¡°Under God,¡± Allegiance, and the Resurrection of a Dying Phrase
Jonathan E. Harrison
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America: ¡°Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof¡¦¡± (First Amendment. Constitution of the United States of America).
To both those who are fighting to keep the phrase ¡°under God¡± in the Pledge of Allegiance and to those who are fighting to remove it, perhaps the people of the nation should not only remove those words from the Pledge of Allegiance but to change the words of the famous phrase to better suit today¡¯s social paradigm.
David Williams of The Daily Barometer Online, which is centered at Oregon University, certainly feels the same and believes that ¡°If you don¡¯t like it, then don¡¯t say it,¡± as he scribbles a title for his argument. For those who may not come from the same part of town as David, perhaps not even from a similar religion or belief system, a couple of points should be brought to light concerning his claims.
Williams says ¡°for the record¡¦I believe an overwhelming majority of Americans support the usage of ¡®under God¡¯ in this circumstance¡± (Williams). Where does he get this vague statistic from? Even though this claim may be true to some extent, one cannot escape the effect on not only international affairs outside the country¡¯s borders but also within them as well with this small, yet seemingly harmless phrase. As it stands today, the US government commits numerous crimes according to its own moral beliefs en masse under various different guises (such as multiple forms of killing, lack of unifying with the world voice, and the lack of using capitalism¡¯s strength to re-channel the destructive energies present), yet it still claims to be ¡°under God.¡± So what is a foreigner to feel when he/she sees and hears this Pledge being sung with those very words in it, while at the same time seeing such atrocities that occur overseas? Perhaps it is not a religious connotation with those exact words that the Pledge needs in today¡¯s world, but a more heart-felt phrase that reaches out to not only Americans or Christians, but to all who will join them under the same life force through which human beings understand each other. Perhaps a rewording of the famous phrase should reach a broader audience and include all rather than exclude all who consider the word ¡°God¡± as from old paradigms of man¡¯s evolutionary process in understanding the world around him.
Williams also claims that ¡°our country...still does [need] law with a moral foundation in Christianity¡± (Williams). The connotation from this quote is that if David were in charge, he may just impose Christian beliefs into the laws while possibly excluding the good morality of many other beliefs from others in his own community. If he wishes to live peacefully in a country that sings, himself included, ¡°one nation¡¦indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,¡± then he should reconsider wording that statement, and perhaps that thought altogether, to make it all-inclusive for the mix of peoples that live together in this great country (Williams). Though he believes that the people are endowed with unalienable rights toward the pursuit of liberty and freedom of religion without government interference or control, there is a paradox implied here. First he says that if you don¡¯t want to say it or sing it, then don¡¯t; it¡¯s your right in this country. However on the other hand, he is saying that the country needs a foundation in his own religion¡¯s morality (supposing that he is Christian himself). If there are many religions around the globe that have high morals as well, and there certainly are, then using the word ¡°Christian¡± should not be used since the level of morality will be recognizable without that mentioned.
One fact in life is for certain; that is change. From a single thought, worlds are destroyed and created. From those thoughts our worlds are created and shaped as we desire. But when those worlds we created are no longer able to support the energies present in the world today, a choice must be made. As a single thought, a choice can hold us back or it can enlighten us.
This country began from a choice, an honorable choice, but a choice nevertheless. How we handle that choice today determines our future. While David Williams¡¯ statement in the title of his article ¡°If you don¡¯t like it, then don¡¯t say it.¡± certainly holds some validity, it fails to reveal any concern to embrace the multitudes. This case is not a new one, however there is an angle missing from his argument. That angle is concerning the fast-changing times we live in. The world we live in today is not the same as when the fathers of this country drafted the amendments, thereby implying that their mentality also was different according to the times. Though ¡°under God¡± is meant with the utmost good and enlightening intentions, change lurks around the corner, and a wording to fit the quickening of the day¡¯s level of sentience is sorely needed that empowers rather than hangs onto the struggling energies of the past.
Works Cited
Williams, David. ¡°If you don¡¯t like it, then don¡¯t say it.¡± The Daily Barometer Online. University of Alabama. 13 November 2003. On-line. Google 13 November 2003. http://barometer.orst.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/10/24/3f9997cd1247a
United States. United States House of Representatives. Amendments to the Constitution. On-line. Google 18 November 2003. http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html