One Nation, Indivisible
06.27.2002
|
That's how the original Pledge of Allegience was written and recited. Written by a socialist preacher named Francis Bellamy in 1892, the original Pledge did not include mention of God at all.
And it shouldn't today.
I don't believe this JUST because I'm a Deist. Now, some might think this might bias me, and I'm sure that it does at least to some degree.
But that bias doesn't change the logical fact that the recent 9th Circuit Court decision, denouncing the current 'under God' version of the Pledge as unConstitutional, is correct. Now it seems that this idea presented by the Court appals most people (especially the "moral majority") as a tearing down of our society and our national heritage, so why do I, a lone voice in the wilderness, agree with the 9th Circuit Court despite this national outcry? Bear with me here, the evidence follows.
The current Pledge, changed from the original by the Knights of Columbus and then made official by an act of Congress in 1954, states:
|
The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
|
Note that the Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." (emphasis added). Looking up 'respecting' in the dictionary we find the following definitions:
- To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
- To avoid violation of or interference with
- To relate or refer to; concern.
Now we can assume, from their various writings outside of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that the Founding Fathers did not mean that Congress shall make no law "avoiding interference with" an establishment of religion. First, just looking at the context such a statement would be kind of a double negative, and second Jefferson and others believed in a wall between religion and the state. I also doubt that they would mean that no laws could 'relate to' or merely mention religion. Thus they must have meant 'respecting' by the first definition, so that they made it clear that Congress shall make no law "showing deferential regard for" an establishment of religion.
Furthermore, I believe that while most modern readers think of the word 'establishment' in this Amendment as a verb, i.e. the act of establishing a religion, it may have another meaning (or possibly a dual meaning). Again, looking 'establishment' up in the dictionary (emphasis added):
- Something established, as:
- An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
- A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
- An established church.
- A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
- A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
Thus it seems that the 1st Amendment prevents Congress from creating any law that gives 'deferential regard' to any 'established church.'
So by mentioning God at all, and especially a single God (as opposed to many gods), the Pledge shows an official, Congressionally approved, deferential regard for monotheistic Judeo/Christian religions (who for the most part are the only ones to use the moniker "God" to name their Deity - Deists tend to be monotheistic also, but usually use the moniker 'Creator'). Therefore, the law that was passed by Congress in 1954, that made the current 'under God' version of the Pledge official, 'respects' a particular 'establishment of religion', and hence is unConstitutional.
To conclude my linguistic analysis, I note that by mentioning this restriction on Congress BEFORE stating that it also cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, they show that the mandate to 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion' supercedes the mandate to 'make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Thus, while people are free to exercise religion, the government is NOT!
As Thomas Jefferson, who was a Christian, said, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." To solidify this idea, when he was President he wrote a letter in response to a Christian church to answer them why he would not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksiving (as had been done by Washington and Adams before him), he stated in part:
-
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
None of this of course prevents private citizens and groups from including "under God" or any other phrase in the Pledge when they recite it but, Constitutionally, public schools and other Federally funded organizations should be restricted from that phrase in the Pledge.
One final note, however. The Constitutionality of the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge isn't the only reason I'd like to see that phrase removed from the official Pledge. I also consider myself a traditionalist (so long as such traditions aren't of an evil nature), and thus since the original Pledge written by Francis Bellamy did NOT include the 'under God' phrase, I simply think we should revert to the original... for tradition's sake.
And if you are a freedom loving Christian, don't listen to me... listen to this guy, as his argument is even better than mine:
And yes, I'm ready for the nasty emails... as Jefferson said, "I know it will give great offense to the clergy, but the advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from them."
Update: 3/14/2003
More proof that the "under God" clause of the official U.S. Pledge of Allegience is unconstitutional. In June 1954, president Dwight D. Eisenhower said, as he signed that added "under God" to the Pledge, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we will constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war." Thus, he confirms that the clause in question was in order to "establish" religion in this country, making it unconstitutional.
Sources and more information:
- The US Pledge of Allegience: A Brief Historical Outline
- The Pledge of Allegience: A Short History
- Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" Letter
- Quotes on Religion & State From Several of America's Most Important Founding Fathers
Agree? Disagree? Think I'm full of it?
Email Me