|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
The hot topic in recent days has been the Ninth Circuit Court Ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. No one really paid attention to the lawsuit brought by atheist Michael Sawdow until the judges spoke. Now, there is an uproar across the country.
The lines are clearly drawn. Those who believe the United States to be a "Christian" country, founded on "Christian" principles, are screaming for the court to reverse itself. Others are citing that the words "under God" were added, at the behest of the Catholic group the Knights of Columbus, in the 1950s, as an effort to fend off the "Godless communists".
In fact, the original pledge was much different, written by a Baptist minister from New England, reputed to also have been a "socialist". It read: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
Many changes were made to the pledge after that point, with the reasons being varied. From ensuring that immigrants understood they were pledging to the American flag (and not that of their native land), "my flag" was changed to "the flag of the United States of America." And, then, of course, came "under God".
The newspapers and e-lists are full of commentary on this matter. In the South Bend (Indiana) Tribune on July 4, 2002, the entire "Voice of the People" section was dedicated to letters, pro and con. Excerpts read:
"The words 'under God' were added by Congress in 1954. As then-President Eisenhower signed it he said, 'In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future...' Sounds like a government endorsement of religion to me.
"Pointing out how many other places government endorsement of religion exists further demonstrates the lack of regard many have for the constitutional rights of all Americans. Does 'two wrongs don't make one right' sound familiar?"
- Rhonda Redman
*****
"Thank you, 9th District of the U.S. Federal Courts for giving me hope that I as a teacher will no longer be forced to lead my class in the prayer known as the Pledge of Allegiance. The author of the original Pledge in 1892, Baptist Minister Edward Bellamy, according to his daughter, would have been angered when in 1954 the conservative Catholic Knights of Columbus lobbied an already intimidated Congress at the height of ultra-conservative thought in the U.S. (the red scare and McCarthyism) to add 'under God' to the Pledge.
"School should be a place where higher thinking skills are taught. Reason and science should be paramount, not medieval dogma and problem-solving by faith. Do we need flag worship when the flag has been used to prevent positive political action? Remember Old Glory as the pro-Vietnam War symbol. Remember candidates who are rich, intolerant, or simple-minded wrapping themselves in the flag. Do we need to endorse the status quo by brainwashing minority and poor youngsters with 'with liberty and justice for all'?"
- James Clark
Then, the outraged viewpoint:
"I assume this man is paid a salary for being an attorney and I assume he is paid in American dollars, which are printed with the words 'In God We Trust.' I also assume he spends these same American dollars for his family to live the good life in Sacramento. How can he live with himself? What a hypocrite!"
- Brian Miller
An Elkhart Truth reader wants to rewrite the First Amendment:
"The intent of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was to prevent the federal government from establishing one national religion and to prohibit the government from passing any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It was never intended to guarantee freedom from religion.
"A proposed constitutional amendment could read as follows:
"'No branch of national, state or local governments shall pass any law, rule or regulation that prohibits the free exercise of any religion friendly to the United States of America. This is to include the U.S. Supreme Court and all state and local courts. This includes the U.S. Congress, all state legislatures and all local lawmaking bodies. This includes all executive branches of government including national, state and local. The phrase or words "separation of church and state" shall not be used to prevent anybody from being exposed to any religion that is friendly to the United States of America.'
"What elected officeholder would dare oppose it?"
- Bill Baker
The judge on the court wrote:
"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical……to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect of religion."
Barry Lynn, of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State declared:
"This decision shows respect for freedom of conscience. You can be a patriotic American regardless of your religious belief or lack of religion. Our government should never coerce school children -- or anyone else -- to make a profession of religious belief.
"America is an incredibly diverse country with some 2,000 different religions and denominations, as well as millions of Americans who profess no religion at all," continued Lynn. "Government actions should respect that diversity."
A host of Pagan representatives from organizations nationwide put their signatures on a press release reading, in part:
"According to the Constitution, the government must not endorse one of these views over the others. We believe that to force schoolchildren to recite the pledge containing the words 'under God' is a direct violation to their civil rights. Furthermore, we believe that inserting the words 'under God' within the phrase 'one nation indivisible' creates a division which nullifies the intent of the original Pledge.
"We appreciate the solace that many people find in religious belief, as we do in ours. The language of the original Pledge did not include any religious content or allusion, but rather respected individual conscience in spiritual matters. A return to this non-religious language honors the beliefs of all Americans, and encourages all of us to affirm our solidarity as a nation."
Paul Sloca, an Associated Press journalist, covered the story that Missouri would ignore the ruling:
"The Pledge of Allegiance must be recited every week in Missouri's public schools under a bill signed into law Wednesday, a week after a panel of federal judges ruled the pledge unconstitutional.
"State lawmakers had passed the bill before the ruling was issued, and Gov. Bob Holden said it didn't affect his decision to sign.
"'This is a symbolic gesture that we as a state believe in the Pledge of Allegiance and its values and that we hold those values dear to our heart,' Holden said. 'I think that court decision will be overturned.'
"Under the Missouri law, effective Aug. 28, public schools must ensure the pledge is recited weekly in a scheduled class of every student, but students cannot be required to participate."
Yet, it has been shown that students who do not join their classmates in the pledge are subjected to ridicule by others, insults and derision. Kids instinctively pick out those who are different - whether because of their upbringing or the general environment - and have caused a number of their peers to go so far as committing suicide to escape the pressure.
Other comments from the South Bend Tribune's "Voice of the People" ran:
"All of a sudden we see every politician getting patriotic. Would this have happened if it were not an election year? Would this have happened pre-Sept. 11? Who can say for sure."
- Chris Wegnerowski, July 7, 2002
So, is the ruling sound, or are the politicians just grandstanding because they fear losing the votes of the "majority"?
Home Page Current Issue Past Issues The Frater's Domain Quill's Corner