OPINION & EDITORIAL
‘Under God’ phrase should remain
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Darryn Beckstrom:
- Ignorance, irresponsibility doom broken segregated fee system (November 15, 2005)
- State should endorse monotheism (November 22, 2005)
- Neutrality violations rampant in SSFC (December 14, 2005)
- Acidic justice (June 30, 2005)
- New course for Madison in 2006 (January 15, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Pledge protection undermines court (September 30, 2004)
- State should endorse monotheism (November 22, 2005)
- To what do we Pledge Allegiance? (March 13, 2003)
- To what do we pledge allegiance? (March 13, 2003)
- Judicial activism continues to damage constitutional rights (September 4, 2003)
by Darryn Beckstrom
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
If at first you don't succeed, try and try again — until you find a judge who agrees with you.
Such has been the steadfast mantra of Michael Newdow, an unrelenting atheist who continues to challenge the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. No more than a year after the Supreme Court dismissed his case on the premise he lacked legal standing to sue, Newdow was back in familiar territory. Last week, he was able to find a federal judge in San Francisco to hold the recitation of the Pledge in public schools unconstitutional.
Here we go again.
I decided to discuss the case with my students during a lesson on religion and politics. I first asked them how they would define "imposing one's religious views on others." The usual responses were given, such as "a legislator who votes pro-life for religious reasons." This same response was provided for gay marriage. Then I asked whether their logic regarding religion could apply to a "secular humanist." The discord among students continued.
After a while, I decided to ask them whether a legislator who voted to reaffirm "under God" in the Pledge was "imposing his views" on the people of this nation.
The discussion became less contentious.
Don't get me wrong. A number of students indeed had some objections with the two notorious words. But, most had viewed the phrase as being intrinsic to our society's most basic principles and not an endorsement of religion.
A majority of these undergraduates do not hold their views in solitude. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist, during oral arguments, asked Newdow to remind him what the vote was in Congress in 1954 to include "under God" in the Pledge. He said it was unanimous. In 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the recitation of the Pledge in public schools unconstitutional. Shortly after, Congress reaffirmed the phrase with a House vote of 416-3 and a Senate vote of 99-0. Two of the nay voters were from California — the bastion of this litigation.
Maybe I've gone astray, but these votes seem to be anything but divisive. And public opinion appears to support this assertion. An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted a few years ago revealed 89 percent of those surveyed believed the phrase "under God" should remain in the Pledge while only 10 percent said it should be removed.
Before some of the readers of this column take it upon themselves to remind me of what they've learned in an undergraduate political theory class regarding the evils of tyranny of the minority by the majority and the dangers of public opinion, I would like to preempt these remarks by saying I too have read these influential works in political theory.
I have also read The Federalist Papers.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in depth about the role of Congress and the judiciary in government. He argued Congress has the power to sustain the judiciary as the "least dangerous" branch in government. But, where is Congress to reign in our nation's activist courts — specifically those located in the Ninth Circuit?
Jurists have increasingly substituted social and cultural norms for reason — as advocated by Hamilton — to decide legal questions afflicting our nation today. Legal decision-making now rests on balancing competing interests — these interests being constitutional principles and political correctness. Regrettably, political correctness often prevails.
An importunate citizen has commenced the debate over the constitutionality of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge, a handful of appointed judges on the West Coast have continued this litigation, and it will take nine justices at the helm of our nation's court system to resolve the conflict of laws.
Whether "under God" remains in or is removed from the Pledge, there will undoubtedly be some despondent people in this nation. Nonetheless, life is often a zero-sum game — someone must gain something at another's expense. The question to be asked, though, is at what expense are we willing to renounce our nation's history, constitutional principles and commitment to the rule of law to appease a small sect of our society?
Darryn Beckstrom (beckstrom@badgerherald.com) is a doctoral student in the department of political science and a second-year MPA candidate in the La Follette School of Public Affairs.
Anonymous (September 20, 2005 @ 1:34am):
Thank you to the Knights of Columbus, who got the phrase inserted in 1954.
Anonymous (September 20, 2005 @ 8:04am):
"I would like to preempt these remarks by saying I too have read these influential works in political theory."
So have a lot of people; that doesn't mean they all reach the same conclusion. I'd expect more than a simple logical fallacy from a Ph.D. student.
"The question to be asked, though, is at what expense are we willing to renounce our nation's history, constitutional principles and commitment to the rule of law to appease a small sect of our society?"
I don't know, Darryn -- how far IS your party willing to bend over backwards for the nutjobs at Pro-Life Wisconsin?
Anonymous (September 20, 2005 @ 8:28am):
"The question to be asked, though, is at what expense are we willing to renounce our nation's history, constitutional principles and commitment to the rule of law to appease a small sect of our society?"
Really? Just because the pledge says "under God" or not? Before 1954, did we simply not sufficiently recognize our history and principles?
If the recitation of the words "under God" in a public ceremony in a public school is this central to your faith, or sense of the nation's traditions, then I suggest that you have the problem. True faith is not reliant upon government to prop it up.
As for your reading of the Federalist Papers, or the Founders, or legal history, well, don't raise a point (majority tyranny) and then answer it with a non-seqitur about reason and mores. The two are not, and have not been mutually exclusive.
