In one speech, he spoke of America being “one nation under God” and how we need to get back to this place. The phrase “under God” has been controversial in the past. It is a part of our pledge of allegiance, and therefore has been accused of being discriminatory to those of non-Christian faiths.
I am here to tell you that this is exactly what it is, and should be removed from our pledge immediately. Many will object, saying that the USA was founded on Christian principles. Others will say that it is non-specific, and that tradition dictates that we should preserve the phrase.
Here’s some history 101. “Under God” was not added to the pledge of allegiance until 1954. It was done in an attempt to distinguish God-fearing Americans from the godless commies in the USSR. Spearheaded by the Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic men’s group, no less than 17 resolutions were started in Congress to change the pledge. Yet it wasn’t until a sermon by George Docherty that President Eisenhower and the majority of the public began to agree. Here’s a snippet of the sermon;
“Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow.”
The argument that the phrase is “primarily a statement related to the American political tradition” and therefore we should keep the phrase seems hardly valid in this light. For nearly 200 years we didn’t see the need to add such a phrase, until suddenly we had competition in the world. Since communism appeared to be a viable alternative to capitalism, we were forced to leave the world of debate and appeal to an authority to prove our superiority; God. If men like Tim Tebow would stop spouting nonsense and do their homework, maybe we wouldn’t have so many problems.
Now the wording has been challenged in the past, with the lower courts often ruling it unconstitutional and the Supreme Court ruling it constitutional, because in the words of Justice William Brennan, the words “have lost any true religious significance.”
However, I challenge that claim. Obviously Romney found the words to have some significance. And those that challenge the wording also feel that the words are religious. These people are ostracized, stigmatized, and shunned for their beliefs. Perhaps some of you had fellow students who refused to say the pledge in school. I myself remember the way they were judged, as weird or “other”. This is an unacceptable burden. No one should feel like an outsider because of their religious beliefs.
In any event, not all religions have a Christian concept of God. Some have barely any similar concept at all (such as Buddhism, or even better Confucianism). Why is it that we endorse something so discriminating as a nation? How is the wording of our Pledge of Allegiance not a violation of the establishment clause? It seems difficult to find a way to establish the spirit of a nation better than by the diction of the very pledge of that nation.
The discrepancy between the arguments highlights the problem. Some want to keep it because it is religious. Some want to remove it because it is religious. The legal experts say “sorry, it’s not religious.” Does that make any sense?
The problem is that people are ill-informed. The problem is that people don’t think it matters. The problem is that the reasonable citizens of the USA do not want to get involved, and leave it to the zealots on both sides to duke it out. Education is the first step. Finding the courage to share your thoughts is the next.
So, what do you think?
You can learn more by doing a simple google search, or by following the links below;
No comments:
Post a Comment