|
| |
god_in_the_pledge_of_allegiance
|
|
|
shinequwa
|
The Pledge of Allegiance that millions of American citizens and school children recite daily has come under attack as being unconstitutional. In 2002, Michael Newdow, an atheist, became troubled and forlorn that his young daughter would recite the pledge each morning in her classroom, so he took the Sacramento school district in question to court claiming that the phrase “under God” infringed on the separation of church and state, therefore declaring the term to be unconstitutional. In June of that year, the ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Newdow and stated that the pledge was, in fact, an “unconstitutional endorsement of religion” (Ruling). This ruling caused uproar among politicians and citizens all across America. Just one day after this verdict, the same Court of Appeals placed a hold on the decision and the Justice Apartment demanded a full hearing on the issue and filed an appeal to the previous decision (Reaves). In October of 2003, the Supreme Court agreed that early in 2004 they would hear the case and will make a final decision on whether school children can be allowed to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the reference to God in it. This pledge has an interesting history and its wording stirs numerous strong emotional feelings. To some such as Newdow, the term “under God” is offensive to their personal beliefs. Despite this, the Pledge of Allegiance ought to retain the term “under God” because of its personal and historical significance, along with being the most common belief in America.
Many people in our society are not aware of the fact that God has not always been referred to in the Pledge of Allegiance. It was added in 1954 on Flag Day, during the Cold War, which was a time when many Americans feared the influence of communism. The Soviet Union was the particular reason for this concern because of their atheistic communist ways. Our country wanted to actively show the rest of the world and ourselves that America had religion, unlike the Soviet Union (Kozleski 28). As former President Eisenhower said, “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future…we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war” (Kozleski 28). Since that time, there have been many cases brought up in court questioning whether the usage of God’s name should be included in the pledge, but none have succeeded in getting the phrase removed, their initial intent. To the generation who fought and feared socialism, and the generality today, this term is a symbol for our country’s religious liberty (Kitch F2).
Those people who have atheistic, agnostic, or polytheistic beliefs account for only a minute percentage of our country’s population. Those with these beliefs argue that by having God in the pledge leads them to believe that they, in the eyes of the rest of the American monotheistic population, “are outsiders, not full members of the political community” (Ruling). On the other hand, if this reference to God is removed from the pledge, wouldn’t that make the believers of a God “outsiders”? It does not make any sense to struggle to satisfy everybody because either way you look at it, not everyone can be satisfied with the wording.
The public in favor of removing God from the Pledge also argues that leaving God in the Pledge violates the issue of separation of church and state. These opponents say that we are not taking adequate actions to satisfy everyone’s requests on this matter. There is agreement that, without a doubt, the segregation of these two entities should be maintained and respected. But in reality, it does not matter how hard political leaders try to enforce it, it is impossible to have total and utter separation of these two divisions. There are already many religiously influenced parts of our government; it is too late to turn back. For example, “In God We Trust” has been printed on all our currency since 1955 (Moore 143) and our most commonly used calendar is based on religion, as is our court and military systems. There even are four references to God in our Declaration of Independence (Kitch F1). In these instances, the government is not promoting monotheistic religion in America; it just indicates a tradition and a feeling of faith and spiritual wisdom. As circuit judge Ferdinand Fernandez said, “phrases such as ‘under God’ or ‘In God We Trust’ have no tendency to establish religion in this country, except in the eyes of those who most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our policy” (Ruling). To try to remove these religiously influenced elements of our society is illogical. Those who are familiar with our governmental system would, undoubtedly, agree that more religious influences should not be added into our country’s political structure. The references to God in our Pledge of Allegiance among other things were constitutionally added and have stood the test of time for nearly fifty years. Changing the wording in the pledge will only lead to more protesting and confusion than what we have already witnessed during Newdow’s case in California (Kitch F2).
Furthermore, the reference to God in the pledge holds an immense historic value. The earliest settlers in America came for religious freedom. It is basic to which we are as a nation. Our founding fathers believed in one god, the creator of our country. Therefore, America is believed by most people to be, in a way, founded by God. The term “under God” in the pledge represents all the spiritual values and morals our country was based upon and was meant to have by those that established it. We should not disregard all these fine ideals given to us. As Woodrow Wilson once said, “America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the Holy Scriptures” (Wampler 83). It does not matter what religion you are, or even if you are not religious; the term “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance helps remind us of our American pride, our heritage, and the legacy it leave to us.
