HawaiiStories: "Under God" Overruled?

June 27, 2002

"Under God" Overruled?

Yesterday the nation was taken aback by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. In a 2-1 decision, the court ruled that the phrase "one nation under God" violated the 1st amendment guarantee of separation of church and state.

Frankly, I'm surprised that a constitutional challenge took this long in coming. But it came at the worst possible time.

Written in 1897, the Pledge as it was originally written was:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the country for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

In 1923, "my Flag" was expanded to "the Flag of the United States of America."

The phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. As now, the atmosphere at the time was, if not nationalistic, at least anti-Communist. Religious leaders noted that orations used by "godless Communists" sounded similar to the Pledge, and so they lobbied Congress to add "under God" to the pledge, and thus put the Pledge on constitutionally shaky ground.

Needless to say, the ruling is not sitting well with the President and Congress. The ruling, as it stands, would in effect ban reciting the Pledge in the nine states covered by the 9th Circuit (including Hawaii).

However, in a way, why throw the baby out with the bathwater? There is a way to express patriotism and still be totally inclusive and pass constitutional muster. And it worked well for over 50 years. What is so difficult about passing a law returning the Pledge of Allegiance to its pre-1954 form?

Comments?

Posted by Keith H. at June 27, 2002 10:04 PM

Comments

Posted by Lisa on June 27, 2002 10:30 PM:

I agree- I was always uncomfortable with the "under God" part, and from the time I entered public school in 2nd grade I didn't say the words. Not that I had anything against God, mind you, but it didn't feel right saying His name in the classroom.

Just toss out those two little words, and everything should be fine.

As far as I'm concerned, we ought to stop insulting God by putting His name on money too- I think too many people have gotten the idea that money = God from that one =)

Posted by Vivi on June 28, 2002 6:53 AM:

My opinion on the issue is here.

Posted by ruth on June 28, 2002 7:45 AM:

Hi,

Thanks for your insight and ideas. This is a good one.

When it comes to spirituality in the public realm, I tend to lean on the side of allowing spiritual expression (the use of "God," prayer, etc.) then excluding all expression from public life.

The term "God" has become so nebulous that a person is able to apply his or her own meaning to the term, whether Western or Eastern in religious background. Or, if need be, as done by Lisa, strip it out on a personal basis. The presence of such an expression allows us to think and choose how to emotionally and logically react. It's a point for introspection and meaning, and luckily, in America, we are allowed and encouraged to do this.

If I were sitting in a legislative session, I would much prefer that someone offer a prayer - in any religion, be it old Hawaiian, Buddhist, Christian or Muslim - than have no prayer at all. If for some reason, I am faced with a certain degree of discomfort as I am faced with a form of spirituality I am not used to, I welcome that opportunity to learn about that religion, about myself and why that is so.

I don't think the government has it down-pat as far as how it approaches religion goes. But my big concern is that there is a such a movement toward stripping spirituality in all forms from public life. I would rather have the word "God" thrown in the mix of our language - be it public or private than have it stripped out. This can then serve as a point of discussion for families or groups, who can then apply the necessary meaning - or lack thereof - to the term.

Ruth

Posted by Keith H. on June 28, 2002 9:05 AM:

The term "God" has become so nebulous that a person is able to apply his or her own meaning to the term, whether Western or Eastern in religious background. Or, if need be, as done by Lisa, strip it out on a personal basis. ... I would rather have the word "God" thrown in the mix of our language - be it public or private than have it stripped out. This can then serve as a point of discussion for families or groups, who can then apply the necessary meaning - or lack thereof - to the term.

To an extent, I agree. But at least in this country, say the word "God," or write it out capitalized, and to most people it's identified with the Judeo-Christian religion. Most other religions call their higher supernatural power(s) by other names, e.g. Allah, Buddha, Zeus, etc. I don't think it's that easy to separate "God" from its Judeo-Christian roots.

But on an even higher level...If our government condones treating people differently because of religion or lack thereof (and according to some, it's already happening), we will start down an even more slippery slope than having a religion-free public life. I would rather live in a society where God is only mentioned at home or in a church, than live in a country that favors Christianity at the expense of ________ (insert your least favorite religion here).

