All this outrage, but no competent counterargument. Legal experts agree that the ruling draws the logical conclusion from previous case law. The one dissenting opinion in the ruling basically states that the harm done to children coerced into reciting the religious component of the pledge is minimal compared to the fact that a lot of people would “feel good” if the pledge is kept as it is. But the Supreme Court itself has tossed out “feel good” arguments in the past.
The Wall Street Journal had to resort to an ad hominem attack and an appeal to consequences in its condemnation of the ruling. Both are logical fallacies, prissily delivered, and a sure sign that the editorial page doesn’t have an argumentative leg to stand on.
Of course, the outraged, most of whom haven’t read the ruling, are being fed a misrepresented version of it. It is, in fact, about protecting children from undue influence. Unlike children, adults do not suffer coercion when they choose to recite the pledge, or not to recite it, or only parts of it. These are the kinds of decisions adults are capable of making, but not impressionable children. The government should not mandate that children be asked to recite an endorsement of religion. That is not the government’s job.
And yes, those two words do amount to an endorsement. The words “under God” were added specifically for that purpose in 1954, to show that the US was a God-fearing nation, in stark contrast with those Godless communists. The facetious might make the argument that since the cold war has been won, those two words are no longer needed.
Finally: No, American money is not next, as certain alarmists would prefer us to believe. We do not tend to recite “In God We Trust” every time we use money, and hence we are not coerced by the existence on coinage of what is undeniably an endorsement of a religious concept. Other invocations of God, at public occasions such as the start of Congress, serve a secular purpose, and as such have their place. The addition of “under God” served a religious purpose, as President Eisenhower so eloquently put:
“From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.”
“Under Who?”
As many of you know, lately there has been a huge controversy on whether or not the phrase “under God” is Constitutional and should be allowed in the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. To me, the answer seems very clear and I expect a rather quick Supreme Court ruling on this case. There are obviously legitimate arguments are both sides, but in my opinion the side outlawing this phrase has better arguments.
First of all, people who argue against removing “under God” do it mostly for religious reasons. Of course people who believe in one god do not have a problem with it. And this doesn’t only include Christianity, but also Judaism and other religions.
I’m a Christian and do not personally have a problem saying “under God” for that reason, but I also am smart enough to put myself in the shoes of other people and realize what our country really was founded on. And the answer is religious freedom. http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067499 This website discusses some history of the Pledge and why we’re not “one nation under God”. Some people argue that it’s tradition and that’s why it shouldn’t be changed. Little do they know that “under God” wasn’t even added to the Pledge until 1954 under Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency. It’s actually been changed several times throughout history, so why not change it one more time? It’s no big deal.
When we as Americans assume that everyone believes in one Supreme Being, then we’re being ignorant and isolating an entire group of our own people in our own country. It just doesn’t make sense. Take atheists for example. Isn’t their a law regarding separation of church and state? Should Americans who don’t believe in a god at all be expected to recite that they live under one in a supposedly free nation?
In the June of 2002 a federal appeals court ruled that reciting “under God” in schools is an “endorsement of religion”, and they were right. This article has more information on the case. http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/ So basically, it’s already been found unconstitutional and most likely the Supreme Court will agree with this opinion.
However, the ironic aspect of this case going to the Supreme Court is that their will only be eight justices reviewing the case. Justice Scalia will not be hearing the case because he previously made a public announcement concerning his feelings about it. He stated that any changes to the pledge should be done democratically and not through the courts. Since he already publicly expressed his viewpoints, it wouldn’t really be fair to have him hear the case with his previous judgments on it. If the consensus is a 4-4 tie, then the previous ruling stands, which says that reciting “under God” in public schools as part of the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.
As you can see, I have several reasons to agree with banning the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase “under God” in it, especially in public schools. In summary, here are my reasons briefly restated:
— A California appeals court already ruled it unconstitutional.
— It makes the assumption that everyone believes in a deity.
— It has been changed several times and should not cause such controversy to change it again.
— It violates the separation between church and state.
— The flag is a pledge to our country, not to a religion, and this can be done just as
patriotically by removing the phrase “under God”.