2 of 2

Justice Clarence Thomas differs sharply from O'Connor. "Pledging allegiance is to declare a belief that now includes that this is 'one nation under God,'" he wrote. "It is difficult to see how this does not entail an affirmation that God exists." According to Supreme Court precedent, he argued, "the Pledge policy is unconstitutional." But, he added, Supreme Court precedent has long ignored what the Constitution actually says: It only bans the establishment of a national religion. "Through the Pledge policy, the State has not created or maintained any religious establishment, and neither has it granted government authority to an existing religion," he wrote. "The Pledge policy does not expose anyone to the legal coercion associated with an established religion. Further, no other free-exercise rights are at issue. It follows that religious liberty rights are not in question and that the Pledge policy fully comports with the Constitution."

Thomas's argument that the First Amendment's establishment clause allows states to establish religion is the real bombshell in the Pledge decision, and it deserves much more discussion in both the American church and the legal community. (Philip Hamburger's history, Separation of Church and State, is crucial reading here.)

But the rest of the Supreme Court needn't be as radical as Thomas to rebut the menace of O'Connor's meaningless "God" or the toothlessness of Rehnquist's historical deity. As U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson noted in oral arguments, "under God" is a "descriptive phrase," not a prayer. It acknowledges the foundation, not just the founding, of our country. The right to revolt and to create a government was, and is, grounded in a religious principle. Reciting the Pledge is a patriotic act, but that doesn't make "under God" a meaningless phrase. Instead, recognizing that our nation is "under God" makes our patriotism possible.

Copyright 2004 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Also posted today is Pledging to Fight | Atheist says battle over 'under God' has just begun.

The complete decision is available from the Supreme Court.

A compilation of our coverage of the "Under God" battle is available from our Pledge Hot Topic page. Some highlights include:

Weblog: Supreme Shocker—'Under God' Stays Because of a Technicality | Supreme Court says Michael Newdow doesn't have authority to speak for his daughter. Plus: Reactions from conservative Christian advocacy organizations. (June 14, 2004)

Atheist Dad in 'Under God' Case Literally Applauded, But Likely to Lose | Supreme Court justices will probably overturn ruling, but maybe without addressing Pledge issues. (March 25, 2004)

One Nation Under God—Sort of | We've got bigger problems than the Pledge of Allegiance. (Jan. 07, 2004)

A Crack in the Wall | Two recent books help explain Thomas Jefferson's intent for "separation of church and state." (Oct. 10, 2002)

Is Patriotism Dead? | The day that patriotism ceases, that day we will have ceased to be a people. (July 3, 2001)

Christian History Corner: Should We Fight for 'Under God'? | The right approach to these two little words may not be obvious. (June 04, 2004)

Is God an American Institution? | The Ninth Circuit Court's decision is about more than the mention of God in a patriotic ritual, it goes to the heart of the debate about our nation's spiritual heritage. (June 27, 2002)

first page |  2 of 2

share this page

August 2004, Vol. 48, No. 8