Palm Beach Post Sunday, July 7, 2002
'Under God' excludes many

 

         I lean toward supporting the 9th U.S. Circuit Court's decision that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. In the 1980s, several members of the U.S. Supreme Court said that references such as "In God We Trust," which appears on our money, do not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because their religious significance had been lost through rote repetition. As an Episcopal clergyman, I cringe to think that the religious significance of "under God" would be lost in any circumstance and would rather omit God than neutralize the sacred affirmation.

        Furthermore, what of citizens who are agnostics, atheists, Buddhists or those who are prohibited for religious reasons from saying the word God? (Classical Buddhism acknowledges no ultimate reality as "God.") Is it right for them, especially children, to be subjected to the theistic declaration in a publicly sponsored assembly?

        Finally, is it clear that the intent of the Founding Fathers was to imply that we are a theistic, Christian, or any other religiously based nation? I'd welcome a Supreme Court decision about these historical and constitutional issues.

RICHARD T. NOLAN
West Palm Beach