CHRIS SEGAL
Perspectives Editor
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled recently that the Pledge of Allegiance “violates schoolchildren’s right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.” This ruling puts the case back on track for another round in the Supreme Court.
Doctor, attorney and atheist activist Michael Newdow filed multiple lawsuits in 2002 to take the words “under God” out of the pledge. He filed lawsuits on behalf of his elementary-school daughter and identical lawsuits for three other unnamed students and parents, on the grounds of separation of church and state.
The Supreme Court case was dismissed last year for a procedural reason — Newdow does not have custody of his daughter. Not to mention, the mother is not an atheist and opposes her daughter being used to further Newdow’s cause.
Almost three years ago, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution showing support for the Pledge of Allegiance after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the pledge was unconstitutional. The irony lies in the fact that Congress inserted “under God” into the pledge in 1954.
CNN reported that 100 to 150 House members gathered at the steps of the Capitol to recite the pledge as a sign of support. It was moving to seeing the representatives making a stand for their beliefs, but let’s be honest, politicians wanted to appear patriotic after Sept. 11.
“All (the government) has do is put the pledge as it was before and say that we are one nation, indivisible, instead of dividing us on religious basis,” Newdow said to the Seattle Times Sept. 15, 2005.
How can a father suing the state of California for his daughter claim that he simply wants unity? Newdow should borrow President Bush’s 2000 presidential election tagline, “I’m a uniter not a divider.”
The Pledge of Allegiance was not written to unite or divide people, it was written to commemorate a national holiday. The pledge serves as a patriotic oath affirming our beliefs in liberty and justice for all.
Francis Bellamy wrote the pledge in August 1892 for the quad-centennial celebration of Columbus Day. Bellamy was the chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Foundation.
The pledge originally read, “I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
According to the author Dr. John W. Baer, Bellamy wanted to include “equality” for all in the pledge but was overruled by the committee members who opposed equality for women and African Americans.
At the National Flag Conference in 1923, the words were again changed from “my flag” to “the flag of the United States of America.”
The most recent and controversial change to the pledge occurred by Congress in 1954 when Congress added “under God.” According to President Eisenhower, the addition of “under God” affirms that the 50 individual states are united as a single republic under the divine providence of God, “our most powerful source.”
The pledge was changed to make it a patriotic oath that school children recited every morning to make it a public prayer. Is it still a public prayer today? No, it’s a patriotic tradition. Let’s not forget that our money has the words “In God we trust” on it.
A New York Times editorial written June 27, 2002, said, “A generic two-word reference to God tucking inside a rote civic exercise is not a prayer. Mr. Newdow’s daughter is not required to say either the words ‘under God’ or even the pledge itself, as the Supreme Court made clear in a 1943 case involving Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
To recite the pledge as it is written, we swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, individuality, liberty, justice and monotheism. There is an argument that Congress had no right to add the words back in the ‘50s, but it happened. There is no evidence that any school child has ever been harmed from saying the words “under God.”
The words endorse no particular God — they only show that our Founding Fathers believed in a monolithic God. School children are not required to say the Pledge of Allegiance or pray in class, but it should be an option for those interested. There should be a separation of the state supporting a church, not censorship of a patriotic oath or prayer.
Students should be allowed and encouraged to express their patriotic duties through the pledge. Whether the words “under God” are included or taken out of the pledge, banning the pledge amounts to censorship and the nitpicking of an atheist.
09-22-2005