In a world that is constantly stretched along the blurred lines of conservatism and liberalism, the latest ruling on the constitutionality of the pledge of allegiance is a curious situation.
The entire affirmation of adoration and state worship stands on more tenuous ground due to the recent ruling by a California federal judge.
In many ways, the pledge illuminates the ideals of our country. One historical element of national pride will be stripped from all Americans for that one egregious phrase, “under God”.
Although America takes a public stance as a secular nation, clearly if items of value in our society are examined, that stance is not entirely true to the actual state of things.
This step to limit the continuation of practices that may be offensive to others is another step we take towards achieving cohesion as a country.
In order to include more people, an affirmation of national purpose and pride must include the names of all gods that Americans worship or simply remove the reference to the one Christian God.
I am ignorant about the process by which the pledge could be amended. Instead of the entire pledge being slashed from classrooms, I am in favor of a revision to the pledge.
The pledge is a necessary societal tool. As a small child my kindergarten teacher painted fantastic landscapes of rolling hills and amber waves of gain, an idealistic version of the fundamental ideas, just enough of a taste of nationalism so that I would learn to love my country.
Part of that learning process involved the pomp and circumstance of saying the pledge daily and implementing a special ceremony incorporating the flag. The pledge serves as an important function in the early formulation of a developing American and it can be a means by which the ideals of being an American can be espoused to various people.
Although God may be part of the historic story of America, in an attempt to separate church and state, it is only appropriate to limit the references to God in public settings.
Many people are unaware of this fact, but the pledge did not mention God in its original writing. “Under God” was a later amendment fueled by anti-communistic fervor.
Though this ruling will be met with strong opposition, there is hope for ridding our government of forced religious acknowledgement of the Christian God. Now, if we can work out the logistics of internal peace and ceasing domestic hunger, America would be a much better place.
Mark Carter is a senior philosophy and religion student from Tallahassee. He can be reacted at email@example.com