UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES: 2002/07
Print Version
E-mail This Article
Leave CommentUNDERSTANDING THE TIMES
The Newsletter of Contend for the Faith, Inc
1 Chronicles 12:32
JULY 2002
Judicial Tyranny Strikes Again; May God Help America
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It has happened once again.
One week before this nation was to engage in its annual celebration of its Declaration of Independence from a King and a country whose goal was “the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” a federal appeals court has continued a decades-long pattern of judicial tyranny against the citizens of this country by declaring the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional.
In a decision which would be laughable if it were not actual, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on June 26th that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional "establish-ment of religion" because it contains the phrase "under God." The case was heard by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, and by a 2-1 margin the court listed two specific violations:
“We hold that the 1954 Act adding the words 'under God' to the Pledge, and [the school district’s] policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included, violate the Establishment Clause.”
The case was brought by atheist Michael Newdow, whose daughter attends a public elementary school in California. Mr. Newdow’s complaint was not that his daughter was being forced against her will to recite the Pledge; she was never compelled to say it. Rather, he objects to the fact that other students are allowed to say the Pledge and claims his daughter is “injured” when she is forced to “watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her class-mates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that our's [sic] is ‘one nation under God.’”
The original Pledge was written in 1892. Congress adopted a version of it on June 22, 1942. Congress amended the Pledge on Flag Day in 1954 by adding the words “under God.”
Consider what Mr. Newdow is really claiming. It is not enough that his daughter has the right not to recite the Pledge; he actually seeks to deny the freedom of other students to participate because he believes his daughter has the right not to hear the words “under God” recited voluntarily in a classroom setting.
Here is the relevant part of the First Amendment of the Constitution at issue in this case:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
So by definition here is what the Ninth Circuit Court ruled: the presence of the words “under God” in the Pledge constitutes an “establishment of religion.”
One of the tactics used most often in church/state cases (including this one) is the judicial slight of hand. The courts routinely refer to the perceived unconstitutional practice as violating the “Establishment Clause,” then they explain the infraction using different terms, as in this case: “The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion. . . .” So with the wave of a judicial pen an “endorsement” magically becomes an “establishment.”
When a newspaper endorses a candidate running for the Senate, is that candidate automatically established as the next senator from our state?
As we celebrate our independence from England, we should remember the words of one of the least religious of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson:
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God?”
UPCOMING SCHEDULE
Please pray for me as I teach High School youth for five Sundays at Hickory Grove Baptist Church starting July 7th, 2002.
CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH
UNDERSTANDING THE FIRST AMENDMENT
With the First Amendment to the Constitution under judicial assault, I thought it would be appropriate to look at the background and meaning of this amendment. It is brief, to the point, and seemingly simple enough for any sixth grader to understand what it says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
By far the most abused parts of the amendment are the first two clauses, which are known as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
Did you notice anything missing from the amendment? There is absolutely no mention of “separation of church and state.” However, almost without fail when you read or hear reports of court cases dealing with issues of religion in society the reporter will say something like “The law violated the Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.” Isn’t it interesting that laws are said to contradict something NOT CONTAINED in the Constitution?
ORIGINAL PURPOSE
What did the founders mean when they wrote the First Amendment? Great insight is gained concerning this when one considers some of the various proposals for this amendment.
George Mason, “The Father of the Bill of Rights,” proposed this:
“All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.”
James Madison proposed:
“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.”
When this amendment was being debated in 1789, the Annals of Congress records these discussions. In the entry for August 15, 1789, we read: “Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts. . . . He feared it might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether. . . . Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that ‘no religious doctrine shall be established by law.’ . . . Mr. [James] Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that ‘Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law.’”
The founders, who understood the problems caused by having a national church (the Church of England), intended to prevent the establishment of the “Church of America.” They simply did not want to have a single national denomination of Christianity. They never dreamed of restrain-ing public religious expression, as the courts have misinterpreted their amendment to do.
MISLEADING METAPHOR
The modern misunderstand-ing of the First Amendment stems from the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision in which the Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”
The phrase “wall of separation between church and state” came from a personal letter that President Thomas Jefferson sent to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. He was reassuring them that the federal government had no power to interfere with religious expression and that the right to free exercise of religion is indeed an inalienable right given by God, not by government. (Note: Jefferson was in France during the debate over the Bill of Rights, having nothing to do with them).
By pulling this phrase out of context from Jefferson’s private letter, courts have turned the meaning of this amendment on its head, construing it to mean that any mention of God must be separated from anything having to do with the government.
Justice William Renquist, the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, has described Jefferson’s phrase as a “misleading metaphor,” writing that “It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”
Christians need to stand up for their God-given right to freely express their beliefs in order to contend for Christ in the marketplace of ideas. Our goal should be to create a climate in our culture so that there is a maximum opportunity for others to hear the Gospel and embrace Jesus as their Savior.
Jude 3,
Dave
