Whether we choose to let our children read the pledge of allegiance or not, this is of interest for Muslim parents with children in the public school system. At first look it seemed like a small albeit paradoxical victory. What I could not wrap my head around is that the ‘ceremonial’ name of God gets to stay because it is patriotic not religious?
So according to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, by taking the pledge we believe that our unalienable rights come from God but who or what God is whether He even exists is up in the air, so to speak. First marriage isn’t marriage any more, now God isn’t God anymore; it is just a secular term used to convey our founding founder’s convictions. These blurring of lines and play on the meanings of words is more dangerous than Micheal Newdow’s intentions. At least with him, we knew where we stood.
It is not just a word, it means something. I understand it is against the constitution to make anyone believe in any one definition of God but the leap to affirm that ‘under God’ also means you do not have to believe in the ‘divine origin’. If God is not the divine, what is the point of using God then? We need to define the divine to include, at the minimum, the existence of a Creator.
By Charles C. Haynes
Director, Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum
The long, bitter and emotional legal battle over “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance may have come to a quiet end on March 11.
That’s the day a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided by a 2-1 vote that “the Pledge is constitutional.” The ruling in Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School Dist. was greeted with a big yawn by the news media — and virtual silence on Capitol Hill.