(For the record, I was raised secular Buddhist and converted to Christianity about seven years ago.)

Posted by Linkmeister on June 28, 2002 10:08 AM:

I'm with Keith in being surprised it's taken 48 years to be challenged. I don't really think it's important enough for all the sound and fury it's generated (over at my place I was bemoaning the number of trees that would be killed to create the paper necessary to print all the opinions I foresaw occurring). This guy has it about right, I think.

Posted by Stella on June 28, 2002 10:54 AM:

I am living proof that pledging regular allegiance to one's flag and one's country throughout childhood, especially every single morning at 7 AM from Mondays to Fridays between the ages of 4 and 11, does not ensure consistent patriotism of any sorts in adulthood.

(Because, as you can see, I was never an American citizen in the first place, but we still had to do it for the Philippines, you know? But, you know, it still does not work. Ah, freedom!)

Posted by Ryan on June 28, 2002 11:05 AM:

The term "God" has become so nebulous that a person is able to apply his or her own meaning to the term, whether Western or Eastern in religious background.

Except the existence of any god, any higher consciousness or power, is not a given. Several religions have different names for such a concept, true, but (1.) God as used in the pledge and on money is clearly the Judeo-Christian model, and (2.) some belief systems reject the notion of any deity completely.

I, for one, was glad for the ruling (and was disappointed that it was stayed). Not because I thought it stood any chance against an appeal/overruling, but because it's about time we stop being hypocritical about this.

Is there a separation of church and state? If so, then by Joe, put your money where your mouth is. (Pun intended.) If Christianity and America are inextricably linked, though, then fess up and say so — amend the Constitution and put crosses in every classroom.

Personally, though both sides lead to questionable extremes, I'd rather religion be completely flushed out than formally endorsed.

It seems I'm in the minority, though. (Though perhaps not here! Heh.)

Posted by scrivener on June 28, 2002 11:09 AM:

Gotta go with Keith H on this one. Ruth, I wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be more spirituality in our culture today. I disagree that it has any place in government, particularly a government that claims to favor no religion.

Claiming to favor the practice of religion at all over not practicing any form of religion is STILL a violation of the church-state ideal. Sure, it works for people who have a god, and they may interpret however they wish. But for people with no god, this is an insult.

I'm an actual church-going Christian. I teach at a Christian school. There's nothing more important to me than my relationship with God. Still, if our government is going to be what it claims to be, it HAS to avoid anything that remotely resembles an endorsement of religion.

Yes. I also believe that it's probably a fast-track to the Decline and Fall (Babylon, Rome, America), but the way to make some kind of difference is personally, one-on-one, through means that don't include the government.

Have you heard the tape-recorded phone messages the guy who brought suit has been receiving? "I'm coming down there--I know where you live, and I'm going to beat the ____ out of you, you commie bastard." That's just great.

And come on! Ninety-nine to zero in the Senate? I'm about to take back everything I posted in the "why vote?" thread and just give up already.

Jon Stewart basically said, yes, it IS unconstitutional, but for crying out loud, is this really such a big deal to you, or do you just like to sue people? He has a good point, but I say it's seldom the wrong time to right a wrong. Or something like that.

Posted by NemesisVex on June 28, 2002 3:53 PM:

Well, hell -- if that's unconsitutional, then we'd better fire up some new molds for the mint and get rid of all those "In God We Trust" statements on coins and currency. And that Masonic emblem on the one-dollar bill has to go. And swearing on the Bible in court -- nix pronto.

Given my own status as a recovering Catholic, I'm all for getting rid of the whole "under God" bit. But with this kind of precedent, all the other Judeo-Christian-centric rituals and proclamations ought to go as well.

Posted by Tom on June 30, 2002 9:41 AM:

Don't mind me. I'm just sitting back and laughing at the memory of my elementary school years and how we thought the pledge went like this :

I pledgeamalegance, to da flag, of the United States of America, and to the public of Richard Stands, one nation, under god, invisible, with liberty injustice for all.

I was 5 years old when I had to say that in class. We were never taught the meaning of what we said. We just had to say it. While we were saying the pledge we were actually thinking "blah blah blah.. yadda yadda yadda.. BORING.. I'm hungry.. when's recess.."

