However, it is undisputable that the mention of the word god is religious in itself. Therefore the reference to the word god in the pledge is against the constitution. The reason being, that it is endorsing the belief of religion over the non-belief of religion. Yet the primary reason it has been allowed to stay in our pledge is because the large majority of the United States population is religious. On further inspection of the statement it becomes evident that not only is the statement religious, but it favors a Christian god in a subtle way that most would not notice. Most other religious institutions do not use a capital "G" to refer to their god. Christianity however does use this to refer to their god, which means the state which makes students stay the Pledge of Allegiance is endorsing a Christian view. Another subtle yet breach of the constitution is that the reference to god in the pledge is singular, thus implying that there is only one god. Once again the statement is favoring Christianity or other monotheistic religions as oppose to other religions which have several gods (polytheism).
Supporters of the statement "under God" have used the argument that the statement is very broad and incorporates everyone, no matter what their religious beliefs are. On the contrary this is far from the truth. Atheists are not included in this statement. What is often presumed is that if these people have no religious beliefs then they should have no problem saying the phrase. However, how would the religious community feel as a whole if they were required to say "…one nation under no God…" They would be just as outraged as the people are disturbed with the current pledge.
Although the "under God" statement seems like a trivial issue, it has more to do with the whole issue of religion and our government. Government should not be endorsing any religion, in any case. This includes forcing students to say a pledge which includes any religious references, religious statements printed on money, and even religious statements made in public places.
Churches are places where those with religious beliefs can gather and share their views. Everyone is free to practice what he/she wishes in the privacy of their own homes. Religion should be contained to these places of worship. Therefore the government would no longer be favoring one religious view over another. However, when proponents of the current phrase attempt to place their beliefs into government establishments they are impinging on the constitutional rights of others.
The problem with enforcing these constitutional rights is that often these rights are denied until the majority agrees with the problem at hand. Although the "under God" phrase may be breaching the constitution it is extremely difficult to remove it. There are a much larger percentage of religious individuals in the United States, than there are un-religious ones. Therefore as the case has been in much of the history of the United States, the majority will rule even if they are in the wrong. Some examples of these constitutional travesties include the enslavement of African Americans, denial of suffrage of women, civil rights for blacks, and more recently gay marriages. Yet, these problems are far more complicated than the problem of religion and government.
Although the solution to our current predicament is not an effortless one, it is one of the easier issues to resolve. The majority must be convinced that they are breaching basic constitutional rights by forcing students in classrooms to pledge their allegiance to a monotheistic god, and nudging them further to believe a Christian view as well. Nevertheless, removing the statement from our pledge is only the first step. Our government is beleaguered with references to religion. It will take countless debates and court cases to remove them all. However it is the patriotic duty of every citizen to defend our Constitutional rights for each and every citizen of the United States; for this generation as well as the generations to come.
Published by Truth Teller
"The world is yours to make." View profile
Did Barack Obama Refuse to Say the Pledge of Allegiance?After receiving an email showing a picture of Mr. Obama obviously not saying the Pledge of Allegiance while others were, I personally asked Mr. Obama about it and this is what h...
There is No Constitutional Basis for Forcing a Student to Recite the Ple...Maybe it's time to rethink the whole idea of forcing students to take a pledge of allegiance to a piece of cloth every morning. - Is the Pledge of Allegiance Discriminatory?Should we allow something that is only benefiting a couple religious sects and leaving out many other people-religious and not-in America?
The Pledge of DisobedienceUnited States Supreme Court gears up to hear arguments next year in the matter of the Pledge of Allegiance.- The Controversial Pledge of Alligiance?This article is a response to the California Supreme Court coming to the descision that the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional.
- An Interesting and New Religious Philosophy on God and Spirituality
- One Nation Under God? The Pledge of Allegiance in Context
- A Big Step Toward Censorship: Deleting God from the Pledge of Allegiance
- The Pledge of Allegiance
- The Pledge of Allegiance Without God
- The Pledge of Allegiance
- A Brief History of the Pledge of Allegiance




2 Comments
Post a CommentWhile you have well thought out argument you are completely off base. Most religions follow one god. I doubt the Jews would like to be called Christians because they believe in a God the contains a capital "G", nor would the Muslims that believe Allah is the one true "God". Please do mmore research on different religions to understand how each works before you blast the Christians for their beliefs in God. When each person recites the Pledge of Allegiance they do so by saying under any God. You also point out the religion should stay in an person's home and not in public but if you read the Constitution furhter it states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Basically, this means that Congress cannot pass laws prohibiting people from voicing their beliefs.
As an agnostic, I agree with removing "under God" from the "Pledge of Allegiance." However, it doesn't pain me to recite it either way since I'm not atheist. I walk the line. However, this is a strong argument. I really wish you'd come back to writing for AssociatedContent.com or tell me where you ended up. I'm about to promote your work because you are on point in just these few articles I've read.