2 of 2

The Founding Fathers put their lives on the line for the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution because they believed they had an innate and God-given right to the freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, etc.

Yet the faith of our fathers is far different from the watered-down, politically correct rhetoric offered up as religion today. So this ruling should surprise no one. Perhaps the court was only stating a truth we have come to understand and refused to admit: that this is not one nation under one God but one nation under many gods.

This decision challenges our national identity, our spiritual heritage and the validation of our innate rights. But in today's diverse society, it is a legitimate challenge that must be debated and decided.

We know our past: it is the history of people escaping persecution, fleeing to a new land primarily in search of religious freedom.

We know our present: it is the unfolding story of a nation still coming to terms with who and what she is and who and what she stands for.

What we do not know, however, is our future. That remains to be decided.

John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Grasping for the Wind.

Copyright © 2002 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Also appearing on our site today:

Federal Appeals Court Says 'Under God' in Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional | Schools can't ask children to swear loyalty to monotheism, says Ninth Circuit panel.

Visit The Rutherford Institute online.

More coverage of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision is available from The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Dallas Morning News, The Boston Globe, The San Francisco Chronicle, Law.com, USA Today, and the Associated Press.

"The sort of rigid overreaction that characterized [yesterday's decision] will not make genuine defense of the First Amendment any easier," The New York Times editorializes today.

"We believe in strict separation between church and state, but the pledge is hardly a particular danger spot crying out for judicial policing," says The Washington Post. The ruling "can also invite a reversal, and that could mean establishing a precedent that sanctions a broader range of official religious expression than the pledge itself."

"For all the overheated and dire predictions … the 'under God' phrase has in no way led to establishment of an official state religion," argues the Los Angeles Times. "Thus the 9th Circuit decision is a cure without an ailment."

"Does this country really want to reach the point where every mention of religion needs to be eliminated in the name of constitutional purity?" asked the San Francisco Chronicle.

Other opinions are available from The Washington Post's Marc Fisher and National Review Online's Victor Davis Hanson and Jack Dunphy.

first page |  2 of 2

share this page

June (Web-only) 2002, Vol. 46