Spring Break
Should the Constitution remove "under God" from the Pledge?
Jacob Conley
Issue date: 4/9/04 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
Change is sometimes a good thing. I know this may seem like a strange statement for a conservative to make, but sometimes change is needed. Take the Pledge of Allegiance for example, something most people know by heart. What some people may not know is that the Pledge did not always appear in its current form. Up until the 1950's the Pledge did not contain the words "under God". The Eisenhower administration made the change, adding the phrase to the line, "One nation indivisible."
Today, there is a movement to once again remove the phrase from the Pledge. The supporters of this movement claim the "under God" violates the separation of church and state. Aside from the fact that the principle of church and state has been misunderstood and misapplied, I have a problem with this argument on several levels. The first problem is that you cannot segregate God or His name to the churches. An atheist may argue that they are offended by or don't believe in the name of God. Everywhere you go, however, you hear the name of God, whether it be used in vain or otherwise. For example, almost every movie has the phrase "Oh My God!" or some similar phrase in it. If an atheist or anyone else wanted to be truly separated from the name of God then they would have to lock themselves away and never venture to the outside world and that is just not a logical course of action. Some people argue that they don't mind having God in everyday life they just don't want Him to be to be a part of government. In that case these people would not be able to spend any money because the motto "In God We Trust" is emblazed on our national currency. Therefore, the name of God has become such an integrated part of our society that it is almost impossible to separate yourself from it.
Secondly, it does not make any sense to me, how anyone can be offended by such a generic and watered down term as "under God." I could understand a few people being upset if the pledge said "under Jesus" but it doesn't. The "God" it's referring to is left up to the individual's religious preference. To the Muslim God refers to Muhammad, to the Buddhist, God represents Buddha and so on. The term is even gender inclusive, thus appeasing the feminist who thinks God is a female.
As for the word "under", some people have a problem with its connotations of submission and obedience. These same people, however, are under police authority and they have to obey law. Even the President is held accountable by Congress. The police, president, and congress are fallible. If these people who support the removal have to submit to men who admittedly make mistakes, shouldn't they be happy that the leaders and the nation herself is under a perfect God?
Eisenhower realized that America was subject to a higher power and that's why he added the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. I just hope future generations will be able to quote the pledge and come to the same realization as Eisenhower.
Today, there is a movement to once again remove the phrase from the Pledge. The supporters of this movement claim the "under God" violates the separation of church and state. Aside from the fact that the principle of church and state has been misunderstood and misapplied, I have a problem with this argument on several levels. The first problem is that you cannot segregate God or His name to the churches. An atheist may argue that they are offended by or don't believe in the name of God. Everywhere you go, however, you hear the name of God, whether it be used in vain or otherwise. For example, almost every movie has the phrase "Oh My God!" or some similar phrase in it. If an atheist or anyone else wanted to be truly separated from the name of God then they would have to lock themselves away and never venture to the outside world and that is just not a logical course of action. Some people argue that they don't mind having God in everyday life they just don't want Him to be to be a part of government. In that case these people would not be able to spend any money because the motto "In God We Trust" is emblazed on our national currency. Therefore, the name of God has become such an integrated part of our society that it is almost impossible to separate yourself from it.
Secondly, it does not make any sense to me, how anyone can be offended by such a generic and watered down term as "under God." I could understand a few people being upset if the pledge said "under Jesus" but it doesn't. The "God" it's referring to is left up to the individual's religious preference. To the Muslim God refers to Muhammad, to the Buddhist, God represents Buddha and so on. The term is even gender inclusive, thus appeasing the feminist who thinks God is a female.
As for the word "under", some people have a problem with its connotations of submission and obedience. These same people, however, are under police authority and they have to obey law. Even the President is held accountable by Congress. The police, president, and congress are fallible. If these people who support the removal have to submit to men who admittedly make mistakes, shouldn't they be happy that the leaders and the nation herself is under a perfect God?
Eisenhower realized that America was subject to a higher power and that's why he added the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. I just hope future generations will be able to quote the pledge and come to the same realization as Eisenhower.