Is the Pledge of Allegiance Discriminatory?

The Pledge of Allegiance has been causing quite a controversy in the past decade because of the simple words 'Under God.' However, that phrase is hurting large groups of people and it implies many things that have not been proven true or false about religion. What is not talked about is the groups of people that do not apply to the words 'under god', court decisions, and basic constitutional rights. Should we allow something that is only benefiting a couple religious sects and leaving out many other people-religious and not-in America?

It is well known that America-the 'Great Melting Pot'- is a Majority ruled country; however what if the minority is having their civil and constitutional rights stomped on? The religious right says that the majority of America is Christian-which is true-so that the pledge should be able to say 'Under God' (Markoff, Steven). Yet, there are many smaller groups in America where the phrase 'Under God' does not imply to them. These people can be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Hinduists, Deists, Humanists, many followers of Jewish and pagan sects and, simply, people who believe in the separation of church and state (Markoff, Steven).

Also the term "God" implies many things that even some Christians could disagree with. It implies that God is a man-not a woman (Robinson, B.A.). This disagrees with many Pagan Goddess religions and religions that are Polytheistic usually have both male and female Gods/esses. That is not even mentioning the Christians who believe that God is gender-neutral or a woman. Plus, it is not only hurtful to anyone in a specific religion or belief but also to the female gender because it emphasizes the patriarchy and male-influence America has.

God could even imply that one God rules over America and is even guiding the United States-much like Manifest Destiny. I believe it is silly to for us to put all our faith in one hand basket and start crediting all our misfortunes and triumphs as a country on God. America has not gotten as far as they have because of a God. This is not a Theocracy, it is a Democracy and I would hope that it would be organized and charitable enough to accept other cultures.

It has been decided that if a child does not want to say the Pledge in school they do not have to. Yet, many angry parents and school teachers have said that a student, religious or not, will more than likely stand up and say the pledge for fear of harassment. Douglass Laycock, Associate Dean of Research for University of Texas said: "They [religious right] believe what it means, they want people to say what it means, they want their kids to say what it means. And I'll tell you a dirty little secret: They want to coerce other kids to say what it means and what they believe to be true. They know that 'under God' means under God" (Robinson, B.A.). Yet, the religious right claim that they are just protecting the innocent schoolchildren's right to say the Pledge. I think this would be better solved, however, if they took the pledge out of the education system and into the homes. If each individual child wants to say the Pledge let it be in the privacy of their bedrooms and by their own freewill.

The Pledge Project asks their readers to think about how they would feel if the pledge said "Without God" and if they would repeat it or not (Restoration Project). They believe that the Pledge violates the First amendment because it "establishes a particular religious theology about the nation's relationship to God...ignoring all other theologies in the process" (Restoration Project).

There have also been various cases brought to the Supreme Court by Mike Newdow, two of them deal with the President's Inaugural Speeches in which he prayed. Newdow claims that the speeches were "overtly Christian" and could have been offensive since the event was televised and the President is seen as an Icon of America overseas. However, both cases were turned down, one for "mootness" and another because Newdon only viewed the prayer on his television and the judge claimed that was not good standing (Newdon, Mike). Yet, something tells me that if Newdon had been at the Inaugural Speech it would not have changed the ruling one bit.

Essentially, the pledge may be offensive to the minority in America but it also tramples on their civil and constitutional rights. Plus, by enforcing the Pledge in the classroom they are scaring children into saying the pledge because they could be harassed. It is obvious that the court cases are not going to get anywhere in the present because there are very conservative judges appointed in the Supreme Court. However, if you agree that God does not exist, might be a woman or gender neutral, or you simply believe in not enforcing the Christian religion on other people then speak out. Maybe we are not the minority; maybe you are just being silent because of the fear of exile. Yet, if we all speak out we may be able to create social change-not to stomp out the Christians but by making the social institutions religiously equal.