Editor,
In the Lobo, Stephanie Neubeck wrote, "I, personally, have never heard of a law requiring all American citizens to say the Pledge of Allegiance. In all the schools I have ever attended . . . I have never been forced to say the pledge."
Actually, half of the states now require the pledge as part of the school day and half a dozen more recommend it. Moreover, several state legislatures are considering making it mandatory.
Koon Meng Chua wrote, "If the writers of the Pledge of Allegiance stated their belief that this nation is under God, what harm is there?"
First, the original writer, Francis Bellamy, did not include "one nation under God" in the original pledge. In fact, his granddaughter recently stated that he would have opposed that phrase, which was added by Congress during the 1950s at the height of the McCarthy witch-hunt.
No harm? Citing a concurring opinion in a Supreme Court decision, the 9th Circuit court in California recently wrote, "The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers 'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.'"
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Furthermore, the court stated that the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism" - a fact, the court said, the federal government did not dispute. For example, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act adding "under God," he said, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."
Finally, the court claimed that the current pledge is no less a violation of the constitutional protection against establishment of religion than if it described the United States as "a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god.' "The First Amendment," it continued, "prohibits the government's endorsement or advancement not only of one religion at the expense of other religions, but also of religion at the expense of atheism." The court maintained that to recite the pledge in its current form does not "describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and - since 1954 - monotheism".
It seems to me, therefore, that the phrase "under God" is hardly harmless.
Larry Semark
UNM alumnus
