BCT Editorial – 9/18/05

This page was last updated on September 18, 2005.

Beyond words; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 18, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The most recent judicial ruling banning the inclusion of the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance is seen by many as a symbol of the great divide that exists between secular and sectarian America.”

[RWC] I disagree. I believe the ruling is symbolic only of a divide between the vast majority of Americans and a tiny minority. Most of us don’t believe in an official government religion, but most of us also don’t believe in government being hostile to religion. Rulings like that of the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals demonstrate hostility toward religion.

“As we have argued before, the inclusion of ‘under God’ does not amount to a serious breach in the separation of church and state. That’s why a ruling by one federal judge in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will have more impact on TV and radio shoutfests, bloggers and right-wing fund-raisers than in the classroom.”

[RWC] That the author considers “under God” a breach at all appears to show where his sympathies lie.

On a side note, once again we should note the editorial board doesn’t consider its op-ed pages to be “shoutfests.”

“But there’s an interesting aspect to the pledge controversy that says a lot about modern-day America.

“When Francis Bellamy wrote the original pledge in 1892, he wanted to include ‘equality’ alongside ‘liberty’ and ‘justice.’

“He didn’t, though, because of the social conditions at that time. Back then, blacks in the South were subject to Jim Crow laws (and blacks in other parts of the nation were hardly seen as equals by whites) and women couldn’t vote.

“Bellamy knew that if he plugged ‘equality’ into the equation, the pledge would be a non-starter in many parts of the country.

“America has changed greatly since 1892. Which makes us wonder: Why isn’t the failure to include ‘equality’ in the Pledge of Allegiance as offensive to Americans as is the effort to exclude ‘under God?’”

[RWC] Though I’m sure few people have given this any thought, here would be my answer. In my mind, you can’t have “justice” without “equality,” so specifying justice includes equality.