On February 7, 1954, the Reverend George Docherty blasted the Pledge of Allegiance in a sermon, attended by members of the national press corps as well as by the President of the United States. Apart from the mention of the phrase the United States of America, thundered Docherty, [the Pledge] could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow. This was all President Dwight D. Eisenhower needed to hear. With the Cold War in full swing and Senator Joseph McCarthy looking everywhere for communist insurgents, Eisenhower was more than receptive to Dochertys message. The President subsequently endorsed Dochertys sermon and breathed new life into a year-long campaign by the Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic mens group, to add under God to the Pledge of Allegiance. Taking his cue from the President, Republican Senator Homer Ferguson of Minnesota sponsored a bill to add under God to the Pledge of Allegiance. It was approved as a joint resolution and signed by the President on Flag Day, June 14, 1954. At the signing ceremony, a proud Cold War Commander-in-Chief declared: From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty. That is how the Pledge of Allegiance came to be what it is today, and that is why it is now considered, by some, to be a violation of the constitutional separation of Church and State. The debate, however, isn't really about whether the Pledge violates the Constitution. What fuels the controversy is a more fundamental difference, and that is how one interprets the Constitution. Should the Constitution's "wall of separation" be understood and applied today the way that our Founding Fathers would have applied it? Or should the Constitution be allowed to breathe and evolve as a "living document"? After all, the late Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes boasted that, while the U.S. is under the Constitution, the Constitution itself is whatever the judges say it is. This living document theory of constitutional jurisprudence, widely accepted in law schools today, reduces the Founding Fathers to mere footnotes in history, insofar as court decisions are concerned. Nevertheless, as prevalent as this theory of jurisprudence might be today, it is not the view held by a man regarded by many as our nation's greatest President. It was Abraham Lincoln who boldly asserted that the intent of the law-giver is the law. With this mindset, the Founders do indeed matter. In fact, they matter a lot. So, what would the Founders say on the matter? While we can't know for certain, since the Pledge of Allegiance itself (even without "under God" added) was written many years after the last of the Founders passed, we can nevertheless look to their principles and philosophies for guidance. These principles are fairly reflected in the personal and public writings of many of the Founders; the fact the most of the states had established denominations even after the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified; the numerous proclamations for prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving during and after the War for Independence; and the early decisions of each of the three branches of government at both the state and federal level. For instance, all thirteen of the original state constitutions referred to Almighty God, many identifying Him as the author of liberty. The Continental Congress repeatedly called for days of public prayer and fasting during the American Revolution, and it deliberately added additional references to God (over and above what Jeffersons original draft contained) in the Declaration of Independence. Moreover, the Congress, under both the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution, authorized (on more than one occasion) the printing and distribution of Bibles. It also provided for taxpayer-funded chaplains in both houses of Congress and for the military. When George Washington became President, it was the Congress that requested of him an overtly religious Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, which he gladly and quickly issued. (Congress did this, by the way, on the same day it approved the wording of the First Amendment). The list goes on and on. The examples are virtually endless. While they were adamantly committed to religious freedom (some, like Jefferson, more so than others), they all nevertheless shared a belief that government should, to at least some extent, encourage (in George Washington's words) solemn acts of devotion to...[and]...a firm reliance onAlmighty God. The evidence of history seems abundantly clear. A national Pledge of Allegiance, recognizing Americas submission to God, would draw no objection from the Founding Fathers. One wonders then why some of us today find it so objectionable. |
Index Page
