Flag Day 2006 was also the fifty-second anniversary of President Eisenhower signing “Joint Resolution 243,” which added the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. At the Upper Senate Park, organizations like Concerned Women For America (CWA), The Religious Freedom Coalition, Eagle Forum, Ask For America, and The Traditional Values Coalition held a press conference alongside Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ), Representative Todd Akin (R-MO), Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) to urge Congress to pass the Pledge Protection Act. Representative Akin and Senator Kyl are sponsoring the bills in their respective houses that would protect the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
“There has been a campaign mounting as of late. A campaign aimed at nothing more than dismantling the very fabric of our country. The movement is led by a select group of special-interest organizations. These secularist cynics are working towards slowly chipping away at the moral bedrock of our society,” Lanier Swann, Director of Government Relations at CWA stated.
The most recent court cases involving the words “under God” occurred in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California. An atheist named Michael Newdow argued that the words “under God” were in direct violations of “separation of church and state.” The 9th Circuit ruled in his favor and abolished the phrase. The Supreme Court overruled it on procedural grounds. Newdow has continued his relentless court battle to get any mention of God out of society, including “In God We Trust” from our money. A federal judge denied the lawsuit, citing that the phrase is a secular national slogan. Newdow has vowed to seek an appeal in the case.
Those involved with the Pledge Protection Act urge that it is essential for the well-being of our nation.
“Despite the fact that the term ‘under God’ has been a part of our pledge of allegiance for more than fifty years, apparently it only became offensive after the ACLU was formed. Activist judges are siding with these secularists and it must stop,” Ms. Swann declared.
Senator Brownback argued that “the separation of church and state” does not mean the removal of church from society. He spoke about how America saw a nation that was without God—the Soviet Union—crumble to pieces.
“We saw that system fail,” Senator Brownback explained. “It gave tyranny to the people.”
“Men of faith intentionally included the phrase ‘under God’ in an oath that serves as a symbol of loyalty and patriotism to our great country,” Ms. Swann argued.
The central argument for the necessity of the bill was reinforced by many of the speakers.
“There are people who want to use our courts to dismantle our republic,” Representative Franks proclaimed.
“Supremacist judges just don’t get the message,” Jessica Echard, Executive Director of the Eagle Forum, said.
The explanation for how Congress can combat these judges can actually be found in the Constitution under Article III, Section 2.
The section in part reads, “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
In the recent past, the former Senate Majority leader used “such regulations as teh Congress shall make” to protect the forests in his home state of South Dakota.
Both the Senate and House hope to have the bills out of committee and onto the chamber floors within the next few weeks.
Matthew Murphy is an intern at Accuracy in Academia.
