Tags: print
Sept. 12, 2002
Two words make all the difference
Popular magazines put out articles every day that get passionate responses from readers around the country. In the late 1800s, The Youth’s Companion put out an item that would also receive its fair share of responses, but what differentiates it from the rest is that it is still getting a great deal of attention today as it would eventually become the Pledge of Allegiance.
Since the pledge’s first printing, it has undergone a few changes, most notably the addition of the words “under God" in 1954. In June, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that these words make the pledge unconstitutional because they are an “endorsement of religion." The decision has kicked off intense debate that won't be resolved until well after the appeals process has been completed most likely several years in the future.
In school today, the pledge gets a mixed response from students. Some have expressed support for the patriotic exercise while others regard it as offensive. Junior Sean Danus recites the pledge every day out of appreciation for the United States. “I say the pledge because this country’s been good to me," he says. “I might as well give a little respect."
Chris Mulligan, also a junior, feels differently. While he does stand, he has difficulty getting past the words. “I stand because I respect the country and what it stands for," he explains, “but I don’t say it because I disagree with the words."
Blair’s administration asks students to stand during the pledge each morning but actually repeating the words is another matter. Principal Phillip Gainous encourages students to rise out of consideration. “We have people here from all over the world and if they don’t want to say it that’s fine," he says with a shrug. “It’s just like if you go to another country; you respect their pledge but don't necessarily say it."
Given the opinions held prior to the court ruling, it is not surprising that students were divided on the issue of the words “under God" as well. Some have strongly disagreed with the ruling and are among what informal polls done by many websites, such as cnn.com and usatoday.com, have shown to be the majority. Danus opposes the decision and says the words are now part of US culture. “I think it'd be stupid to change it because it’s well accepted in our society except for a bunch of atheists who are trying to start [trouble]," he says with a trace of annoyance. “Our parents have been saying it well before us and it’s just customary now."
Junior Christian Brown does not like having the words “under God" in the pledge and he does not mutter the words to it with the rest of the class, but he agrees with Danus that declaring the pledge unconstitutional is wrong. “I don't think outlawing the pledge in schools is a solution," he says firmly. “It seems to me that either the pledge should be fixed, or students should really be allowed to not participate."
On the other hand others have embraced the verdict. People have taken issue with the words “under God" largely on the basis that they breach the establishment clause of the First Amendment which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Mulligan felt that the two out of three judges who voted the pledge unconstitutional were in the right for just this reason. “I think it was the correct choice because it does in fact violate the First Amendment and the separation of church and state," he explains calmly. “It’s been infringing on the rights of millions of students for years."
While he believes the words should be left in the pledge, Gainous acknowledges the validity of the opposing viewpoint. “While those folks are in the minority," he says, “I still think they have a right to have their view heard."
Indeed, while some like Danus believe that taking up court time for a ruling on two words was a waste, many agree with Gainous. Vice-principal Linda Wanner says that while there are several issues more important than "sticking [two words] in the pledge or taking [them] out," the government is set up to handle more than one problem at a time. “I think that the country is big enough and great enough that it can look at several issues at once," she says.
Brown explains that while there is a need for the country to come together after the events of September 11, 2001, it is important not to ignore the basic principles of the nation. “Yes," he says, “the US should be showing unity, but only in a manner which supports freedom, including the freedom to not worship a god."
Since the pledge’s first printing, it has undergone a few changes, most notably the addition of the words “under God" in 1954. In June, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that these words make the pledge unconstitutional because they are an “endorsement of religion." The decision has kicked off intense debate that won't be resolved until well after the appeals process has been completed most likely several years in the future.
In school today, the pledge gets a mixed response from students. Some have expressed support for the patriotic exercise while others regard it as offensive. Junior Sean Danus recites the pledge every day out of appreciation for the United States. “I say the pledge because this country’s been good to me," he says. “I might as well give a little respect."
Chris Mulligan, also a junior, feels differently. While he does stand, he has difficulty getting past the words. “I stand because I respect the country and what it stands for," he explains, “but I don’t say it because I disagree with the words."
Blair’s administration asks students to stand during the pledge each morning but actually repeating the words is another matter. Principal Phillip Gainous encourages students to rise out of consideration. “We have people here from all over the world and if they don’t want to say it that’s fine," he says with a shrug. “It’s just like if you go to another country; you respect their pledge but don't necessarily say it."
Given the opinions held prior to the court ruling, it is not surprising that students were divided on the issue of the words “under God" as well. Some have strongly disagreed with the ruling and are among what informal polls done by many websites, such as cnn.com and usatoday.com, have shown to be the majority. Danus opposes the decision and says the words are now part of US culture. “I think it'd be stupid to change it because it’s well accepted in our society except for a bunch of atheists who are trying to start [trouble]," he says with a trace of annoyance. “Our parents have been saying it well before us and it’s just customary now."
