This is a topic I have a hard time with. Personally, I feel that Church and State are already separated a little too much…hence some of the problems in the country.
As a lawyer though, I have to realize that as the laws are currently written, I believe that the inclusion of this as a practice in publicly funded schools is unconstitutional.
A little background:
1.) The main question is whether or not “Under God” is a endorsement of religion in general. As you may know “under God” was not in the original Pledge. It was added in 1954 after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus. Why? During the middle of Cold War, we wanted to differentiate ourselves from “those godless Communists”. The main purpose of the inclusion was to recognize a “Supreme Being”.
2.) The original Pledge was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a baptist minister and Christian Socialist. He was also an advocate for separation of church and state.
3.) At an initial glance, “under God” would seem to exclude Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, Deists, Humanists, and many religions who do not support any connection between church and state.
4.) President Eisenhower acknowledged religion in the country’s history and his hope for religion in the future when “Under God” was added: “in this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spriritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war.” Is this promoting a connection between Church and State?
5.) “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…” 1st Amendment
6.) Here’s where the courts have historically drawn the line: If the item in question does not promote religion but is instead a part of our “historical tradition”, it can past Constitutional scrutiny. Therefore, the Senate can have a chaplain, legal tender can include “In God We Trust”, etc. On the other side, reciting a prayer at the beginning of a school day or school event (including football games or graduation), moments of silence for purpose of meditation or individual prayer, or even student votes to allow prayer have all failed the test due to the perceived promotion of religion. I’d be interested to hear in which side you all think this falls.
Now, perhaps unfortunately, the Court will not follow emotional arguments. Instead, they must base their decision on the laws that currently exist. If “under God” is to remain in the Pledge, I believe that the First Amendment will have to be edited. I don’t believe that this will happen as although it has already been stated that 90% of all Americans believe in some type of Supreme Being, the Federal Govt can not exist for 90%.
Something to ponder anyway. I’ll be running for cover now.