

EDITORIAL: Don't remove 'under God' from Pledge of Allegiance

8:14 PM, Apr. 25, 2014  |  Comments
Students from the Marine Academy of Science and Technology recite the Pledge of Allegiance last year.
  • Filed Under

The prolonged quest to expunge the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance has been taking another turn, as atheists and other nonreligious groups - and perhaps a few merely cantankerous contrarians along the way - are now directing some of their legal challenges to state courts. The latest such lawsuit has been filed against the Matawan-Aberdeen school district in Monmouth County, focusing not on constitutional issues as past federal challenges have done, but instead emphasizing violations of New Jersey's discrimination laws.

Take our poll: Should 'under God' be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance?

The school district's response has been short and sweet - don't blame us. It's a state requirement. If you don't like it, go after the state.

That's the safest route for school officials, steering clear of any philosophical debate over whether the "under God" wording should be included in the pledge that students recite each morning.

But it's difficult to take the lawsuit particularly seriously considering some of its claims. For example, the daily recitation of the pledge supposedly "publicly disparages plaintiffs' religious beliefs, calls plaintiffs' patriotism into question, portrays plaintiffs as outsiders and second-class citizens, and forces (the child) to choose between nonparticipation in a patriotic exercise or participation in a patriotic exercise that is invidious to him and his religious class."

Really? The recitation of two words tucked into a pledge that many, if not most, students barely even think about while they are muttering the words "disparages" someone's religious beliefs? Brings patriotism into question? Portrays nonbelieving students as second-class citizens?

That all seems spectacularly overwrought, but it's difficult to assess the legitimacy of the claims because the family filing the lawsuit has remained anonymous. The American Humanist Association has joined the suit, and supporters pepper their comments with concerns about bias against atheists and how those not believing in God are among the most abused minorities. We don't doubt that some such bias exists and shouldn't be tolerated.

But two words in the Pledge of Allegiance are irrelevant to all of that in any meaningful way. Students aren't required to say "under God." They're not required to say the pledge at all. They can make up some words as they go along. The phrase "under God" represents a verbal bow to a still significant American majority, not some deep commitment to a higher being. No one is compelled to pledge allegiance to anything - that's a basic American freedom.

This lawsuit, and the repeated legal challenges of the Pledge of Allegiance, all seem to be inventing a form of student victimhood that doesn't exist, to carry out an agenda that is more an adult's crusade than a student's burden. Some critics condemn the lawsuit as frivolous, which isn't entirely fair. The anonymous family has a right to file the suit, and we all know that any legal battle can lead to some decisions that fail any common-sense test. So a victory isn't entirely out of the question.

But we can say this much: All of the drama - and legal fees at taxpayers' expense - are wasted here.

Real Deals



User Photos More Photos | Submit


Sign up for home delivery today

Facebook Activity

Most Commented