Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the words "under God" be in the US Pledge of Allegiance?
Results so far:
| Yes | 65% | 467 votes | Total: 724 votes | |
| No | 35% | 257 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe words "under God" belong in the Pledge of Allegiance because: 1) Congress passed a law in the 1950's adding them, and 2) the overwhelming majority of Americans want them there. Their benign, generic presence does not violate the "separation between church and state," nor do they "establish a state religion." Grumpy atheists are just going to have to suck this one up and continue with their petulant black marker defacing of our currency by blacking out "In God We Trust."
By way of background, the Pledge of Allegiance was the brainchild of a Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), who wrote the first rendition of the pledge in 1892. In 1954, Congress added the words "under God" to the pledge.(1) So, what we have here is an actual Act of Congress that at the time, at least, was overwhelmingly supported by the American public.
Does the argument that including God's name in a public pledge violates the First Amendment hold true? The First Amendment as regards religion reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" What "religion" does "under God" establish? There might be an argument that "under God" provides at least tacit support to the concept of monotheism (the belief in a single God), or even offends the sensibilities of atheists, which serves them right, because they offend the heck out of the rest of us.
As to religions that adhere to the belief in more than one God, I would respectfully suggest that if they are Americans and are saying the Pledge, they might feel more comfortable with saying "under (insert number) Gods." To the atheists, I can only respond, what's the big deal? You don't believe in the idea of a supernatural power. It is a negative concept to you, so why make such a big deal out of what you believe is "nothing"?
I do not suspect that we shall be hearing much from the Hindus or Buddhists on this issue, but the atheists have already taken the rest of us to court. The most famous case was an atheist, Michael Newdow. Here's what Wikipedia says about Mr. Newdow:
"Newdow is most famous for a lawsuit filed on behalf of his daughter against inclusion of the words "under God" in public schools' recitals of the United States Pledge of Allegiance. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the phrase constitutes an endorsement of religion, and therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the decision was later overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds, citing that Newdow did not have custody of his daughter and therefore did not have the right to bring suit on her behalf." (2)
Mr. Newdow shows no signs of giving up on this, and it appears that the U.S. Supreme Court was not all that courageous in adjudicating the issue once and for all. The issue appears to be very important to his group, and one can only wonder what is in it for him, especially when the overwhelming majority of the rest of us believes there is a God, and we, His children, do His work here on Earth. Fortunately, God has not told any of us to take steps against Mr. Newdow. We'll just have to be tolerant and hope that the courts (with the exception of the 9th District in San Francisco, who is beyond hope) will continue to exercise common sense on this issue.
If the atheists have their way with this issue, we can look forward to a renewed challenge of the motto "In God We Trust" on our currency. (3) Atheists do not give up easily. Is it because they believe there is no existence after death and they only have so much time on this earth aggravate the rest of us? God knows.
References:
1. The Pledge of Allegiance , A Short History, by Dr. John W. Baer (http://history.vine yard.net/pledge.htm)
2. Wikipedia Article "Michael Newdow" - http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Michael_New dow
3. Federal judge dismisses suit challenging 'In God We Trust' on US currency (http://jurist.law.p itt.edu/paperchase/2 006/06/federal-judge -dismisses-suit.php)
Learn more about this author, Jerry Curtis.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
The words "under God" were added to the US Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, in a response that began with a campaign by the Knights of Columbus and ended with a sermon preached by a Scottish Presbyterian minister with President Dwight Eisenhower in attendance. But, in a country with a Constitution that calls for separation of church and state, these words have no place in an oath all Americans are expected to pledge.
The preacher, Reverend George M. Docherty, was disturbed when his then 7 year old son, Garth, recited the pledge to him in 1952 and he learned that there was no mention of God. He believed that the United States was founded by, and existed because, of God. In that year, he wrote a well-received sermon, indicating that the words "under God" explained the essence of the country's beliefs. The words were taken from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. "
While many people believe that, based on the context of the speech and the vernacular of Lincoln's time, "under God" meant "God willing", Reverend Docherty didn't think so. He preached the sermon again on "Lincoln Sunday" in 1954 at the North York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, DC, which Lincoln had attended the same year he delivered the Gettysburg Address. President Eisenhower attended the church that day, a custom followed by most US Presidents, and was impressed. Congress approved a bill to add "under God" that year.
So why take it out? What's all the fuss about? Popular opinion and revisionist history indicate that the nation was founded on Christian principles. So it only makes sense to include God in the pledge. Many believe that the settlers came to the United States to escape religious persecution. Some did. But, most came here under other circumstances. Some were under corporate or royal charter or contract to make money. Many others arrived here as an alternative to prison. The US imported slaves who had never heard of God. And let's not forget the Native Americans who were already here.
The Founding Fathers worked hard and thoughtfully to ensure that no one religion would rule the land and that all religions would be treated equally. Thomas Jefferson was reportedly a Deist, and as such may have believed in a god, but not necessarily God. The Constitution was written in a way to protect the minority, such as the Jews in Pennsylvania, who could not vote at that time. It's not likely he would have approved of an oath, more meaningful in his day, that referenced a specific religion's God.
Since the US Census cannot require respondents to divulge their religion, the exact number of Christians and Jews in this country is not known. Based on voluntary polls, Christians make up 75 to 82 percent of the population. Jews make up between 1 and 2 percent. Even if one uses the highest figures, that means 16 percent of the population, citizens who are proud to pledge allegiance to their country, must do so by acknowledging someone else's god.
The 16 percent includes Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Agnostics, Deists, Native Americans and Scientologists, not to mention the myriad of other smaller religions. It also includes those who follow no religion at all. These millions of people pay taxes and fight in our wars just like Christians and Jews do. It is a slap in the face to ask them to pledge their loyalty to ". . . one nation, under (a Christian or Jewish) God (who I don't believe in), indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".
To be indivisible, Americans need to accept the reality of how their nation was built and who Americans actually are. If they did that, they would see why those two words should be removed.
Learn more about this author, Liz McGuire.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Government & Policies
- Should the government regulate the terms of cell phone service contracts?
- Is the baseball steroids scandal any business of the US Congress?
- Should employees of government contractors have the same whistleblower protections as federal employees?
- Should Congress set limits on the compensation of corporate executives?
- Should the national drinking age be lowered to 18?
- Should the Food and Drug Administration regulate cigarettes and other tobacco products?