The reference to God in the Pledge is in fact very minute. The true meaning of the Pledge is “a promise of loyalty to all that the flag represents: a republic based on liberty and rooted in justice for everyone” (Kozleski 10). When reciting it, individuals should be keeping in mind thoughts about their wonderful country, their freedom, and their American heritage, not whether or not the other people around them happen to offend them by saying God’s name. Moreover, Americans should also take into account that they are not required to recite the flag salute, or even say the word “God.” If they object to the term “under God,” there is no reason why they should say it. In 1940, the Supreme Court ruled during the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette case that since all people are granted the freedom of speech, the government couldn’t force anyone to express their beliefs, including their religious values in the Pledge. This indicates to everyone that they have freedom of religion and speech (Reaves). Not delivering the pledge is nothing anyone should be ashamed of or embarrassed to do, if it goes against your personal beliefs, then by all means don’t say it. To recite the Pledge of Allegiance is a choice that someone needs to make for him or herself, not something that is mandatory.
Another reason to keep God in our pledge is because it honors the mainstream religious beliefs in our country. There is no argument that America is generally dominated by Christian beliefs. This is a fact that cannot be ignored when considering subjects such as God in the Pledge. It doesn’t matter how much separation of church and state is enforced, government rulings are almost always made with the well being of the greater part of the public in mind. The name God is honored by many religious beliefs and the few Americans that do not believe in this God only account for a small minority. Why is it that we seem to be trying to please the people that are a little different from others around them, instead of treating everyone as equals as we are meant to?
The phrase “under God” is an important and meaningful component of our Pledge of Allegiance. If it were to be removed, it would have a dire impact on our society. The term holds historical significance and symbolizes the spiritual outlook of the majority of citizens of America. It reminds us that our country is indeed a nation founded in faith. Today, these arguments still hold true. Removing the reference to God from the pledge would make us ask ourselves what our country is turning into and where has our ideals of an excellent American gone? Even President Bush strongly expressed his desire to keep the term “under God” in the pledge while Newdow’s case was in session. So many things would be lost if we were to remove God’s reference from the pledge, it is just not worth it.
|
040123
|
| |
... |
|
|
shinequwa
|
hehe, that's my research paper i wrote for my english class this year.
i got a 97%... YAY!!!
|
040123
|
| |
... |
|
|
.
|
right, because that minute percentage, aka the minority, should always bend to the will of the majority.
dumbass.
|
040123
|
| |
... |
|
|
misstree
|
very well-written, but freedom of religion includes freedom *from* religion. let me go a bit more in-depth.
one point you refer to often is that monotheism is the dominant religion in america. the separation of church and state was established specifically to prevent a "national religion" and leave each person to choose what they believe is right. leaving such phrasing in the consitution (and on the bills, and swearing on bibles in courtrooms) does establish such. flip the contents to satanism, say. "under satan". "in satan we trust". swearing on the necronomicon. satanism is to christians as christianity is to many atheists; not just something different, but a fundamentally opposite belief set.
standing on historical memory doesn't hold either. the cold war was a time of persecution and paranoia; "under god" was inserted to make those "dirty red bastards" nervous and help flush them out. and again i say; there is more need to reaffirm freedom of religious faith, including those that are not monotheistic, than there is to remember the majority roots.
also, i believe you underestimate the number of non-monotheistic people in this country. between spiritual mutts, agnostics, pagans of every flavor, the wide range of middle eastern and asian religions, native american traditions, and yes, atheists, a considerable portion of the population is represented. removal of god from the pledge would not make monotheists outsiders; it would simply remove references to their religion, same as everyone else, thus making no one an outsider.
