Arizona Daily Wildcat Online
sections
Front Page
News
Sports
· Basketball
Opinions
· Columnists
Live Culture
GoWild
Police Beat
Datebook
Comics
Crossword
Online Crossword
Photo Spreads
Special Sections
Classifieds
The Wildcat
Letter to the Editor
Wildcat staff
Search
Archives
Job Openings
Advertising Info
Student Media
Arizona Student Media info
UATV - student TV
KAMP - student radio
The Desert Yearbook
Daily Wildcat staff alumni

News
Editorial: Preserve the Pledge


Arizona Daily Wildcat
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Print this

Religion entrenched in our national heritage

With oral arguments set to resume tomorrow in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, the Supreme Court has before it a classic case debating the separation of church and state.

At issue is the much-loved ÷ and much-hated ÷ "one nation under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance. Added unanimously by Congress in 1954 to promote patriotic sentiment during a time in which officials were scared communism would take over, the phrase is at the very heart of the church and state debate.

However, the constitutionality of the phrase ÷ if the court even grants the plaintiff standing ÷ should be clear: It is constitutional.

The First Amendment's establishment clause states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ·" Inserting "under God" into the Pledge hardly establishes a national religion, and it certainly does not prohibit people from believing, or not believing, in whatever deity they so choose.

Perhaps if the phrase were more pointed, like "One nation under Jesus Christ" or "One nation under Yahweh," the complaint would have more validity. But "God" describes the deity worshipped by such a range of faiths that it cannot be construed as supporting the establishment of a religion. Rather, it reflects the nation's history and the values shared by a huge majority of Americans, past and present. The United States was founded on Judeo-Christian values, and the inalienable rights described in the nation's founding documents descend from biblical teachings.

If students were being forced to recite the Pledge, then maybe one could make the argument that the phrase is indeed establishing a religion, despite being vague as to what religion that would be. But since West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), a case where it was deemed students could not be forced to recite the Pledge in class, it is a voluntary action and should be treated as such.

The phrase has been part of our nation's heritage for 50 years now. Even before it was added to the Pledge, coins were minted with "In God We Trust." Nobody ever complains about that phrase when handed a wad of cash.

Opinions are determined by the Wildcat opinions board and written by one of its members. They are Shane Dale, Caitlin Hall, Saul Loeb, Jason Poreda, Justin St. Germain and Eliza Tebo.



Write a Letter to the Editor
articles
Mailbag
divider
Talking Back: Let's cancel out the cash settlements
divider
Connecting The Dots: A city and a school out of plans
divider
Editorial: Preserve the Pledge
divider
Housing Guide
University of Arizona Visitor's Guide
Restaurant and Bar guide
Search for:
advanced search Archives
CAMPUS NEWS | SPORTS | OPINIONS
CLASSIFIEDS | ARCHIVES | CONTACT US | SEARCH


Webmaster - webmaster@wildcat.arizona.edu
© Copyright 2003 - The Arizona Daily Wildcat - Arizona Student Media