3 of 3

Ceaser's piece suggests that Bush's views on Providence demonstrate that he's humble, not arrogant, about his faith—and that he is taking a Lincolnesque view of his job and his country. "The focus has been on duty," he writes, not mastery and control.

Meanwhile, The Oregonian's routine roundup of comments about Bush's religion (see generic summary above) includes some interesting analysis from Rich Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals. Presidents aren't theologians, he says, "but they have every right to use theological language. Why? Because in our form of government, they're not just the head of [their] party but the head of the state. In that role, it's a president's job to be national healer and consoler. … To describe Saddam Hussein as evil—what some theologians have objected to—in my estimation, is entirely appropriate. It sets off [Bush's] opponents[, who believe that] evil is a result of the failure of social institutions or the result of human ignorance but rarely that of the depravity of the human heart. Yet that is exactly what is the case with Saddam Hussein."

The Ninth District denies Pledge rehearing
On March 10, 9.6 million students in nine Western states must stop saying the Pledge of Allegiance because it calls the United States "one nation under God."

The full body of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday supported the June decision of a three-judge panel that called the pledge a government endorsement of religion. Under the previous 2-1 ruling, schools cannot require students to recite or hear the Pledge if it includes the words "under God." After heated public debate erupted regarding the decision, a Ninth Circuit judge proposed a vote to decide if an 11-member panel should rehear the case. Only nine of the court's 24 judges voted in favor of the rehearing motion.

The Washington Times reports that the court's one-page paper on Friday's decision includes no explanation or argument on why the case won't be reheard—but orders that further pleas for rehearing be rejected.

Circuit judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain wrote in a dissenting opinion paper that the case should have been reheard not to address the current controversy but because "it was wrong, very wrong."

"[A rehearing is needed because] Judge Goodwin and Judge Reinhardt misinterpret[ed] the Constitution and 40 years of Supreme Court precedent," O'Scannlain wrote. "That most people understand this makes the decision no less wrong … The Pledge of Allegiance is simply not 'a religious act.' Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance cannot possibly be an 'establishment of religion' under any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution."

In addition to the vote, the court also released an amended version of the court's June opinion. In the original case, the two-person majority not only ruled that teachers shouldn't lead the pledge in classrooms but also said. 1954's federal law putting "under God" in the pledge was unconstitutional. The amended opinion doesn't address the constitutionality of the 1954 law, sticking only to whether teachers should lead students in the pledge.

After Friday's ruling, observers now expect the Supreme Court to stop the Pledge ban. The district-wide ban of school-sponsored reading of the Pledge will take effect on March 10 unless an appellate court or the Supreme Court does not act.

Attorney General John Ashcroft has already hinted that the administration will recommend the high court hear the case. "The Justice Department will spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag," he said. "We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism through the time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the Pledge."

Copyright © 2003 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Suggest links and stories by sending e-mail to weblog@christianitytoday.com

What is Weblog?

See our past Weblog updates:

February 28 | 27 | 26 | 25 | 24

February 21 | 20 | 19 | 18 | 17

February 14 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 10

February 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3

January 31 | 30 | 29 | 28 | 27

January 24 | 23 | 22 | 21 | 20

and more, back to November 1999

first page |  3 of 3

share this page

March (Web-only) 2003, Vol. 47