Junior Christian Brown does not like having the words “under God" in the pledge and he does not mutter the words to it with the rest of the class, but he agrees with Danus that declaring the pledge unconstitutional is wrong. “I don't think outlawing the pledge in schools is a solution," he says firmly. “It seems to me that either the pledge should be fixed, or students should really be allowed to not participate."
On the other hand others have embraced the verdict. People have taken issue with the words “under God" largely on the basis that they breach the establishment clause of the First Amendment which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Mulligan felt that the two out of three judges who voted the pledge unconstitutional were in the right for just this reason. “I think it was the correct choice because it does in fact violate the First Amendment and the separation of church and state," he explains calmly. “It’s been infringing on the rights of millions of students for years."
While he believes the words should be left in the pledge, Gainous acknowledges the validity of the opposing viewpoint. “While those folks are in the minority," he says, “I still think they have a right to have their view heard."
Indeed, while some like Danus believe that taking up court time for a ruling on two words was a waste, many agree with Gainous. Vice-principal Linda Wanner says that while there are several issues more important than "sticking [two words] in the pledge or taking [them] out," the government is set up to handle more than one problem at a time. “I think that the country is big enough and great enough that it can look at several issues at once," she says.
Brown explains that while there is a need for the country to come together after the events of September 11, 2001, it is important not to ignore the basic principles of the nation. “Yes," he says, “the US should be showing unity, but only in a manner which supports freedom, including the freedom to not worship a god."
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Discuss this Article
It comes down to Constitutional principle, and if we don't uphold that, we don't have anything.
Some last-minute edits:
"eighteen-hundreds"- changed to 1800s, which I think fits with the style better.
“It’s just like if you go to another country; you respect their pledge but necessarily say it."- typos in quotes are bad, bad, bad. I'm inserting a "don't" because I assume that's what Mr. G said; please double check and correct.
"On the other hand others have embraced the verdict."- either add a comma or take out "on the other hand" completely.
The day after the June decision, every member of Congress who could make it stood on outside the building to stand up straight, put their hand on their heart, and show themselves to be loyal and proud Americans.
But look at this seriously. These people are in their 40s, 50s, and 60s. They've lived a long time and seen a lot of things. They are intelligent and informed adults capable of undertaking an oath of loyalty.
Now look at a first grade classroom. Ask any of the kids to define "indivisible," "Republic," or even "allegiance." Now ask yourself why we make them recite the Pledge every morning.
The zombie-like monotone makes the Pledge even more disturbing to me.
If each American was asked to take the Pledge when they turn 16 or something, then maybe it would be meaningful. As it is, it's regarded as a boring morning ritual because everyone's been repeating the syllables since kindergarden.
Thinking about students standing up every morning to pledge to a flag is actually a little creepy to think about. I was astounded and happy when I heard about the juddgement and I think the only reason democrats are coming out against is because if they didn't it would reflect badly on the party. Democrats like to avoid certain subjects to keep their popularity among swing voters such as gun control and the death penalty. I wish people would realize what an encroachmment this is on seperation of church and state.
I have no problem with someone expressing their religion in school. It's when I'm told to express someone else's religion that I have problems.
If you want to say "under God" then more power to you. Ditto for "under the Goddess," "under Krishna," "under my deity-of-the-week." To quote my middle school science teacher--"As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in schools." And this is a good thing--when students initiate it themselves. When it becomes school-sponsored, then I start to have problems. It's this little thing called the Constitution.
The difficulty with the argument lies in the fact that it undermines the very principle of adaptating to a changing world. Amendments would no longer be needed, because "the Constitution and Bill of Rights has been there since the beginning, there's no need to change them now."
While there certainly are very many people who believe in God and have absolutely no problem with the pledge as it is, the pledge as it is favors those of a certain religion, which, both legally and morally, is unacceptable. Some would wave the problem away by saying, "Well, you don't have to say it." To begin with, many children *do* have to say it, or face punishment. Do not presume that just because you are lucky enough to be in a school system that does not force recitation of the pledge that all other children are similarly privileged. The moral difficulty with "you don't have to say it if you don't believe it" is that this is the *nation's pledge,* not some meaningless phrases strung together for fun. Those who do not believe in God are unable to pledge their allegiance to their country properly, because their country proposes that the only proper citizens are those that are "under God."
As many like to say, it is the principle of the matter.
I don't understand how people can consciously say "Oh, it's not a big thing, just don't say it." How about if we changed it to "under Satan?" Then I bet people would get riled up. Just because something seems minor or unimportant doesn't excuse it.
I'd like to agree with Resident Cynic on all counts, but take this a step further. The words 'under god' haven't been in there for ages, we stuck them in to try to show the 'godless' Soviets, who had succeeded in leaving religion out of their pledge, that we were better. The words are fairly recent, and imply things about the nation that shouldn't be allowed.