Visit the Photo Place

Natural law backs the pledge

Date published: 7/28/2002

WHILE THE NINTH Circuit Court's decision against the Pledge of Allegiance's "one nation under God" phrase was transparent to most, Jim Lakely's June 30 column in its defense ["Put down your torches and pitchforks; pledge ruling was right"] asks where the court's decision was inconsistent, and perhaps rightly so. After all, the decision was just an extended application of the Constitution's establishment clause, right?

Although Lakely's arguments make sense at first glance, American jurisprudence is founded on the idea of a supreme guarantor of justice and rights. Hence, the court's radical application of the principle of separation of church and state is contrary to America's rich natural-law tradition. Moreover, the phrase "one nation under God" properly belongs in the pledge as a reminder of that foundation.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, England had egregiously infringed upon rights that were not the British Crown's to trample. Being a Deist, Jefferson maintained that these rights were endowed by a Creator, not by kings or men. Like many of his age, Jefferson invoked the natural ordering of the Creator as a justification of American rights.

Jefferson clearly understood the need for an objective interpreter of right and wrong. It was upon this foundation of natural law that American jurisprudence set its own path, and for nearly 250 years we have thrived upon this first and necessary principle.

Evidence of this natural reliance abounds in our history. The motto "In God We Trust" signifies as such, as do the Ten Commandments within the Supreme Court chambers. Thus it should reasonably follow that the 1954 addition of the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was nothing more than a variation on an oft-repeated theme.

That American society with its Judeo-Christian background arrived at calling that supreme guarantor "God" should confuse no one but the intellectually dishonest. Unfortunately, intellectual dishonesty is no disqualification for bringing lawsuits to court.

Follow us on

Read more stories about Fredericksburg
Date published: 7/28/2002