Looking around tblog today, I have noticed several posts (including my own) on the Supreme Court case in which atheist Michael Newdow is trying to have the Pledge of Allegiance returned to its original version, arguing that the 'under God' phrase is unconstitutional. A lot of people simply don't think it's a big enough deal to be causing such controversy, but it is. The reason it is not seen as a big deal by many is that reciting the Pledge isn't forced on anyone- you can choose not to say it, or not to say the two words. But does that really matter? We encourage censorship of what is considered obscene language on the radio or tv, even though you could argue that if you don't like it you can change the station. The difference is that parents can decide what their children watch on tv or listen to on the radio, but must trust in their government when they send their children to public schools.
So, to say that the children can simply opt out of reciting the Pledge and that makes it perfectly acceptible to have government officials lead students in this, is a cop-out. The basic issue at hand is whether or not the Pledge, in its current form, violates the Establishment Clause. Simply put, the insertion of the phrase 'under God' into the Pledge of Allegiance asserts that we are a nation that affirms the existence of God. Though this does not establish any particular religion, it restricts the openness of religious freedom. There is no room for polytheists, agnostics, or atheists in the statement 'under God.' Stating that we are 'one nation, under God, indivisible' is actually very divisive.
A common misconception is that the desire to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge is a move to prohibiting religious expression. However, for those who proclaim the separation of church and state to be of utmost importance- those supporting the removal of 'under God'- are supporting the constitution. One of the most basic rights outlined in the constitution and Bill of Rights is the freedom of religion. This means you have the freedom to worship as you please, and expressing your beliefs can fall under this category. Taking out 'under God' from the Pledge in no way infringes on the individual's right to express their religious beliefs. It only maintains the separation of church and state by prohibiting public schools from imposing this belief on all students.
If it isn't a big deal, why not return the Pledge to its original form? Those wishing to express some religious belief- whatever that belief may be- has the freedom to do so. But the government cannot. Besides, do you really find two words added to an oath of patriotism for no reason other than fear (of communism, as the evils of this movement were grossly misunderstood to be because of a lack of religion, rather than forced egalitarianism- thus, it seemed that the only way to preserve our nation was to impose some religious standards; however, atheism does not a communist make) to be a positive thing? Can anyone offer a good reason for keeping the phrase 'under God' in a Pledge recited daily by impresionable schoolchildren?
Another thing to remember is that the pledge is part of the naturalization process for immigrants. Imagine a Buddhist or Hindu coming to the country and being led in an oath to a nation 'under God.'
"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins
