In Massachusetts, the petitioners claim that the usage of "under God" violates their equal protection under the law. Furthermore, the family asserts that the phrase is tantamount to religious discrimination. Does the usage of "under God" violate the First Amendment and/or the Massachusetts Constitution? A lower court has ruled that it does not, citing that recitation is not mandatory, and proponents of the phrase cite that America is still Christian by far. Should the pledge be once again amended to remove "under God" or provide for alternate phrases to say (including not saying anything there)? Should god (or any other religious figure) be mentioned at all in our government? Does the fact that the pledge is non-mandatory change the requirements on the text?
10 comments:
The only reason why "under God" was put in the pledge in the 1950s was so that the USA could keep separating itself from Communism. It was during the Cold War, and McCarthyism was in full-force. So, those words were put in the pledge so that the USA could be more distinct.
Of course, most Christians these days want the pledge to stay as it is. Yet, if church and state are to be separate, it's not good to have religious words in a pledge.
"In God We Trust" was put on money during McCarthyism as well. That is also a violation of the separation of church and state.
I think that "under God" should be removed from the pledge because it does violate the idea of separation of church and state. I think it does violate the first amendment because the first amendment states that there should not be an establishment of religion. Even though the government is not necessarily establishing a national religion or discriminating against a religion, I feel that the national pledge represents our country and to have the phrase "under God" in our pledge is slightly hypocritical for a country that prides itself on religious freedom and toleration.
Kindergarten year, I went to a public school. Whenever I said "under God" during the pledge in class, I didn't think twice about it. The next 10 years in private school, I thought even less about it. Now, even being a Christian, I still think nothing of it. I don't think uttering the words "under God" in a pledge we all half heartedly mutter before football games and on memorial holidays anyway should be a big deal. It's not like you're dropping down on your knees and converting to Catholicism right then and there with just the mention of His name, you are simply reciting a memorized pledge. It confounds and amuses me how everyone in their attempt to be outspoken and "politically active" has suddenly started to give a damn.
This feels similar to how our money has "In God We Trust" printed on all the bills. I would prefer to have the phrase taken out, as I feel it does not belong in a pledge that all Americans should feel comfortable reciting, but in a sense I agree with Rachel. We have bigger fish to fry here then changing the Pledge of Allegiance. Let's focus on issues like employment, foreign policy, but not a two word phrase.
I know that plenty of people chose to simply just pause during the pledge, and when I pay attention during recitation I also omit the phrase.
I wonder if recent "backlash" is related to people feeling more like there are religious pressures in the nation. I'm doubtful though since this 2012 article indicates to me that if people don't even know important political figures' religions, people probably aren't forcing their beliefs on others.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/half-of-americans-do-not-know-the-presidents-religion/
My feelings towards the pledge is more or less the same as the comments above me: I feel that it would be more "correct" to have "under God" taken out, and I almost care, but not enough. In fact, Kira's mentioning of the religious reference on our bills was the first time I've considered the "In God We Trust" phrase on our national currency probably since I saw National Treasure.
On a separate note, I find it strange and a little extreme that someone would call the "under God" part discriminatory to the nonreligious, especially since it is illegal to force a student to recite the pledge of allegiance in a public school.
I know I would prefer to have "under God" taken out of the pledge just so that we can maintain some consistency. Though the first amendment gives us the right to practice any religion without having to worry about persecution, the Constitution states that there is supposed to be a separation between church and state. I've noticed that despite this, our politicians still say, "God bless America," and, as Alexa mentioned, we have the phrase, "In God We Trust" printed on our national currency. All these references to God come into direct conflict with the separation of church and state that is mentioned in the Constitution, but due to the fact that the predominant religion in America is Christianity, our politicians continue to use God in order to appeal to them. I believe that we should avoid religion all together when we're dealing with politics so that we can avoid harmful misunderstandings.
I think the "under God" phrasing is a Cold War relic; it's a slight saber-wave of semantics intended to separate the good, capitalist Americans from those atheist Soviets. I don't think "Under God" asserts the US as a Christian nation, I think it serves to differentiate the US from the purported "Godless" world. And I think it's a superfluous and dated.
I don't think that an affinity to God is what makes us American. Rather, I think it's a belief in certain principles-- a "Trust" in liberty and justice-- that differentiate the US from nations of tyranny or oppression, as the Soviet union was viewed.
I think it's time we abandon the semantics. If we continue to enforce a latent belief that justice and liberty come from God, and not from the constant vigilance and work of millions of Americans, in the past and present, then I think we abandon a sense of duty to our values.
I would agree with Jack here, that the phrase is a cold war relic, and when McCarthyism was running rampant, I don't believe anyone could have mounted a sufficient attack on it.
In response to Rachel, I believe that just because something isn't the most important (or one of them) doesn't mean that it should be disregarded. The idea that "under god" should be removed has been around for almost as long as it has been safe to do so (after McCarthyism).
I feel that the phrase should be something you can add in (among other possibilities) if you wish, but the standard recitation should not include this phrase.
In response to Alexa, the fact that people are not required to say the pledge doesn't detract much from the endorsement of religion here - welfare isn't mandatory by far, but if we decided to make being Christian a requirement for receiving aid, it would be obviously unconstitutional.
I find the confluence of religion and politics in the U.S. very concerning. For example, in the last election, Obama was denounced as Muslim (which I'm pretty sure he isn't, unless he's managed to befuddle the vast majority of Americans), and Romney was demonized by some for being Mormon.
I really like Jack's analysis of the issue, especially that we should put our "Trust" not in God but in the American people (not that we shouldn't trust God, just that the country as a whole should express trust towards the people).
Also, several people have mentioned that reciting the pledge is not required, and that people can choose to skip over the "under God" part, but that's something to think about. Why should any American have to refrain from reciting part of the national pledge because it conflicts with their beliefs? It isn't very inclusive, considering the religious diversity we have.
The under God phrase should be kept in because we are all under God and he protects us as well as the US Constitution does. The reason for its inclusion in The Pledge of Allegiance was to unite us, and like patriotism unites us, religion also unites us on a more spiritual level. Even if atheists and agnostics believe there is not a Supreme power ruling us, there is still one that gives people comfort and explains many things in the universe that cannot be explained.
On the other hand, I understand why some would want the expulsion of said phrase. Not all of us are united under the same God, and under the first amendment we have a right to choose not to believe in a God. And those who believe there is no God don't feel united or comforted by the phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Post a Comment