Under Who?

In a recent federal court ruling in California it was determined that the words “under God” made the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. Therefore, at least in the context of this case, children in the district in question would no longer be required to recite the Pledge in school. This is merely one small skirmish in a larger battle. Now I’m personally fond of the words “under God” and would like them to remain included because I feel that they accurately represent the feelings and intentions of our founding fathers. However, I also understand that those particular words were actually added in the 1950’s. It reflected the national sentiments at the time and probably was also intended to align us with God politically, in juxtaposition to the evil threat of a Godless and rapidly spreading communism. I appreciate that sentiment, but am also willing to concede that “under God” was an add-on phrase and did not exist in the original text. That certainly makes it harder to defend in this case.

The larger problem, however, is a determined offensive by the left to completely secularize our government, and even our nation as a whole. This is a battle we can scarcely afford to lose in the long run and is entirely incompatible with the spirit of our foundational documents, as well as those who drafted them. Many of those who first immigrated to North America did so, at least in part, in order to flee various forms of religious persecution. They had experienced the restrictions imposed by the Church of England and the Holy Roman Empire, wherein the official state religion held sway over citizens through the authority of the government. Against this backdrop, our founding fathers sought to ensure that no state religion could be declared and that American citizens would always have the right to free exercise of their faith. Our forefathers never denied the existence of God, rather quite to the contrary they wrote often of their faith and the part it played in formation of this new nation. Their intention was merely to protect us from power hungry men who might wield religion politically, as had been done in Europe and the middle east through all the centuries of recent history. They were clearly men of faith and acted to preserve the free and unrestricted practice thereof for all posterity. They were, therefore, not against God, but merely the abuse of state authority exercised in the name of God.

In this day and age, as the ACLU and other liberal groups work to eradicate any reference to God from our public domain, one must consider the larger picture or end game in the process. It would be difficult to deny that the entire basis for our traditional moral values comes from the Judeo Christian system, beginning with the Ten Commandments and other Hebrew laws. The left wants desperately to separate us, as a nation, from this moral foundation because it contains something they consider very unnerving and dangerous … absolute morality and responsibility to a Creator. They want to decide what is right and wrong and be sure that it conforms to their social agenda. The battle to secularize society is really a battle for moral relativity. Once you throw out God and that pesky bible, then people can run the world … essentially, people can be God. Then homosexuality can be acceptable. The lives of whales and cats can be as precious as those of unborn human babies. The preeminence of marriage can be dismantled. It will be ok to exterminate Jews or Kurds or Serbs or substitute chemistry teachers, so long as it fits someone’s social agenda. The list goes on and on. Indeed, I propose that if there is no absolute morality, no religiously based morality, then there is no morality whatsoever.

This all brings us back to the whole “under God” problem. If you extract God and the bible (or Torah) from society, we lose our compass and the moral heritage upon which our nation was founded. It doesn’t take an astrophysicist to figure out that the universe doesn’t revolve around man. We are a part of it, but there are certain natural laws which transcend our existence and, without which, we could not even exist. I believe there are also certain moral and spiritual laws which transcend our existence as well. In the end, you could no more remove God from morality than you could pass a referendum outlaw gravity. When one considers such things, one nation “under God” may not be such a bad idea. The wording of the Pledge, however, isn’t really my issue. Yet, if that’s the direction we’re headed and we’re not under God, then at some point responsible people must ask themselves one final question: “Under who?”