The "Under God" Issue
"Hey Tony, I talked to yesterday on the radio. Not sure I was smooth enough to relay my point. Not to mention, you had shot holes in it to hell and back.
Here is the deal about this whole 'under god issue.' A law is something that is either broken or abided by. If it is followed you are fine, if it is not you are Martha Stewart. However, we have this law (that I don't think can be defined as a law) that puts 'under god' into the Pledge. Now we have this law that no one is required to repeat, no one is required to state God. In fact, we support and encourage people who don't want to say God or don't want to recite the pledge, not to. What in the hell type of law is this? Why create a law where no one is required to follow it and in fact people are encourage not to follow it if they feel uncomfortable.
The Supreme Court is going to have to decide rather or not to strike down this law. But is it really a law? Congress passes many things, most of them stupid, but not all of them need followed. Example is that congress passed that the world is a safer place Iraq fell. I believe it, but those liberals who don't won't get thrown in jail for not believing it. Is that a law? What is its purpose? Can the Supreme Court strike this down as well?
My greater concern is that if ‘under god’ is struck down, then everything else as non-binding regarding God will come under attack. Currently in our communities and in the government community it is acceptable to have god stated where and when we feel appropriate.
Though it is now increasingly under attack by the ACLU, we still can do it. But if a non-binding law that does not force anybody to anything gets struck down, then I see an open door for the Supreme Court to strike down anything non-binding that might offend someone.
I guess that was my point. Thanks for letting me on your radio program. I enjoy listening to you." — Jason
Thanks for the e-mail. I didn't fully understand your argument yesterday. Now I do. Congress did in fact pass a law in 1954, changing the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance. The law concerns only the wording of the pledge. It does not make recitation mandatory, and it does not punish people who skip the words ‘under God’ or don't recite it at all. Not every law demands that people do things.
On your more fundamental point, I agree: If the court agrees to strike ‘under God’ from the pledge, it inevitably will strike mention of God from textbooks, from our national currency, etc. -- and we'll have a real mess on our hands.
Thanks again for writing.
Keep your comments coming! I really appreciate all of your ideas, suggestions and your well-wishes. Thanks a million! We couldn't do it without YOU! — Tony Snow