Under God.” These two words are responsible for hours of
television punditry, pages of newspaper debate and, well, God knows
how many dinner table conversations about the United States’
founding fathers’ intent regarding religion’s role in
the public sphere.
But religious questions aside, the founding fathers were clear
when placing limits on governmental power. They recognized that
even a government chosen by its people must be restrained in its
power to rule over them.
They feared a “tyranny of the majority” and
constructed a Bill of Rights to guarantee individuals certain
freedoms that, even by popular demand, could not be taken away.
Among them were the rights to free speech and a fair and speedy
trial and the chance to worship freely.
Today, the Supreme Court should recognize the long-standing goal
of protecting minority populations and declare “under
God” unconstitutional. Simply put, some people don’t
believe in “God,” and they should not be compelled to
acknowledge a “nation under God.”
Without question, the vast majority of those who want
“under God” to remain in the pledge would reject
“under Allah,” “under Buddha” or
“under Zeus.”
Pledge supporters say that the word “God” in this
context refers to a more general higher being, not necessarily a
Christian God, Jewish God, or Muslim God, etc.
And that’s a perfectly acceptable interpretation. The
problem is that some people don’t have that interpretation,
believing the pledge asks them to recognize a specific
“God.” Others don’t want to recognize any kind of
God.
This is where protection of minority groups becomes
important.
When Michael Nedow, an atheist emergency room doctor and
non-practicing lawyer, argued his case before the Supreme Court,
one of the justices challenged him and said “under
God,” and, indeed the entire pledge, had become so diluted
that his case fell “beneath the constitutional
radar.”
The New York Times quoted Nedow as responding: “That is a
view that you may choose to take and the majority of Americans may
choose to take. But it’s not the view I take.” And
that’s the meat of Nedow’s case.
Further challenging Nedow, pledge supporters have also argued
that if “under God” needs to go, so does “in God
we trust” on money, and, maybe even the public recognition of
religious holidays like Christmas and Easter.
But there is an important distinction between a government
acknowledging the existence of religion and a government forcing
individuals to recognize “God,” as the pledge does.
And while the pledge is technically optional, people who think a
second-grader is not compelled to stand and say it when a teacher
leads a recital are fooling themselves.
The truth is simple: Everyday in public schools across the
country, some students are led to delegitimize their personal
beliefs and those of their parents. That’s wrong ““ and
that’s exactly what the Bill of Rights was created to
avoid.