Anonymous (September 20, 2005 @ 9:16am):
Any individual whose worldview is free of supernatural or mystical forces is uncomfortable with "under god".
"The question to be asked, though, is at what expense are we willing to renounce our nation's history, constitutional principles and commitment to the rule of law to appease a small sect of our society?"
History??? Fifty years isn't exactly a long time. It was all part of the fight against the "godless commies", which is now over.
It is sad that superstition and idol worship are so prevalent in the US that those not participating can be referred to as a "small sect".
PS. Why not "under gods" if embracing all religions is the goal.
Anonymous (September 20, 2005 @ 9:47am):
Are you no longer posting comments critical of Ms. Beckstrom?
Adam Cuthbert (September 20, 2005 @ 11:44am):
Simple question. Does a small child need to utter "under god" in order to be spiritual? Is religion really that simple? I can say things like "culture of life" and "I believe in llfe" yet start war and put humans in electric chairs. What "under god" is is just another example of our country using children for political reasons...in this case to defeat the scary communists. No Child Left Behind is a simple way to dismantle the public school system. JROTC is a simple way to recruit 2 years in advance. When will this stop?
Anonymous (September 20, 2005 @ 12:35pm):
Yes, we must protect our tradition of the pledge. Of course you forget to mention that the "under god" was only added during the cold war to seperate us from the godless communist. The pledge, believe it or not, wasn't born with the those lyrics in it. I would hardly call this renouncing our nation's history.
Anonymous (September 20, 2005 @ 3:49pm):
The pledge phrase was added in 1956 by a bunch of Catholic Knights seeking to impose their religion on others - and the only reason they succeeded is that your hero McCarthy had paved the way for them. Any governmental decree that a God exists is inherently making an endorsement of monotheism, a clear violation of the establishment clause. What baffles me is why you religionists are so freakin' obsessed with putting God everywhere, like he's not already omnipresent! I don't go around nailing the constitution on your crosses, so let's just learn to respect each other, k?
Anonymous (September 20, 2005 @ 6:52pm):
All this would be solved if everyone accepted Caitanya Mahaprabu as their lord and savior, and followed the ways of Krishna.
Anonymous (September 20, 2005 @ 8:46pm):
Repeal the First Amendment!
Anonymous (September 21, 2005 @ 2:33pm):
For the love of god, could you please write something logical?
"But, where is Congress to reign in our nation's activist courts -- specifically those located in the Ninth Circuit?"
Congress is in Washington, D.C., and if it really thinks our courts are so unduly "activist," it can send constitutional amendments to the states to overrule the courts. That is what is called "checks and balances." Perhaps you've heard of it.
"Jurists have increasingly substituted social and cultural norms for reason -- as advocated by Hamilton -- to decide legal questions afflicting our nation today."
Didn't you just get done telling us that "89 percent of those surveyed believed the phrase "under God" should remain in the Pledge while only 10 percent said it should be removed"? In fact, aren't these judges putting reason (i.e., the separation of church and state) above social and cultural norms? Since you just said that the norm is clearly pro-"under God." Again, all I ask is that you make basic sense.
"Legal decision-making now rests on balancing competing interests -- these interests being constitutional principles and political correctness."
Where again is the part of the Constitution where it says anything about having "under God" in the pledge? Oh, that's right, there's not even a mention of a pledge at all in there. Yet I seem to remember something about not having the state support religion. That's a puzzler!
"An importunate citizen has commenced the debate over the constitutionality of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge, a handful of appointed judges on the West Coast have continued this litigation, and it will take nine justices at the helm of our nation's court system to resolve the conflict of laws."
So, what you're saying is, someone has brought a court case, asking for a legal ruling on a constitutional question. And, lo and behold, the court system is going to rule on that question. We ARE in deep trouble!
"The question to be asked, though, is at what expense are we willing to renounce our nation's history, constitutional principles and commitment to the rule of law to appease a small sect of our society?"
I think the real question is, "At what expense do we continue to allow such tripe to be published on the state dime?"
Anonymous (September 21, 2005 @ 2:43pm):
By the way, the Rehnquist court overturned more Congressional acts than any other court in history. At *twice* the rate of the "crazy liberal" Warren court of the 1960s. Rein in the activist judges!!!
Anonymous (November 22, 2005 @ 9:39pm):
Hold on a second editor, u seem to speak of activist courts, its the court duty to follow popular votes or opinion, and please tally the level of barbarity commited by the legislative and judiciary branch, I will take my chances with the courts, plus the courts only interpret the law
BRIAN REILLY (November 25, 2005 @ 9:17pm):
How can the terms "Under god" & In god we trust" be held contitutional in a country that pride's it's self on seperation of church and state. After all 25-30% percent of the population is non-Christian. It because the all of the nations Supreme Court Justices past or present have be Christians except for a few token Jews. I have nothing against relegion I just do not want it forced upon me by the goverment I pay for.
Anonymous (November 26, 2005 @ 1:49pm):
The pledge to the United States had the words "under god" added during the McCarthy era specifically to guard against "godless communists," which is exactly establishing religion. I'm an atheist. My child goes to public school. She either says the pledge or becomes a pariah. This is exactly the majority imposing its religious beliefs on the minority. You should read John Stuart Mill's essays on majority rule and see what directly influenced the first ammendment.
