Government and Religion Mixed?

To support the argument against religion in our motto and pledge, you can look at the reasons for changing the Pledge and Motto during the 50’s. In signing the 1954 law adding “under god” to the Pledge, President Dwight Eisenhower stated “From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.” (”QuotesDB”). This clearly displays religious motives. Eisenhower also backed his decision to add the phrase to the pledge by commenting:

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 spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war. (”The story of the pledge of allegiance”)

Eisenhower’s decisions were also based on pressures from the Nights of Columbus’s religious leaders (San Francisco). To further disprove the Supreme Court’s decisions, they argue constitutionality of the references to “God” because they undoubtedly serve a traditional purpose rather than religious. Since the definition of “God” is “a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions (”God”),” an establishment of Judeo-Christianity exists. Based on these decisions of similar cases regarding religion, the Pledge and National Motto be considered for unconstitutionality. After all, they do refer to “God”, the religious figure, and have clear religious motives for their alterations.

When congress represents only “God” in our national motto and pledge of allegiance, it clearly goes against what Jefferson established. Congress and the Supreme Court must remove “In God We Trust” and “under god” from the US code and replace them with religiously neutral alternatives so they can represent everybody equally. By no means should they establish anti-religion, so the religiously neutral, pre cold war era versions of both the Pledge and Motto would suffice. Although it is claimed that we were founded on Christian morals, the writer of the Constitution was Deist. In addition, there is no way to prove that a majority of America was Christian. When the Constitution was founded, the number of people that were recorded Christian could differ from the actual number of Christians. Just like the modern homosexuals emerging into society, people would be shamed upon for not believing in “God” until society accepts it. A religiously neutral motto and pledge could satisfy the religious and non-religious sides and combine America as a whole, rather then separate it. Just making them optional to recite is not the answer.

To add to the argument, the reason most immigrants came to America was to escape the fundamentalist Church of England. The principles of religious freedom should be enough to remove the references to “God” in our national motto and stating we are “one nation under god” in our pledge. Then all citizens can be fairly represented and government would not be establishing religion. The unconstitutionality of “In God We Trust” and the phrase “… one nation under god…” should be considered unconstitutional based on the aforementioned facts and previous court decisions surrounding related issues. In a reply email I received from Mr. Newdow he left me with the words, “Truth is not measured by the number or position of those who tell you you’re wrong” (Newdow). That statement should help others understand that it is not religion that’s wrong, but Congress and the Supreme Court’s decisions to uphold “In God We Trust” and “one nation under god.” The pre-1950 versions of both would be the best alternatives, and hopefully Congress can neutrally represent America, Land of the free.