Erasing God at Our Peril

Is it a mistake to try and remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance? Many conservatives think so - according to them, this country needs to do more to acknowledge God, not less, if it is to remain strong. Of course, a basic presupposition of this is that America is acknowledging some particular God for some particular reason. That makes the phrase even more of a religious statement and, hence, even more unconstitutional.

Mary Pitman Kitch writes for The Oregonian:

Our very freedoms derive from religious ideals. We may find this repugnant, corny or simply inconvenient in 2003. But the references to God sprinkled throughout our coins and currency, national songbook and historic documents -- four references to God in the Declaration of Independence alone -- trace this indebtedness.

It is actually true that ideals of religious freedom were at one time developed by religious people and for religious reason - that, however, is not a justification for expecting people to recite a religious phrase as part of a patriotic exercise. The government doesn't have authority to pick our particular religious beliefs to promote, not matter how old those beliefs are.

Approaching "Sheilaism" Franklin lived in the 18th century, when you were a broad-minded person if you could tolerate a spectrum of Baptists to Quakers. Today, we have pantheists, polytheists, hundreds of religions and perhaps thousands of creeds. We're approaching what sociologist Robert Bellah has termed "Sheilaism," in which every Tom, Dick and Sheila has his or her own private blend of beliefs.

Kitch acts as though this development is a bad thing. But it isn't - and it is because of this increase in religious diversity that even traditional platitudes to a monotheistic god are simply no longer as tenable as they once were. There was certainly a time when one could assume that just about everyone could agree on certain things, like that a single god exists, but you can't anymore. There are no uncontroversial religious beliefs shared by nearly everyone.

Christians may consider "under God" to be minimal, but they said the same thing about Protestant prayers and reading the Protestant Bible at one time. It's only "minimal" to them because they happen to agree with it and forget that others don't. We always see people trying to rationalize their beliefs as "minimal" and "uncontroversial" and that, somehow, everyone else needs to adapt to them. But that just isn't acceptable.

Read More:

• Newdow v. U.S. Congress (case summary & explanation)
• Pledge of Allegiance (background & origins)
• Religious Right
• Christian Nationalism
• Separation of Church and State 101
• Religion in Public Schools