|
|
Pledge of Allegiance This is in response to an email forward that was sent to me. It ended with this quote: "The quote of the month is by Jay Leno:
'With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terror ist attacks, are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?'
For those that prefer to think that God is not watching over us...go ahead
and delete this.
For the rest of us...pass this on."
Response:
Did you know that, for the first 62 years of its existence (1892-1954) the Pledge did not have the words "under god" anywhere in it? The Knights of Columbus (a Catholic organization) tried for several years to get them added, but failed. They tried to claim support for the phrase by citing the Gettysburg address. But the phrase in the address suggested that, God willing, the nation would rise from the dust of the civil war, not that the nation was one under God. Those were Lincoln's own sentiments, not a declaration about the nature of the country. That would be like saying that we are one under God because President Bush says "God bless our troops."
It wasn't until Dwight Eisenhower was convinced by his Presbyterian minister in 1954 that our oneness under god was our defining characteristic as a nation that he pushed to have the words added to the Pledge.
Why do we pay more attention to this quote because it is from Jay Leno? Why does his celebrity status make him an authority on the subject of the importance of the phrase "under God" during times of natural disaster? We survived the Spanish-American war, World War One, World War Two, the Korean war, the Great Depression, the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, the Long Beach earthquake in California, the great lakes storm of 1913, broken dams, and a number of hurricanes, wildfires, and tornadoes without the words "under God" in the pledge. Not only did we survive, we thrived, we prospered. We became the greatest power in the world. We even refer to that generation as "the greatest generation." I disagree with Eisenhower's minister. I think it is our oneness in the face of trial and tragedy that sets us apart. For many of us, that strength to stand up comes from our faith. But we are not united in faith. We are not united in religion. Many of those people that stand up for this country may not even call Him God. Some may not even acknowledge the existence of God. But it is our ability to stand together for a common goal, despite our variety of beliefs, that makes us great. E pluribus unum.
This argument is a subset of the greater "church and state" debate. In response to this debate as a whole, we need look no further than the Doctrine and Covenants, particularly section 134:4 - "We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion to bind the consciences of men; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt , but never suppress the freedom of the soul." This seems very clear and straightforward. Requiring people to recite those two controversial words may feel like prescribed worship, or dictated devotion to some and should therefor be avoided, that we may never attempt to control the conscience of any citizen of this great country. This isn't an issue of taking away religious freedom, it is an issue of preserving it for everyone.
|
|