next up, separation of church and state. saying, well, it's everywhere, it doesn't make any sense to try to take it out, is an entirely invalid argument. the founding fathers set up the system they did in order to allow it to best change over time, to adapt as times adapted. to fail to adapt as appropriate is a much bigger slap in the face to this country's traditions than removing exclusionary religious wording from something that should be able to be held dear by all americans, regardless of spiritual orientation. and to say that it should stay because it would cause more protests? to mangle a quote, when they came for the atheists to take away their right to freedom of and from religion, i did not speak out, because i was not an atheist. when they came for the other miscellaneous religions i did not speak out, for i didn't want to make waves. when they came for the non-christians, i didn't speak out, because i was baptized lutheran. when they came for the non-protestants, well, we were pretty much foocked, because everyone else that could speak out for us was gone.
when i was in school and had to shut my mouth during the phrase, "under god," i felt like the pledge was being devalued to me. you say that it is representative of out freedom and american heritage; what about my freedom to not believe in god? how did that become so devalued that its inclusion inspires more patriotism than allowing for any viewpoint to be peacably held and expressed?
and, um, pardon me, i know this is going to sound terribly rude, i don't mean it to be, but i must briefly quote: "It doesn’t matter how much separation of church and state is enforced, government rulings are almost always made with the well being of the greater part of the public in mind" and then take a moment to laugh my motherfucking ass off. seriously. the well being of the majority is not the primary concern; it is the well being of the minority, which happens to often coincide with making the majority think they're getting a decent deal. pork belly projects and political underhandedness are a *very* strong part of the american tradition, and in this, the phrase "under god" does wonderfully as a historical marker.
the removal of the phrase would have no dire impact; it would cause a bit of a stir for the water cooler for a time, and in five years nearly no one would remember the stir, what with the media sensationalism being what it is. things like wars have dire impact; disregarding freedom of religion has dire impact; removing a remant of a witch-hunting era would have none.
and, just my own little anecdotal tidbit, i was raised by an atheist and a vague lutheran. i was brought to church on alternating sundays until i said i didn't want to go anymore. i knew atheism wasn't for me, but i was still young, and had yet to figure out what *was* for me, and this was accepted. i felt my face flush every time i closed my mouth for those two words during the pledge. i wanted very badly to feel this love for my country, but i will always remember my stomach churning, feeling like i wasn't welcome. there's no reason for it to be there--it excludes many by its presence, and would exclude none with its removal.
(again, i must say, nicely written, fit well to expository form, which i kinda threw out the window; i assume for a class? if so, i'd be interested to hear how you scored on it.)
|
040123
|
| |
... |
|
|
misstree
|
good score. 'gratz.
|
040123
|
| |
... |
|
|
shinequwa
|
*tear*
|
040123
|
| |
... |
|
|
shinequwa
|
thanks! i was very pleased with my score cause personally i thought my paper kinda sucked... and my teacher is a super hard grader cause it's an honors class
|
040123
|
| |
... |
|
|
birdmad
|
As it was the Mid 1950's and this country was highly paranoid about the "Red Menace" of communism, the Soviet Union , the insertion of "Under God" into the pledge was a McCarthy-ite tactic to try and make it easier to play "Spot the hidden Communist", as the conventional wisdom was that since Communists are anti-religion they would be loath to utter the phrase, apparently confusing communists who avoid religion for political reasons with demonic entities who might be literally harmed by the mere mention or utterance of the name of God.
on this note, i quote James Madison who as one of the "Founding Fathers" seems to disagree with Woodrow Wilson's assertion that America was intended to be some sort of Christian nation (Besides, Wilson was an avowed racist and thought very highly of D.W. Griffith's pro-Klan propaganda film "Birth of a Nation" so his grasp of Christianity is tenuous at best and most of the influential political christians in America seem to subscribe to the gospel of some heretofore unknown "Free Market Jesus" which allows them to politically decry as un-christian anything they might disagree with even if its disconnect from religious matters is wider than the farthest points of the Grand f'ing Canyon)
"What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society?...in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people."
(James Madison, June 1785).
|
040123
|
| |
... |
|
|
minnesota_chris
|
School kids must pledge "we are one nation, under God." However, we must also require our teachers to teach that Biblical creation is false.
We're a weird country.
|
040124
|
| |
... |
|
|
hsg
|
sep. church and state
|
040919
|
| |
... |
|
|
hsg
|
sep. church and state
|
040919
|