Oh yea, afterwards, they MADE us sing somthing patriotic. I dreading hearing the teacher say : "Thomas, it's your turn to lead the song."

Posted by Linkmeister on June 30, 2002 1:20 PM:

Tom, that's reminiscent of the beginning of the Hail Mary, as recited by children and recounted (I think) in that old Art Linkletter book, Kids Say the Darndest Things:

"Hail Mary, full of grapes"

Posted by Stella on June 30, 2002 6:37 PM:

"The republic of Richard Stands." Hee. (And don't ask me how I managed to pray the entire rosary as a small kid... well, I'm still standing, ain't I?)

And now, this article from Slate makes the Pledge issue a little clearer - for me, at least. So, does this mean that the Pledge states that the US of A is has always been "one nation indivisible" all along? Interesting.

Posted by Keith H. on June 30, 2002 7:14 PM:

So, does this mean that the Pledge states that the US of A has always been "one nation indivisible" all along?

Well, at least since 1897. It's been "under God" only since 1954. :) And "In God We Trust," but only since 1955? Veh-dee inte-desting.

I found it interesting that "E Pluribus Unum" isn't our national motto anymore, since it appears on all our currency along with "In God We Trust." Learn something new everyday, I guess.

Posted by Tom on July 1, 2002 8:15 PM:

Hey Link, our grandson just came up with a new one.. "God Miss America..." ROFL

Posted by Linkmeister on July 1, 2002 9:55 PM:

Tom, one can only hope whatever God's throwing, he/she will indeed miss. ;)

Posted by meri on July 6, 2002 6:25 AM:

It took me a while to come up with what I wanted to say about this, and I finally wrote about it in my journal.

Posted by ali on July 10, 2002 11:59 PM:

It's not really about the separation of church and state so much as honoring the many people who died as a result of the terroristic acts of September 11, 2001 but here's a link to a project featuring the Pledge of Allegiance.

Posted by Alicia on June 8, 2004 9:17 AM:

"Hey Link, our grandson just came up with a new one.. "God Miss America..." ROFL"

This is not a laughing matter. At the rate America is going these days, we would be lucky if He doesn't miss us with His blessings. It has always been "God Bless America," and well, God's going to MISS and not bless us if we keep trying to push Him out. Yeah, He's gracious and loving, but if you don't want Him, He won't keep pushing the matter. He'll leave. And you will all be sorry. Just keep this in mind: Everyone keeps complaining about how bad the economy is and how America is going downhill and blah blah blah blah blah. WELL, when America was truly One Nation Under God, we were a blessed nation. Do you think it's just coincidence that as soon as America starts trying to push God out, everything, especially the economy, starts crumbling? Hmm...I don't think so. Just some food for thought.

Posted by Jen on June 8, 2004 1:37 PM:

Gee, I thought the crumbing economy coincided with Bush's election. Silly me.

Posted by Linkmeister on June 14, 2004 3:49 PM:

Alicia, considering that the founding fathers deliberately tried to keep the country from "establishing" a state religion, by that logic our economy should never have moved beyond the agrarian stage in 1789.

Posted by Linkmeister on June 14, 2004 3:58 PM:

And of course, now comes word that SCOTUS has basically punted on this issue (probably wisely, given the politics), ruling the phrase can stay because the plaintiff had no "standing" to speak for his daughter, the person allegedly offended by the words.

Posted by Albert on June 16, 2004 10:43 AM:

And as I said elsewhere, the Supreme Court is filled with "weasels" for taking this lame way out instead of ruling on the substance of the issue.

(Sorry about, that, to the weasels of the animal kingdom.)

Posted by Keith H. on June 16, 2004 2:30 PM:

Well, "weaselly" as they may be, in the Court's defense, if someone is going to go through all that time and effort to send a case with constitutional import all the way to the Supreme Court, the least he can do is make sure he himself is on solid legal ground, huh? Especially if he's going to go it alone like he did.

Posted by nix on November 4, 2004 6:55 AM:

whoa tuna!

April 2009
Sa	M	T	W	R	F	Su
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30

"Under God" Overruled?

Comments

Post a Comment