in the pledge of allegiance will soon be back before the Supreme Court.
Last year the Supreme Court dismissed the case on a technicality. Newdow refiled the case with new complainants and a District Court in California has upheld the findings of the previous Newdow decision.
This case is the most egregious example of the duplicitous witness of evangelical Christians in American history.
In court, evangelical Christians will argue that the words "under God" do not violate the First Amendment prohibition against establishing a religion because the words have "no significant religious content." In other words, "under God" in the pledge of allegiance does precisely what is proscribed in the ten commandments when men are commanded to not take the name of the Lord God in vain and make it meaningless.
In public, evangelical Christians will argue that the words "under God" refer to the Divine and lament that the courts are persecuting people of faith and trying to kick God out of the public square.
The only prominent figure on the right who does not engage in doublespeak on this issue is Judge Roy Moore. He is open and honest about expressing his belief that Christianity is the established religion of the United States and that the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance mean something.
Although I strongly disagree with Moore about the U.S. having an established religion, I strongly concur with his admission that the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance have religious meaning. They are not symbols of "ceremonial Deism," they are intended to express religious content, and for evangelical lawyers to argue otherwise is an outright lie -- which violates the prohibition in the ten commandments against bearing false witness.
What is the value of breaking two of God's commandments in order to force children to mouth the words "under God" at school?
1 comment:
Here's the kicker. All this fuss and feathers over the pledge doesn't get them to say the words. Court rulings have already established that students do not have to say the pledge or even stand when it is recited by others. At my school by a law passed in 1986 the plege must be recited every day, so our morning announcements start with the pledge, but when I had a student refuse to stand and I sent him to the office for failure to obey he was sent back and I was told I couldn't punish hime. I explained to the administrator I cannot allow open defiance in my classroom and if I tell a student to open a book and read, to be seated, or to answer a question and they refuse the school handbook and the negotiated agreement states that the administration will deal with their refusal to obey. I told the student to stand and he refused he should face some sort of consequence on that ground. The principal still said I couldn't do that. This whole rigamorole of the pledge, or if the moral mafia finally do get it where we have to force students to once again recite prayers does exactly the opposite of the intended result. The pledge does not inspire patriotism or civic pride -- it is a meaningless rote recitation that breeds only contempt from the students and the same would apply to any prayer anyone is forced against their will to repeat no matter how spiritual they would be to begin with. As a teacher it just opens the door to a negative and defiant attitude that they can legally get away with, and then I'm supposed to get them to learn something.
Post a Comment