Most people, it appears, have learned more about the Pledge of Allegiance in the last few days than they ever knew, even after 13 years of reciting it faithfully every school day. That’s just one of the many ironies surrounding the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision last week that the words "under God" in the pledge are unconstitutional.
Many were surprised to learn that the now controversial words were added in 1954 in the thick of the Cold War. Further, that the author of the pledge, Francis Bellamy, was an ordained minister. Certainly, some suggest, if a minister didn’t include the words "under God" originally, why should anyone else do so later on?
But it’s the removal of the words that now has many upset, even angry. Just as the idea of keeping them in the pledge upsets and angers others. Both sides make very valid points.
It is unfair to declare this decision a liberal attack as many have done already. Several liberal politicians reacted with as much surprise as their conservative counterparts. One Democrat went so far as to suggest a constitutional amendment. It is equally unfair to declare the unhappy reaction by so many people as a poor reflection upon the current administration and Congress. This is not the first time our country has debated the matter and it won’t be the last. Such accusations do nothing to resolve the matter or induce healthy discussion. They only serve to further divide us.
One of the concerns at the core of this is the belief that the federal court’s decision is an attack on God and another step toward erasing him from our country entirely. It is important to remember that our courts are not charged with the responsibility of carrying out the will or motivations of those who bring about such lawsuits. Our courts must consider the well-being of the country, in alignment with our Constitution. Remember, the courts have protected various religions in the past. They protected Jehovah’s Witnesses who objected to reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, by deciding the recitation was not mandatory after all. Now, the courts will have to decide if children who desperately want to show their patriotism can do so without having to acknowledge a God they might not believe exists.
Removing God from our country would be virtually impossible. Whatever the various religious inclinations of our forefathers, they made significant mention of God in the Declaration of Independence. In fact, they determined, in part, that we deserved the right to form our own country because of the "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God." And that people have certain rights "endowed by their Creator."
Just a couple of weeks ago we wrote a Flag Day editorial encouraging readers to check out a Web site that shared facts, including words that had been added to the pledge over the years. We had no idea we would be writing about the same issue in such a different light. But the matter of eliminating the controversial phrase is certainly worth more investigation and consideration.
As Ken Paulson, executive director of the First Amendment Center, said in a recent column, the two phrases, "under God" and "liberty and justice for all" are not mutually exclusive. If this country hopes to reach a healthy compromise, perhaps it is time we focused on another critical phrase in our pledge — indivisible.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
