Conservative Christians Say Pledge is Supported by Religious Heritage
Conservative Christian reaction to the decision by a California federal judge who held that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional focused on the need to appoint judges who would respect the religious heritage of the nation.
Conservative Christian reaction to the decision by a California federal judge who held that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional focused on the need to appoint judges who would respect the religious heritage of the nation by properly interpreting the Constitution.
In last week’s decision, Judge Lawrence Karlton of the California Eastern District Federal Court in Sacramento ruled that reciting the pledge, which includes the “under God” phrase, amounts to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the government.
In his decision, Karlton wrote that the pledge violates "the children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God," adding that he was merely adhering to a 2001 decision of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that had earlier set a precedent for the case.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
The day after the decision was announced Attorney General Alberto Gonzales of the Justice Department said he would fight the court’s contention. He noted the historic ties that had referenced God in expressions of American national identity and patriotism.
"For more than two hundred years, many of our expressions of national identity and patriotism have referenced God,” Gonzales said in a statement released by the U.S. Department of Justice. “The Supreme Court, which opens each session by saying 'God save the United States and this honorable Court,' has affirmed time and again that such official acknowledgments of our Nation's religious heritage, foundation, and character are constitutional.
“The Department of Justice will continue vigorously to defend the ability of American schoolchildren to pledge allegiance to the flag."
Conservative Christian groups have also expressed their support for overturning the ruling. The American Center for Law and Justice said on Monday that it would be filing briefs on the case on behalf of its membership, and would also put together a committee “to protect the Pledge.”
Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel for ACLJ said that the recent judicial nominees to the Supreme Court could have a decisive role to play in the outcome of the case if it reaches the Supreme Court.
“It is critical that these Justices rule in our favor and allow the Pledge of Allegiance to take place,” Sekulow said. “Our Office of Governmental Affairs in Washington is working on the issue of judicial confirmations, and it is our view that the President will appoint conservative nominees who will not view the Pledge of Allegiance as unconstitutional.”
The Family Research Council President Tony Perkins also spoke out on the matter, citing a recent court victory for Pledge proponents in Virginia, where a decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit of Appeals upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools to lead students in a daily Pledge of Allegiance. He said that the conflicting cases would need to be resolved by the next two Justices to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
“Many opponents would prefer to ignore the role God plays in making America the great nation that it is today and seek to rewrite the nation's history,” said Perkins in a statement released by the FRC. “Only by confirming judicial nominees committed to interpreting the U.S. Constitution, rather than establishing their own policy preferences, can we be assured that faith will not be removed from the public square.”
