I Pledge Allegiance to a Monotheistic God. Arguing in favour of using the Pledge of Alleigance in American Schools.
Smith
Kaitlyn Smith
11/14/11
4th hour Eilerman
I Pledge Allegiance to a Monotheistic God
Two words arise questioning the United States’ most basic truths. Even for Mehlville High School the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance had kept the school from reciting it every morning. However, starting in 2010, Denise Swanger decided things should change. Mehlville’s new principal supports her decision by saying “Mehlville Senior High is a school of character and therefore we do some things just because it is the right thing to do. By saying the pledge every morning, I believe it is way of honoring all the men and women who fight and have fought to defend our freedom in the United States. I also believe it allows us at MHS to honor and show our pride for our country” (Swanger). However, she failed to mention the overlying controversy. Does the pledge, in fact, exercise freedom of religion; do the words “under God” make the pledge unconstitutional? Analyzing the extent to this question digs deep into the founding and traditions of this country, which now stands a culturally diverse nation. Despite its outward appearance of monotheistic enforcement and religious undertone due to the words “under God”, the Pledge of Allegiance practices freedom of religion because it contains historical tradition and acts as a symbol of our nation’s patriotism.
The Pledge of Allegiance has changed greatly from its origins in 1892 (The U.S. Pledge). Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, wrote it for all public schools around the country to honor the 400-year anniversary of Columbus’ expedition (The U.S. Pledge). As the country began to become more culturally diverse, people began to question the pledge. Although it did not originally have the phrase, “under God”, it did refer to the flag as “my flag”. In an effort to prevent the confusion of immigrant children of their true homeland, the words changed to “the Flag of the United States of America” in 1924 (The U.S. Pledge). The phrase, “under God”, was not added until 1954 during the height of the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union (The U.S. Pledge). The United States added the phrase to differentiate itself from the “godless atheistic communistic Soviets” (The U.S. Pledge). Even the original body language of the pledge changed, due to the original “stiff, uplifted right hand salute” comparing to the gesture of Nazi Germany in the time of Hitler (The U.S. Pledge). The Pledge has adapted as the United States has adapted and has begun to distinguish itself as a nation. Moreover, it has become a representation of its nationalism and loyalty to the country, clearly shown in the current gesture of the pledge with the right hand held over the heart, similar to a promise. Eventually, it would be said in every school nationwide as token to the country’s bravery and devotion. In 1940, the Supreme Court ruled that students had the obligation to say the pledge (Johnson). Only three years later in 1943 would the pledge be questioned, eventually becoming not mandatory in schools due to the phrase “under God” (Johnson).
In 2002, the controversy of the Pledge of Allegiance would again bring up an effort to declare the Pledge of Allegiance as “unconstitutional” (The U.S Pledge). The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals believed that the pledge violated the First Amendment’s notion that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” (The U.S. Pledge). In the First Amendment it shows that the Free Exercise Clause does not necessarily prevent government from requiring the doing of some act merely because religious beliefs underlie the conduct in question. The Court gradually abandoned its strict belief-conduct distinction, and became more lenient in determining when a uniform, nondiscriminatory requirement needed a government mandate for citizens or when they allowed exceptions for citizens whose religious scruples forbid compliance (Free Exercise). The practice of teachers leading students in the pledge which acknowledges God seems to promote religion, in fact a monotheistic religion (The U.S. Pledge). However, the phrase which acknowledges God pertains differently to every individual. It does refer to the existence of a single deity, who is omnipotent and omniscient (Johnson). It also assumes that the majority of Americans believe in the existence of a God and that the United States predominantly believes in Christ (Johnson). However, the numbers of the Christian community continue to plummet. In a survey conducted by researchers at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, the percentage dropped from 88% in 1954 to 76% in 2008 (Johnson). In contrast, other non-Christian religious groups steadily increase. Data has shown that 27% of Americans do not wish to have a religious funeral which shows a general lack of attachment to religion (Johnson). Other groups such as Deists, Buddhists, and Jews oppose the phrase “under God” in the pledge (Johnson). Deists believe that God created the universe and then left and no longer remains here, therefore, the phrase does not agree (Johnson). Buddhists do not believe in a “personal God” and many Jews oppose any government involvement in religion (Johnson). The three member panel of the 9th Circuit of Appeals drew to question this separation between church and state. This court covers most of the West Coast including: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Organ and Washington (Flap after Court). This case and conflict began by a California man who objected to his daughter being compelled to listen to her second grade classmates recite the pledge in her elementary school in Elk Grove United School District (Flap after Court). The decision, passed by a majority vote of 2-1, ruled that the pledge did not agree with the First Amendment (Flap after Court). They noted that students cannot be forced to recite the pledge, but they emphasized that, even when the pledge is voluntary, the school participates in state endorsement of religion because it requires the teachers, who advise the students, to recite the pledge (The U.S. Pledge). The father, Michael Newdow, believed that the practice appeared “coercive” and that children view the pledge as a prayer and the practice of it appears as a harmful bribe to children and parents of children whose beliefs and values conflict with the article (The U.S. Pledge). Naturally pleased with the decision and agreeing that the Pledge went against the First Amendment, he wanted to keep fighting to support the Constitution (‘Under God’). However, the founders of our country and constitution would not likely agree with the court’s decision and probably would roll in their grave at the notion of diminishing traditional patriotism. The court also found it unacceptable because it leads those that do not believe in a “God” to think they do not belong and do not act as true members of the community politically and socially (‘Under God’). Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin and Stephen Reinhardt consisted of the majority vote stating that the pledge enforced religion by the state (Nieves). They emphasized the age of the schoolchildren and their manipulability in their classroom environment (Nieves). He wrote that “leading schoolchildren in a pledge that says the United States is ‘one nation under God’ is as objectionable as making them say ‘we are a nation ‘under Jesus,’ a nation under Vishnu’, a nation ‘under Zeus,’ or a nation ‘under no god,’ because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion” (Flap after Court). This provides exactly a reason why the Pledge exercises freedom of religion! “God” means many different things to many different people and when a person reciting the pledge reaches that point, they should fill in their own personal blank. The 9th Circuit is the nation’s most overturned appellate court because it forms many liberal and activist opinions, which over exaggerate areas such as civil and environmental rights (Flap after Court).
