Blog 6: Position Paper

My position paper will be centered around the debate over the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, which California law requires public elementray schools to recite every morning before class.

As a theist agnostic, raised in a country with complete theoretical AND effective separation of church and state, and as the mother of 2 children who will both be in elementary school by the fall, I do have an issue with the theocratic statement made in what is meant to be a routine patriotic exercise.  My children will hear every morning from the teachers they respect and the peers they seek acceptance from that there IS a God, and that this country is under its authority, as though it were an undisputable fact.  It is unconstitutional for the government to endorse a religion (in this case, any monotheist religion) and to expose public school children to that endorsement.

Having researched the origins of the Pledge, (christian) people's argument that it is just a harmless tradition doesn't make sense:  

For one thing, those words were added in 1954.  If anything, saying the Pledge without "under God" is an even older tradition.  Moreover, would they find it so harmless if the majority was atheist and the Pledge read "without God", or if the majority were Wiccans (the fastest-growing religion in the US) and the Pledge stated "one nation under the God and Goddess"?  I highly doubt it.  They would feel oppressed and discriminated against.  They would realize what a position they are put in, having to constantly explain to their young children how their beliefs are at odds with the institution that teaches them everything else.  I don't want to have to defend my religious values against those unlawfully displayed at school.  Using a government-imposed activity to equate patriotism with monotheist religious affiliation is unfair to people who love this country but do not follow that type of religion, or any at all.

It is a documented fact that Congress added those words during the Cold War for the sole purpose of explicitly endorsing religion to show their moral opposition to the godless commies... which is de facto unconstitutional.  That it has been in effect for over 50 years doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.  If having a tradition for a long time sufficed to justify its righteousness, then African-Americans would still be slaves.

There are many more points being made in favor and against a change in the Pledge, but most boil down to the fact that government endorsement of religion is unconstitutional. Period.  And in order to respond right away to those who say that anti-"under God" people pick-and-choose their battles, I am also against the use of "so help me God" in courtrooms, or the "In God we Trust" motto, along with any other expression of religious values in government loci, documents and procedures.  I have the utmost respect for ALL religions, indistinctively, including the absence of it, and believe that it is a matter of personal choice and private education that all should enjoy freely as stated in the First Amendmet to the Constitution, without the unfair pressure and undermining of government-sanctioned activities imposed on impressionable children.