Page 8
Friday, April 9, 2004
‘TU .
\.Ai
Should the Constitution remove “under God” from the Pledge?
Fundamentally,
this argument is not
about church versus
state but about fol
lowing the law...
Francis Bellamy
wrote the original
Pledge of Allegiance
as a secular oath
with no mention to
God or any religion.
Jennifer Menster
Pilot copy editor
It’s a hot topic in politics.
By June, the Supreme Court
must make a decision whether or not
Congress acted unconstitutionally
when adding the words “under
God” in the Pledge of Allegiance in
1954.
The Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled that the words were a
violation of the First Amendment’s
Establishment Clause. The case
came to court because a California
father feels that his daughter should
r. not be forced to say “under God”
every morning in school.
And she shouldn’t have to say
“under God” if she doesn’t believe
in God. Or if a child believes in
Allah they shouldn’t have to say it.
In fact, what if Congress wanted
to put “under Allah” in the pledge?
People would be in uproar. So why
is it so wrong that a few people are
upset with “under God?” Either
have everything or nothing at all.
It is understandable that the
majority of U.S. citizens are
Christians or believe in the
Christian God. But one cannot block
out other’s belief in Islam,
Buddhism or even atheism. By
adding “under God” in the Pledge,
the government is forcing the
Christian God on the country, which
is a violation of the First
Amendment’s Establishment Clause
and separation of church and state.
Some argue that it doesn’t spec
ify the Christian God. Well, if that is
the case, then lower case “God” and
add a ‘s’ to it—making it “gods.”
Conservatives have been quoted
as saying that the appeals court
judges’ decision is the “latest exam
ple of liberal court run amok” and
that the decision is in “defiance of
tradition, precedent, and common
sense.”
If an atheist or
anyone else want
ed to be tmly sepa
rated from the
name of God then
they’ would have to
lock themselves
away and never
venture to the out
side world.
Well, those conservatives shoulc
go back to grade school politics
The law of the United States is not
based on tradition and common
sense. It is based on the laws that
were set by our founding fathers in
the constitution, which in its first
amendment establishes the separa
tion of church and state.
Fundamentally, this argument is not
about church versus state but about
following the law.
If conservatives want to argue
tradition then they should do their
homework. If they want tradition
then they shouldn’t want the words
“imder God” even in the Pledge.
When Francis Bellamy wrote
the pledge in 1892 the words “under
God” weren’t even in the pledge. He
wrote it to promote patriotism. The
government added “under God” in
1954 to advance religion at a time
when the nation was at battle with
atheistic communism.
In fact, while President
Eisenhower was signing the bill he
was quoted as saying, “From this
day forward, the millions of our
schoolchildren will daily pro
claim... the dedication of our
Nation and our people to the
Almighty.”
Now come on. It’s obvious that
the government is pushing God on
people. Bellamy wrote the Pledge of
Allegiance as a secular oath with no
mention to God or any religion. As
far as anyone knows, there were no
complaints about the original pledge
being too secular or liberal. It was
written for patriotism to the United
States, not God or Allah. The gov
ernment should not be allowed
under the law of the land to take
away the pledge’s original meaning
and force the belief in God on U.S.
residents. This is not an atheist ver
sus Christian matter. This is about
doing what is right under the law of
the United States of America.
Jacob Conley
Pilot Staff
Change is sometimes a good
thing. I know this may seem like a
strange statement for a conservative
to make, but sometimes change is
needed. Take the Pledge of
Allegiance for example, something
most people know by heart. What
some people may not know is that
the Pledge did not always appear in
its current form. Up until the 1950’s
the Pledge did not contain the words
“under God”. The Eisenhower
administration made the change,
adding the phrase to the line, “One
nation indivisible.”
Today, there is a movement to
once again remove the phrase fi-om
the Pledge. The supporters of this
movement claim the “under God”
violates the separation of church
and state. Aside from the fact that
the principle of church and state has
been misunderstood and misap
plied, I have a problem with this
argument on several levels. The
first problem is that you cannot seg
regate God or His name to the
churches. An atheist may argue that
they are offended by or don’t
believe in the name of God.
Everywhere you go, however, you
hear the name of God, whether it be
used in vain or otherwise. For
example, almost every movie has
the phrase “Oh My God!” or some
similar phrase in it. If an atheist or
anyone else wanted to be truly sepa
rated from the name of God then
they would have to lock themselves
away and never venture to the out
side world and that is just not a log
ical course of action. Some people
argue that they don’t mind having
God in everyday life they just don’t
want Him to be to be a part of gov
ernment. In that case these people
would not be able to spend any
money because the motto “In God
We Trust” is emblazed on our
national currency. Therefore, the
name of God has become such an
integrated part of our society that it
is almost impossible to separate
yourself from it.
Secondly, it does not make any
sense to me, how anyone can be
offended by such a generic and
watered down term as “under God.”
I could understand a few people
being upset if the pledge said “under
Jestis” buf it doesn’t. The “God” it’s
referring to is left up to the individ
ual’s religious preference. To the
Muslim God refers to Muhammad,
to the Buddhist, God represents
Buddha and so on. The term is even
gender inclusive, thus appeasing the
feminist who thinks God is a
female.
As for the word “under”, some
people have a problem with its con
notations of submission and obedi
ence. These same people, however,
are imder police authority and they
have to obey law. Even the
President is held accountable by
Congress. The police, president,
and congress are fallible. If these
people who support the removal
have to submit to men who admit
tedly make mistakes, shouldn’t they
be happy that the leaders and the
nation herself is under a perfect
God?
Eisenhower realized that
America was subject to a higher
power and that’s why he added the
phrase “under God” to the Pledge of
Allegiance. I just hope future gen
erations will be able to quote the
pledge and come to the same real
ization as Eisenhower.