The Lion, the Witch and the Pledge
The Pledge of Allegiance is intended to unite Americans. A recent court decision ruled that the inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge is unconstitutional. This decision has proven to be extremely unpopular and has generated much controversy; however, the basic principles with which this decision was rendered are valid and reasonably applied. While the decision was based primarily on compliance with the Constitution, there are many other reasons supporting this judgement.
The history of the Pledge itself offers some insight. Surprisingly, the original Pledge did not reference God. Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, wrote the Pledge in 1892 to honor the flag during a quadricentennial celebration in the public school system. That Bellamy was a minister further underscores that the Pledge be a patriotic affirmation, not a religious one. Congress edited the Pledge in 1954, in response to the Catholic Knights of Columbus, in part because of anti-Communist fervor that gripped America during the McCarthy Era.
The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” This statement guarantees religious liberty under the Establishment Clause, which holds that the government will not officially establish a state religion, and the Free Exercise Clause, which holds that the government will not interfere in religious practice. These clauses are the foundation of the wall separating Church and State, as defined by Thomas Jefferson:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. "(Andrew Lipscomb and Albert Bergh, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 16, pp. 281-282)
To understand the Founder’s intent, one must examine the historical perspective from which this unprecedented position was expressed. Previous governments, from the ancient Egyptians to the Romans (the model of our current Republic and also a state-sanctioned oppressor of a certain religious minority), and including the European Dynasties such as the English from which we proclaimed independence, have all claimed legitimacy granted directly from God, or the Gods. This Divine Right of Kings would be laughable in today’s America – imagine seeing a candidate’s television commercial proclaiming to be the Chosen One – but was the paradigm during the Founder’s time. Additionally, our Forefathers intended to avoid the religious divisions that led to such horrors as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the many other state sponsored acts of war and oppression committed in a given religion’s name.
Many Americans equate a Democracy or Republic with “majority rule”. While the majority does elect our representatives, they are not necessarily responsible for the enactment of law. If such were the case, the Abolition of Slavery or Woman’s Suffrage might never have occurred. The Founders are clear about protecting the rights of all, particularly minority or unpopular views, after all, the majority does not require such protection. Engaging in commentary with a minimal understanding of our history and legacy is counterproductive and hypocritical. If people cannot stay informed about their own heritage, can they be trusted in matters of theology? If the words of the Constitution can be so carelessly misconstrued or disregarded, then what of the Bible? What protects today’s minorities is also what will protect tomorrow’s Jews and Christians from having to recite a Pledge “under Koresh”, should the Branch-Davidians ever become the majority. Are not tolerance and acceptance the goals of our great nation, and in the tradition of all faiths?
Having established that including the phrase “under God” is unconstitutional, there are several more practical reasons for removal that should be examined. Public school’s are governmental institutions funded by taxpayers, and as such cannot advocate a particular religious creed. The Pledge of Allegiance is mandated by law to be stated in the classroom, and therefore defies the separation of Church and State as it is currently expressed.
Children are notorious for distinguishing differences amongst each other, and this can lead to violence, harassment and intimidation. This occurs based on even minor differences such as clothing, hairstyles, or corrective lenses; and certainly has occurred because of major differences such as ethnic, economic or religious background. Proponents of the existing Pledge claim that children of alternate faith have the right to decline uttering “under God”. Unfortunately, this reveals to their peers a difference, which may be the catalyst for inappropriate behavior. No child should be forced to endure this! No harm would be done to our children by removing the phrase, consequently, the potential for harm to certain children exists by keeping it. Those who doubt that such negative actions can occur need look no further than former President Bush’s own public statement towards those with differing viewpoints: “No, I don’t know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.” (ATHEISM: Belief In No God, and No Belief In God. 10 June 2002. <
http://www.religioustolerance.org>;)
As Americans, we are protected from proselytizing. We can turn Jehovah’s Witnesses away from our doors, openly disregard the Hare Krishnas at the airport, and God help a religious telemarketer. In the workplace, it is within our rights to report an overzealous associate to management, or sue an employer that pushes a religious agenda upon us without consent. Why do we not offer these same protections to our children?
Religion is flourishing in this country and will continue to do so. America prides itself on its diversity. Importantly, while the majority of Americans, roughly 75%, identify themselves as Christians, a quarter of the country are not. Atheist, Jew, Muslim, Baha'i, Sikh, Scientologist, Wiccan, and many others are equal members of society. Some of them would have no problem saying “under God”, others would. The burden is not upon a minority to justify their position or alter their behavior to accommodate the majority. The burden is on society to treat all members with equity. Furthermore, the so-called Christian majority is not a representative majority at all. There are several thousand registered Christian denominations in America, among the more common branches are the Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists and Mormons (to name a few); not to mention non-denominational Christians. While the basic ideologies of these brands may be similar, there are enough differences which have caused major conflicts in the past (or present if we look at the Irish conflict in the U.K.). Enough to keep a member of one sect from affirming allegiance to “one nation, under the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”.
Opponents of the Court’s decision contend that the phrase “under God” is a natural product of a religious country, and to deny these words is to interfere with religious expression. While the passion of this argument is to be respected, the logic is flawed. The United States is not a religious country; rather, the majority of people who reside here are religious. The right to express religious faith is vigorously protected: all are free to congregate and worship virtually anywhere, particularly at Church, send their children to Sunday or Hebrew school, or if unhappy with the public school’s role, may opt for a private religious school. Heaven forbid parents actually take an active role, and spend an hour or so a night with their children to discuss these issues. Removing “under God” does not impact any group’s religious rights.
Critics also state that removing these words interferes with the freedom of speech. However, the classroom is an exception allowing restriction of speech. Students are not allowed to arbitrarily express themselves, as it may disrupt the class and obstruct the other students’ ability to learn. A student cannot suddenly belt out Psalm 23, any more than they can interrupt the teacher to talk about the Bear’s game. Students who have such an overwhelming urge to express themselves to God can excuse themselves from class, or wait until break. Perhaps freedom of expression would be served just as well by allowing students to wear marijuana emblems or profanity on their clothing? It appears that these arguments are more about satisfying the parents’ need to advance a religious opinion, and not about protecting students’ rights.
Finally, it has been argued that “under God” has no real religious significance; God is just a word used to signify a higher power. Again we run into the problem that God is a Judeo-Christian term. What of Allah, or the Goddess? What of the eastern religions which do not worship a singular entity – Buddhism and Taoism? What of Shintoists and Hindus who revere multiple Gods? What of Atheists and Agnostics who choose not to believe, or are still trying to understand? What of those who remain undecided, choose to accept multiple sources of wisdom, or could care less? Those who would trivialize God as just “a word” are not in a very defensible position on this issue.
It seems rather ironic that those who would honor such a strong commitment to this nation would, in the same breath, so carelessly deny one of the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded. Separation between Church and State guarantees the health and security of both. To quote the “Father of the Constitution”, James Madison:
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together. "(James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
