VOL. LIV, NO. 123
California State University, Long Beach June 17, 2004
.
ADVERTISEMENT


     
 
 
 


Editorial Staff

Sonya Smith
Editor in Chief

Trent Loomis
Managing Editor


Jamie Rowe
City Editor

Elysse James
Opinion Editor

Tracey Roman
Photo Editor

Jon Cook
Sports Photographer

Joe Cho
News Photographer

Beverly Munson
Advertising/Business Manager


J. M. Eggleston
Production Manager

Kari Schneider
Assistant Production Manager

 

. News  
 

God In Pledge of Allegiance

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Having had to recite this phrase through seven years of elementary school and two years of middle school, it has been ingrained in our heads so that after years without thinking about the Pledge, we can still recite it flawlessly. It doesn't seem that this phrase will change any time soon.

Separation of Church and State is an important issue these days, but one that the Supreme Court is choosing to avoid by dismissing a case on the Pledge of Allegiance due to technicalities. For now, we continue to include the words "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance and in our public schools. The Supreme Court was able to avoid any changes because Newdow, the man who began the case, does not have full legal custody of his 10-year-old daughter—he only has her for 10 days each month. Newdow served as his own lawyer, and is a self-proclaimed atheist minister.

The Supreme Court is avoiding confrontation with the issue by dismissing it on a technicality. Those in favor of leaving the words in the Pledge, such as President Bush, are able to do so by dismissing the case and do not have to officially rule on the case.

The words "under God" were not originally part of the pledge, a fact many people seem to forget. "Under God" was added in 1954 by Congress under the Eisenhower administration during a war against atheistic communism. The phrase was supposed to separate us from "the godless communists" (The Soviet Union) during threat of nuclear war.

In June 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that reciting the Pledge is unconstitutional because it endorses monotheistic religion in public schools, a place where neutrality towards religion should prevail, though the Pledge does not establish any one monotheistic religion over another.

Reciting the Pledge is not required in public schools, and school-sponsored prayer is not allowed in classrooms or school ceremonies (including sports games). When the case was taken to the Supreme Court, the previous rulings were frozen, and so the Pledge has not been banned during this time.

The case clearly involves more United States citizens than just Newdow and his daughter, as it affects the nation as a whole and reflects the principles and the constitution of this country. Some say Newdow is using his daughter for his own agenda, but Newdow stated that this is his lawsuit and he has tried to keep his daughter's name out of the case.

It seems that he used the fact that he had a daughter to have the case recognized, but afterwards conceded it was his fight, a fight that he has not won since the decision of the 9th court is being overturned.

 


Calendar

Display Ads

Front Page

univmag

 

ADVERTISEMENT


.
©2004 Daily Forty-Niner. All rights reserved