This piece is an argumentative essay that I wrote in favor of keeping the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
One Nation... Under God?
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Uttered by school kids all over the country since 1892 when it was first written by a man named Francis Bellamy and published in The Youth's Companion, the pledge of allegiance has been revised twice, and is now being attacked for its latest addition of the words “under God”. Many people have taken a stand on the debate of its constitutionality and while many find no problem with it, others feel that it violates freedom of religion and needs to be omitted. While there is a religious mention to God, a higher entity, the words do not violate the freedom of religion given in the First Amendment of the Constitution and should therefore not be removed.
“Under God”, the segment under question, does not violate one’s rights. It does not signify that America is of any one religion, the pledge is not written in prayer form, does not say that one is pledging allegiance to the God mentioned but to the country, and no one is forced to recite the pledge, let alone that particular phrase.
America, a nation based on freedoms, has no set religion. It is unlawful for America to have anything but religious neutrality. Citizens are free to worship however they choose, if at all. Having “One Nation, Under God” included in the Pledge of Allegiance does not state otherwise. If this phrase were a claim made by America that this country is of any one religion, which god it signify that would America as a whole be serving? Would it be the Jewish or Christian god, the Islamic god, perhaps one of the three gods worshiped by the Hindus? There are many gods around the world, many worshiped in America. The Pledge does not single out any god. Since the term is so open ended, it cannot be said that America is of any specific religion.
The way in which the pledge is written also prevents it from being a violation. The pledge is a statement, a commitment being made by citizens to their country. If the pledge were written in prayer form, addressing a god, it would mix the businesses of the state and church. If that were the case, there could be a problem at hand. With the Pledge being said generally in public areas like government institutions (public schools), a prayer form would most certainly be a mix of the state and church. Since it merely makes a mention of a god and does not talk to it, it's not a violation of any rights.
Another way in which it does not violate the freedom of religion is that by reciting it one is not pledging their allegiance to a god but rather to the country. By saying this pledge daily in schools, or anywhere else for that matter, one does not say that they pledge allegiance to a god, a god and the country, the god of the country, or any other version that would require one to pledge an allegiance to a God. The allegiance being pledged is only to the country that the individual is a citizen of. Furthermore, in no way shape or form is anyone required to recite the pledge of allegiance. The particular segment “Under God” is included in that. If one wants to say the Pledge at all, they are not made to say that part also. If it were a requirement that people recited the pledge it could be a violation of the freedom of speech. If it were a requirement that “Under God” be recited, then it could be argued as a violation of the freedom of religion. Seeing as how it is not a requirement, it is not a violation of said freedoms.
On the other hand, people opposing the segment, would argue a much different point. They argue that the statement is implying that there is only one true God and all others are false, that it impresses upon young children the views of monotheistic religion, and that by even mentioning god, and not being neutral to religion as a whole it is violating the 1st amendment.
The fact that the pledge says 'God' instead of generalizing it, some feel that it is signifying the God, saying that there is one god and that it is the only god, and all other gods are false. Doug Laycock, Counsel of Record for 32 Christian and Jewish clergy had this to say in opposition to 'under God': “It doesn't say one nation under our god, or some gods, or one of the gods. It pretty clearly implies there is only one God, and if there is only one God, then the God of the pledge is the one true God, and other alleged gods around the world are false gods...” (“Do the Words”).
Those with opposing views also say that God is clearly a singular noun, a single god. Some people feel that this signifies monotheistic views and that this creates a disturbance for families with polytheistic views. Laycock also says, “The largest private opinion polls have about 15 percent of the population not subscribing to any monotheistic conception of God... 7.2 million children in public schools who are being asked to personally affirm every morning a religious belief that is different from the religious belief that is taught or held in their home and by their parents.” (“Do the Words”).
The 1st amendment, containing the freedom of religion, is there to keep the government in check and make sure that is remains secular. According to Mel Lipman, American Humanist Association President, the mention of God in the pledge is a violation of the 1st amendment: “The 1st amendment does not require hostility toward religion, but mandates government neutrality toward religion. By imposing a religious belief on those without such beliefs, the current version of the Pledge utterly fails this test!” (“Do the Words”).
Those opposed to the phrase do make a valid point; if perceived that way, it could imply a monotheistic outlook. Do the children sense that though? As a child, I myself did not notice that much. I remember speeding through the words to be the first to sit down. I tried to figure out what I was saying, but it seemed as though it was just a stream of gibberish, and if someone asked me what it said, I had to stop and go back through it. Even now, I rely on memory and instinct to get through the pledge when I need to.
They say that it implies that there is only one true God, and the rest are wrong, but isn't god a general term? When capitalized it becomes a name, referring to a certain God, but when written as god, it is a general term for the higher power believed in by a religion. Children recite the pledge, they do not read it. How are they to know if it’s written God or god? If they notice at all, do they just assume that it's their God? Even within the same religion people have their own mental image of their god, so what would make different religions any different a situation. They can just insert their own god. It is not specified which religion's God the nation is “under”.
They could have a strong argument for the violation of the 1st amendment. The mention of religion could revoke the neutrality of government when the pledge is recited in a public school. However, they do remain neutral in the fact that they do not specify which god they are referring to. They do not say 'Under the Christian God', or 'Under the Jewish God'. So are they actually violating the right to freedom of religion?
So imagine, what would happen if the phrase were to be removed after all? Would the children who have learned it with the phrase still have the right to say that part? Even if they did, would it be worth it to them to add it in on their own, and end up being behind the class, standing out? The people who oppose the phrase are worried that it takes away their rights. It violates their freedom of religion. While they could argue this, it could be logically argued that it does not, and it has been ruled twice now that it, in fact, does not violate anyone’s freedoms. Though, if it were to be removed now, it could have damaging effects on the young generation of people who think it's just fine the way it is. Those with the religious views that the opposing side say the pledge is implying, may question what the government is saying about their religion, or as religion as a whole.
So what happens then? If the phrase is left intact, there is no harm done. Those who are atheistic or polytheistic, or feel that the pledge addresses a god that is not theirs, can opt to not say “Under God”. If it were taken out, the kids who don't have a problem with the phrase lose their ability to say that part. They could be being influenced to think that their god is wrong, or that it is wrong to publicly believe in their god. Is that fair? No, it is not. “Under God” does not violate anyone's freedom of speech, but the removal could have detrimental effects. Therefore, it does not need to be removed from the pledge of allegiance.
Works Cited
"Do the Words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance Improperly Endorse Religion? - Under God in the Pledge - ProCon.org." Under God ProCon.org. Web. 14 Nov. 2010.
"The Pledge of Allegiance." Ushistory.org. Web. 14 Nov. 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment