Emily Knowles and Roger Couture

THIS EDITION

Front Page

Should "under God" be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance?

"It is my belief that taking 'under God' out will contribute to total world corruption by removing morality and faith."

Baptist minister Francis Bellamy put a few words together that held meaning to him. He made millions of copies and sent them to schoolchildren to recite on Columbus Day. On October 12, 1892, more than 12 million school children recited Bellamy’s “Pledge of Allegiance.”

Congress officially adopted the pledge in 1942, but in 1943 it was ruled unconstitutional. The ruling was that no person would be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

But in 2000, the pledge was back in the news with allegations of being unconstitutional. Michael Newdow raised questions at Elk Grove California School District because he said his daughter’s rights as an atheist were being violated. He said that she was “compelled” to listen to her fellow classmates pledge their allegiance to “one nation under God.”

A lot of people may agree that this is a violation of the Freedom of Speech Amendment, but that amendment protects our rights to choose a religion/belief and to speak of it freely. It does not, however, protect our right to not hear what we don’t like.

Well, to the surprise of many, the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court in California regarding the use of “under God” was deemed unconstitutional. On grounds of forcing non-believers to tolerate the “governments religious preference.” Don’t worry, the Supreme Court holds the final say on this outrageous decision. The Ninth Circuit Court has already been criticized on this ruling.

Many say it was intended as a prayer; well, it wasn’t. The Pledge is simply a reaffirmation of the faith we have in our country, so to be offended is simply ignorant.

It is my belief that taking “under God” out will contribute to total world corruption by removing morality and faith.

As a Christian I am tired of the amount of tolerance I am expected to have. I am surrounded by profanity on television, radio and movies, and the sexual innuendo on billboards. But I am not okay with these things so I choose not to contribute to them. I am tired of watching this lost world sail into oblivion without a clue of truth.

Many say they are just words. Well, if they are JUST words, then LEAVE THEM ALONE! This accusation against the pledge is simply a device to ruffle feathers. Sure, “under God” is only a phrase; not even included in the original pledge but added to give morality and faith to a nation united.

I am not going to call people names or point any fingers, but I am tired of living in a world where we just go in circles. If we want something to change, then change the policies that make a long-term difference. The truth is that we want face-value truth not real truth.

As Americans we are truly blessed to be in a country that we can profess and incorporate our faith in God and our country in one pledge. I can understand that “under God” was not originally in the Pledge of Allegiance. “Under God” was placed in the pledge in 1954 simply to add a sense of unity, under one creator, to our nation.

Former President Dwight D. Eisenhower professed, “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war.”

If I am pushing your buttons, good! If you are upset with what I am saying, why?

I am not pushing for “under God” to remain because it says the word ‘God,’ but because I am vowing with fellow believers and Americans that we unite under God. I agree with James Gallini, a writer for the UTA-Arlington, Shorthorn, when he says that Christians have “allowed this to happen and if we don’t fight to change it then we deserve to be treated like doormats.”

In a world where we are pushed to stand and state boldly our opinions and beliefs, please tell me what is the point of this argument against the Pledge of Allegiance really about? Are we just pushing for change because it is truthful and right or because it goes against the flow? Is being different from everyone else worth basing all you live for on nothing?

We, as Christians, are called to love and spread God’s word throughout the land. We, as Christians, are not called to be of the world, only in the world. But in not being aggressive, we have created this weak faith in the process.

Hopefully you can see the intentions of the pledge and the phrase “under God.” This argument has no holdings or regard to our Founding Fathers, monotheism, or freedom of speech, but people are trying to rid America of its harmless traditions. Show me an argument that has nothing to do with those above “arguments” and we will go from there, but until then, leave my pledge alone!

"The incorporation of 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance implies that in order to be patriotic and loyal to your country, one must be theistic."

The word “God” as part of the Pledge of Allegiance is an intrusion of the theistic perspective into the realm of the state. Without allowing your personal beliefs to cloud your mind, ask yourself this question, “What is the purpose of the Pledge of Allegiance?” For the sake of enlightenment, let me give you a hint: the purpose of the Pledge of Allegiance is for the citizens of this great nation to express their loyalty to their country.

The incorporation of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance implies that in order to be patriotic and loyal to your country, one must be theistic. The very presence of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is offensive to me because of the underlined assumption that I, too, belong to the same flock of sheep that confesses their sins to a celestial bogeyman.

Even more important, what does “under God” exactly mean? Does it mean that our government derives its authority from God? I hope not! Last time I checked, the government is supposed to derive its authority from the people, or does it mean that God favors us over other peoples or nations? If this is the case, how are we any different from the religious extremist or any other religious bigot?

To choose the latter premise is to believe that we somehow have a privileged relationship with God, which implies that God is biased toward us. Furthermore, I feel compelled to address a Christian and American misconception. A common argument in opposition to this issue is that our country was founded on Christian principles. This is not an entirely accurate historical allegation, because our government was also founded on eighteenth-century political liberalism.

Moreover, there are those who claim that the founding fathers endorsed Christianity as the foundation for democracy. There is some truth to this; however, these children of God do not mention that there were many secular-minded founding fathers. Like for instance, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine.

Likewise, I find it interesting that a minister wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1890s and did not find it necessary to incorporate “God” into the pledge; but rather this divine reform was enacted in 1957 by Eisenhower in an attempt to emphasize the difference between Americans and the godless communists.

Oh, but I am forgetting the most popular argument, that nowhere does our constitution endorse separation between church and state. I will let you determine that for yourself, as I present to you the first amendment of the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

One of the principal tenets of the U.S. Constitution was the elimination of state religions. It is neither the function of the government to promote religion nor interfere with it. Let’s get it straight! God is not an elected official in the government! (Well, at least I don’t remember him campaigning.) However, rest assured, I didn’t vote against him.

“Under God” simply poses too many problems. Not only does this offend the secular element of our society, but it represses the philosophical freedom of those who do not indulge in this mental intoxicant

Example with bullet to copy