The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy,
a socialist, Baptist preacher and chairman of the state
superintendents of education of the National Education
Association.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a socialist, Baptist preacher and chairman of the state superintendents of education of the National Education Association.
It was written on the occasion of the Columbus Quadricentennial to reflect the views of Bellamy’s cousin, who wrote socialist utopian novels.
The U.S. Congress thought it was fixing this little flaw in the Pledge’s intent when it added the words “under God” in 1954, during the height of the McCarthy era, when somebody realized that “godless Communists” could get away with sounding patriotic.
We’ve been arguing about it ever since. In a recent Web poll for this newspaper, 81 percent of respondents voted in favor of keeping the words “under God” in the Pledge.
We’ve done a pretty good job for over two centuries balancing the religious sensibilities of the majority of Americans with the constitutional guarantee that government will not sanction or coerce religious observance.
The Supreme Court has generally prohibited coercive religious speech in state-sponsored settings while allowing voluntary religious speech.
We allow nondenominational prayer in state legislatures, where service is voluntary, but prohibit it in public schools, where children are required by law to attend. Courts and common sense have long recognized that schools must hold to the highest standard because of the impressionability of children.
That was at the heart of the recent case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals brought by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow. Judge Lawrence Karlton did not rule that the words “under God” were unconstitutional per se. He ruled narrowly that the current language of the Pledge could not be used in public schools because of the coercive nature of the school environment, where children who decline even voluntarily to recite the Pledge could face ostracism.
The issue of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is about how it is applied, and in this case, we agree with Judge Karlton that saying the Pledge in its current form in schools is an undue assertion of religion by government.
And seeking guidance from the extra-constitutional remarks of our founding fathers on the issue is an exercise in futility. They contradict each other frequently, and sometimes even themselves.
If Judge Karlton’s view is upheld by the Supreme Court, we face a choice: Keep the pledge as it is and not recite it in school, or have a second version for use in schools without the phrase “under God.” Since the latter is simply impractical, and hypocritical, we endorse removing the words “under God” from the pledge.
