One Nation "Under God"

Recently, controversy has been surrounding the Pledge of Allegiance and the “under God” phrase. Dr. Michael Newdow brought before the Supreme Court the argument that his daughter should not be required to listen to a pledge which promises “under God” because it conflicts with his own teachings to her, which is that there is no God. Atheist views have been strong in protecting freedom of religion, in their right to have no religion.

Many people argue that “under God” has become a part of the “fabric of society” and that it should not be taken out just out of respect to the Pledge, which shows the pride in being American of those who recite it. However, the phrase “under God” was not originally in the Pledge of Allegiance.

In the 1950s, during the Red Scare, there was a mad rush to add references of God to the American culture. With the mass fear of communism, Congress was quick to make changes in order to differentiate America from the other “godless” countries by adding “In God We Trust” to money and “under God” to the Pledge.

Dr. Newdow’s case was dismissed on the grounds that due to a custody battle, he was not in a position to speak for his daughter and her rights at the time. Had the case been actually tried, it would have been interesting to see how the Supreme Court would have applied the rather ambiguous “Lemon test.”

Well first of all, was “under God” added for a secular purpose? It was added out of fear. In order to be separate from the communists, we needed to be more religious. But being religious is not the only way to separate oneself from communism, and not having religion does not make one communistic. So I would say that there is no valid secular purpose for adding “under God.”

Secondly, does the primary effect advance or inhibit a religion? Well it forwards the views of those who believe in a God and inhibits those who do not believe there is a God. There are those who say that when we way “under God,” we don’t literally mean God. This would be blasphemous to those who do believe in a God and there are millions of people pledging allegiance “under God” but not really meaning God. So that could be considered inhibiting the beliefs of those who do believe in God. All around, this is clause is definitely being violated.

Lastly, does it foster “excessive entanglement with religion”? Based off the complexity of the previous two answers, I would definitely say that “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance definitely qualifies as “excessive entanglement.” So not one but all three parts of the Lemon test are being violated.

Therefore, I think that the religious references that have been built into our state, that were not originally intended by the Founding Fathers, need to be removed. We should go back to printing “E Pluribus Unum” on our money, and remove the “under God” phrase from the Pledge of Allegiance.

In the following video, Dr. Newdow addresses the Founding Fathers, their original intentions and an example of when they declared “under God” in an oath as unconstitutional. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA68TTISRi8

Carter’s main concern is that with the growing height of the wall of separation that people’s right to support their religion and share it with others will be inhibited because of the mounting push for protection of secularity. I think Carter has a valid concern. Often people’s opinions are discredited merely because they may be influenced by their religious views. Of course people will be affected by their religious views, but that does not make them invalid. There is a fine line between protecting secularity and inhibiting religion. The first amendment specifically protects religion, not secularity.

A lot of the decisions that have been made since the implementation of the Lemon test have been inconsistent. The exceptions that have been allowed are causing increasing entanglement with religion that is unnecessary. I wonder if the Supreme Court had released a ruling on the constitutionality of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, whether the ruling would have followed the Lemon test or if it would have become another exception because it has become a part of the “fabric of our society.”