Where’s God? According to Chief Justice Roy Moore of the
Alabama Supreme Court, God needs to be displayed in his courthouse.
So he put a 2.5-ton granite Ten Commandments monument in prominent
view. Fortunately, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case
questioning the constitutionality of this action, allowing a lower
court’s opinion that Moore violated the Constitution’s
ban on government promotion of religion to stand. Many people are
unhappy with this decision. I am not one of them.
Religion has always been a controversial and divisive issue in
American politics. And this battle is far from exhausted. On Oct.
14, the Supreme Court decided to review another case concerning
American secularism. This case challenges the constitutionality of
children in public schools pledging their allegiance to “one
nation under God.” Michael Newdow, a doctor who has also
studied law, decided he didn’t want his daughter chanting the
Pledge of Allegiance each morning. Newdow sued the Sacramento
school district on the grounds that the Pledge, in its current
form, violates the First Amendment of the Constitution ““ the
separation of church and state.
I’m with Newdow. I do support the chanting of the Pledge,
but I believe we must remove the words “under God.”
Clearly, the statement “under God” is awash with
specific religious references. For many Americans, no identity is
more paramount and more charged with emotion than religious
affiliation. However, placement of religion within an educational
framework brings “church” into a “state”
activity ““ a violation of the establishment clause.
Are students ordered to pledge? According to standing
constitutional interpretations, students are guaranteed rights to
“freedom of expression.” As long as their expression
does not cause or could not reasonably be predicted to cause a
substantial disruption to the work of the school, they are promised
this liberty. Thus, children are not required to pledge, nor should
they be forced to.
Teachers, however, are expected to “encourage”
pledging among students. Consequently, school children often fall
under the assumption that pledging is certainly expected ““ if
not mandatory. To elementary-schoolers, public expression of ideas
is often a foreign concept. Most do not have the courage to refrain
from pledging. Rather, the ache to “fit in” and acquire
acceptance among their peers is top priority. Why, then, would a
child with a vague discomfort, risk isolation and ridicule?
The phrase “under God” is not only socially
intimidating, but it is also totally lacking in historical
significance. The Pledge was actually written in 1892 by socialist
editor and clergyman Francis Bellamy. Reflecting the views of
socialist utopian novels, it reads: “I pledge allegiance to
my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation
indivisible, with liberty and Justice for all.”
In 1954, under pressure from religious leaders, President Dwight
D. Eisenhower advocated for the addition of God into the Pledge in
an effort to distance it from any similarities to communist
discourses. Congress thus revised the Pledge to read: “I
pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and
to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
With this history in mind, it is obvious removing the phrase
“under God” would not undermine an integral part of our
American heritage ““ except, perhaps, McCarthyism.
The Pledge may be considered vital to the spirit of the United
States. Reciting the Pledge helps build national unity. But with
teachers actively encouraging students to recite the Pledge in its
current form, we are left to wonder, “Under whose God?”
This is a question with so many different answers that the phrase,
by its very nature, actually subverts the point ““ national
unity ““ of the Pledge in the first place.
Moreover, I’m sure those who hail from religious
backgrounds outside the Judeo-Christian norm feel particular social
anxiety and personal discomfort over the issue. Personally, the
Pledge has always made me feel estranged and disunited from the
greater whole. My nine years at a primarily Protestant school
proved, at times, socially awkward. I was a Jew, and I never forgot
my religious differences. Chanting “under God” at each
school assembly only added insult to injury. Most of my classmates,
and almost all my teachers, took pride in their Protestantism, and
I was left questioning where I belonged.
Including “God” in public, secular affairs is
divisive. A potentially sensitive subject for those of any religion
(or lack thereof), the clause possibly divides more than it could
ever unify.
The state cannot mandate religious beliefs. If public schools
assume children must pledge to a nation under God, then the
government is declaring that certain religious beliefs are part of
being American. In turn, the Pledge establishes a set of national
religious beliefs, or, in other words, a national religion. While
religious convictions reach deep into the lives, fears and hopes of
every individual, law is meant to serve as a source of balance and
justice without personal biases.
We must be guaranteed freedom from the conformity of religion.
We must each pledge to a country, not a God. We must be free to
support our country and our legal system without the intrusion of
words ““ or monuments ““ that seek to bind our state with
a religious belief.
Fried is a first-year history student. E-mail her at
ifried@media.ucla.edu.