COURT SHOULD REMOVE GOD FROM PLEDGE, MONEY (3-2004)

You’ve got to admit Michael Newdow has guts. Although he’s 
a lawyer, he is also the defendant in a case that is now 
before the Supreme Court, and he has taken on the usually 
risky and foolish task of representing himself. But, 
apparently, he impressed the justices when he was 
presenting his arguments.

Newdow is the California atheist who successfully 
challenged the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in 
his daughter’s school because it contained the phrase, 
“under God.” Newdow claimed that the words amount to a 
direct governmental endorsement of the Almighty, which is 
unconstitutional.

A U.S. appellate court has already agreed with Newdow. The 
decision sent shock waves of dissention across America last 
year, especially in the religious community.

Now it is before the U.S. Supreme Court. And if the 
justices agree that Newdow had a legal right to challenge 
the pledge in the first place (His daughter’s mother is not 
his wife, so he does not have sole legal custody, and she’s 
a Christian who supports the pledge), it will be up to them 
to decide whether we can legally proclaim ourselves to be a 
nation “under God,” at least during school hours.

 Personally, I don’t think the phrase “under God” has any 
business being in the pledge of allegiance. I’m going to go 
out on a limb here and say that this is probably a minority 
opinion. Well, a recent poll indicated that close to 90 
percent of Americans think the pledge should be left alone, 
just as it is.

I can see their point. It’s what most of us have been used 
to reciting all our lives. The religious crowd obviously 
would like God left in the pledge. And the others believe 
it is now simply a part of our heritage and doesn’t really 
carry any religious weight anyway.

Still, it was a mistake to put that phrase into the pledge 
in the first place. It was inserted in 1954 in response to 
the “Godless Communists,” as a legacy of the McCarthy era. 
Religious fundamentalists were the lobbyists that 
eventually persuaded Congress to make the change. That’s 
also when “In God we trust” was placed on our currency.

But, just as we eventually discovered that another 
fundamentalist-led prohibition on our freedoms - the 
Prohibition - was a bad idea, we can now acknowledge that 
placing the phrase “under God” in the pledge was also ill-
advised.

Even with such an acknowledgement, however, it probably 
isn’t hurting anyone to leave it in place, even the 
atheists. After all, a school kid is never actually forced 
to say the pledge.

Personally, I would much rather see the entire sentence, 
“In God we trust” removed from our currency. That is a 
direct and clear statement that seems to be establishing a 
religious preference, which is a violation of the First 
Amendment.

Just who is “we,” anyway? Is it the government, the U.S. 
Mint, or the people who spend the coins and bills? If it is 
the people, then it clearly does not speak for every one of 
us. Even atheists have to spend money, and I could see 
where they would be offended at the inclusion of that 
sentence on their dollars.

In the end, though, the court will probably overturn 
Newdow’s appellate victory. Tradition will win out, even if 
God doesn’t. Then maybe the court can move on to more 
important things that really mean something.