One Nation, Under Canada?

AgnosticAtheist1's picture

In 1954, President Eisenhower signed into law the addition of “under god” to the pledge of allegiance. While his full reason can only be speculated at, one of the major ideas behind it was to signify a difference between the United States, and the “godless communists”. This makes sense because of course, since a society that was communist (or at least purported to be) was secular, and pursued general atheism, committed numerous despicable deeds, all secular societies must be evil. Similarly, since Adolf Hitler had only one testicle (or at least was purported to), all people with only one testicle believe in ethnic cleansing.

As I do not know absolutely everything about the Cold War, I will assume in Eisenhower’s favor, that changing our pledge somehow helped us to bring down Soviet Russia. But now, in this day, is it necessary? Is it fair? Is it constitutional? Is it legal? Well it certainly isn’t necessary. Is God so fickle that unless you proclaim your faith to the world, it’ll be hell to pay, literally? No, in fact, even if we are to accept the bible as true, proclaiming your faith publicly was frowned upon by Jesus, quoted as saying “thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly” (Matthew 5:5-6) and “Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven…But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: “(Matthew 6:1,3). Again, that hardly matters, as we should hardly bend the laws to discriminate against any minority on what a 2000 year old book says to do.

To the next. Is it fair? Well, the current pledge proclaims a belief that the nations actions are under God, the monotheistic belief, most commonly associated with Christianity. The reciting of the pledge is not mandatory, but is it fair to assume the majority belief and ask others to remain silent? Taking out those 2 words will not prevent people from believing what they will, nor will it require them to say anything antithetical to their beliefs. Prayer is legal in school so long as it is not “government fostered”, led, required, sanctioned, scheduled or suggested by school officials. Schools should remain neutral towards any one religion, just as towards any race or gender or culture. Here’s a surefire way to test discrimination. Imagine if the pledge read “one nation, under Allah” or “one nation, under the Pantheon”, or “one nation, under Buddha”. Suddenly the discrimination becomes apparent.

But most importantly, is this addition to the pledge constitutional? Legal? Section 4, Article 1 of the California Constitution Bill of Rights reads “Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed.” Allowing just those 2 words to remain puts discrimination in the pledge, and puts a preference on monotheistic religions, namely those with a God named “God”. Since Islam worships Allah, and Judaism, Jehovah, the only remaining option is God, along with the many offshoots thereof. But really, to go one step further, why have a pledge? Is it really logical to expect 5 year olds to be able to understand the gravity of pledging allegiance to a country? What about to have it recited every day? Isn’t a pledge something you take once and follow forever? It’s nothing illegal, but does it really make sense?

Furthermore, the same argument applies to 'In God We Trust'. It implies something about an entire group of people, all of whom it does not apply to. In legal cases, being required to affirm belief in God has been made illegal in politics(in most states, although some still require an affirmation technically), as well as in all public affairs, and in many states, privately run enterprises. Yet here remains a blatant violation of freedom of religion. Not only symbolic, it is also used as an argument by more ignorant people(or by politicians, to gain the votes of such people), to state that America is a 'Christian nation'. In the interest of continuity, both of these phrases ought be removed from their respective areas.