Next year, the U.S. Supreme Court plans to decide the constitutionality of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently struck down the phrase.
Those who say the pledge should stay in its current form offer several reasons why the phrase should remain. None of them is strong enough to warrant allowing the phrase to remain.
*Tradition
Despite the logical fallacy of appealing to authority, those who argue in favor of the phrase on grounds of tradition are mistaken regarding the pledge’s history. The pledge has been an official oath only since 1942. The phrase in question was not added until 1954.
* Ambiguity of the term “God”
Some will argue that the ambiguous nature of the term “God” is acceptable because it can reference the deity of all three major Western religions. But no one could ever seriously claim that the 1954 Congress had Allah in mind when the phrase was added. God refers to the Judeo-Christian God.
Even if one is convinced that God is an ambiguous term, atheists still have room for complaint. Michael Newdow, the plaintiff in the case, is an atheist.
*Mere historical reference
Solicitor General Theodore Olson claims that the phrase is only an “official acknowledgment of our nation’s religious heritage.” Sure. And that monument in Alabama just happened to resemble the Ten Commandments.
Like arguing for the non-specificity of the term God, this defense is an insult to the intelligence of the American people. Only a truly religious debate, such as this, could cause such a fuss.
If this were only a matter of history, then there would be no cause for alarm. But Newdow is not complaining because of historical discrepancies. He is fighting over a religious doctrine.
*The beliefs of the founding fathers
In attempting to interpret the meaning of the First Amendment, pledge supporters cite the religious beliefs of those that founded this country. Most were, at the least, deists (believed that God created the world but refrains from acting in it).
Some use quotes from Washington or Madison that give credence to the early patriots’ Christian ideals. Some reference the appeal to the Creator in the Declaration of Independence.
Such defenses are weak because they appeal to that which is outside the ramifications of the First Amendment. The First Amendment deals specifically with acts of Congress. It does not address the beliefs of government officials.
The Declaration of Independence may mention God because 1) it predates the Constitution and 2) has no bearing on the laws of our country. For these reasons, neither can one defend the pledge based on:
*Current religious activities within the government.
The Supreme Court begins its sessions with “God save the United States and this honorable court.” Congress cannot adopt this as law, however.
The president may utter, “So help me God,” in his inauguration. Congress cannot adopt this as law. Congress itself may even begin its session with prayer. But Congress cannot adopt this as law.
There is only one way to save the pledge in its current form-a constitutional amendment.
The First Amendment could be reworded for clarification, but this would be difficult and highly unlikely considering the unwillingness to alter something as basic as the Bill of Rights.
An easier solution is adding an amendment that would protect the pledge in its current form.
But wouldn’t such an amendment be unconstitutional?
No, because it is impossible for the U.S. Constitution to be unconstitutional.
The First Amendment is open to differing interpretations, but an added amendment would clarify the meaning of religious freedom in the First Amendment. Unless this happens, there is no ground on which to defend our pledge.
Michael Stewart is a senior philosophy and religion major. He can be reached at [email protected].