Letter from America

A federal court has recently ruled that the phrase 'under God' in the traditional pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional.

In a case brought by an atheist with children at public schools (equivalent to English state schools) in California, the ninth circuit court has declared that the phrase 'under God' should not be a part of the pledge of allegiance.

The response from various American leaders has been predictable. George Bush has called the ruling ridiculous. Various members of the Senate gathered outside to swear the pledge of allegiance in support of the phrase 'under God'. It is highly unlikely that this ruling from the ninth circuit court will stand; it will either be repealed on appeal or, if it goes to the Supreme Court, every pundit predicts it will be punted out of court. Americans, by and large, like their pledge of allegiance and the references to God that it contains, even as their money also blazons 'in God we trust'. What's made this more interesting still is the recent revelation from the mother of the child in question that the child is actually a Christian; it's the father who's offended not the child.

Interesting question

Nonetheless the ninth circuit has raised interesting questions. If America is truly a 'secular' society should it insist on all its citizens swearing to 'one nation under God'? This phrase 'under God', after all, was actually introduced in the 1950s. Some would argue that its introduction had as much to do with the nation's desire to distinguish itself from Soviet ù and atheistic ù Russia as to do with any fine religions sensibilities.

There are different ways to approach the question. America was founded by a group of deistic and very Enlightenment influenced leaders. Their definition of God, perhaps some would say, was rather distant from an orthodox Bible-believing definition of God anyway. But this historical approach to the question is fraught with dangers. There are innumerable books written about the founding fathers, as many different opinions as to their mores and religious beliefs, and, while useful in a debate about political precedence and intention, the historical approach appears inconclusive.

Another approach is to muddy the waters by noticing who it was that brought such a case to the ninth circuit. It was an atheist. Christians, then, surely are to be opponents of this view of modern nation states, where every reference to God is excised for politically correct reasons. But even if I am theologically speaking right of Attila the Hun, just because this issue was brought to the fore by an atheist does not itself mean that I should disagree. Jonathan Edwards used to talk about receiving 'light' from wherever it came, irrespective of its source in other words. Atheists can be effective scientists, doctors, nurses, etc.

First principles

The correct approach is to work from first principles. Should Christians be in favour of a thoroughly secular state? And if so - and there'll be a range of opinions on that one surely - does that mean removing all 'God-talk' from the public forum? To this correspondent, it seems that even if Christians these days, taking a particular interpretation of Romans 13 and Augustine's classic text on the issue, The City Of God, are supportive of secular states as long as the gospel is not infringed, we need not be embarrassed on insisting on the appropriateness of God-talk in public oaths. After all, a secular state is not the same as an atheistic state, or at least it shouldn't be. There are plenty of places where God is not mentioned in America. In public schools (apart from the oath) for one. A few places where the name of God is given a passing reference can hardly be a matter for great controversy. If we have a secular state we have to acknowledge that there are atheists given the same rights as believers, and vice versa.

Disestablishment

The ninth circuit ruling also fringes on important issues for the development of England and its political consciousness vis-a-vis the establishment rights of the Church of England. Unlike America, England was never founded as a secular state, and no one could argue that from an historical basis. Like America, and in some ways far in advance of America in this respect, England has an extremely diverse range of opinions about 'God'. Increasingly, it must appear anachronistic to have the Queen - the figurehead representative of the nation - also the head of the Church of England. Prince Charles once famously remarked that if he came to pre-eminence he would wish to be known as 'defender of faith' not 'defender of the faith'. Christians, of course, were scandalised. Politically speaking, it was an obvious move for the next monarch to attempt to make, even if poorly judged at the time. In a pluralistic state how can you be the figurehead of all if you are a defender of only one of their 'faiths' (especially with church attendance figures going the way they are)?

This raises all sorts of other interesting questions, which, God willing, I'll raise and kick about from a transatlantic perspective in the next Letter From America.

Josh Moody, Connecticut

© Evangelicals Now - September 2002
Please consider supporting this ministry by subscribing.