James Durney

Position Paper

The Phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance

The two main concepts at odds here are patriotism and religion. The issue comes
to hand when these two concepts clash and overlap. Laycock does the job of revealing
that clash; it is his duty to present evidence that the Pledge of Allegiance is not only
patriotic, but intrinsically religious also. Laycock says, "We have linked religion and
politics, religion and patriotism, religious faith and patriotic standing inseparably right in
the middle of one sentence" (49). Sekulow, alternatively, doesn't focus effort trying to
prove that religion is absent, in fact before halfway through the first page he admits that
religion is part but says, "The religious portion of the Pledge of Allegiance is only two
words" (53). This statement might be meant to show the diminutive nature of any
religious aspect, but regardless, it admits to the presence of religion. I don't see how this
can help prove constitutionality.
Every section of Sekulow's speech seems to admit to a religious base. The
acceptibility of religion is argued on almost every paragraph. Furthurmore, there seems
to be an argument of the inherent religion in every aspect of our government, from the
court system, "God save the United States and this Honorable Court" (Sekulow, 53), to
the Declaration of Independence's "reference to a Creator" (Sekulow, 55). This may
prove that our country has a religious history, but I don't believe it proves the virtue of
sustained religion in our government. It is beaten into our heads, in Sekulow's reasoning,
that our rights "don't come from a king" (Sekulow, 54) they "come from God to mankind"
(Sekulow, 55). He gives us evidence over and over that our founders used this language,
but what I am never convinced of is just because they conveyed their ideas in such a way
that means it's the best way to continue with our patriotism. It seems to me that many of
these "rights" were being taken away by men and kings and it was society that took them
back; God didn't come down from the sky and hand them back to us. At the beginning of
Sekulow's ranting he give's us five reasons, not even from his own logic, that say why the
Pledge of Allegiance could be considered constitutional (Sekulow, 53), but never gives
evidence for the first two points, and this hurts his validity more than helps.
Laycock supplies enough evidence to completely monopolize my opinion. The
Pledge "clearly implies there is only one God...and other gods around the world are false
gods" (Laycock, 47). The only way this isn't disputed more is that approximately 85% or
more of the population is monotheistic (Laycock, 47). Nobody can deny that religion is a
major part of our history, and I agree that the government can and should teach about our
past using all the religious references that are viable, and the Constitution virtually
requires it (Laycock, 49). But, I also agree that we should be able to assert our patriotism
without referring to any religious affiliation, in all actuality "mingling the patriotic and
the religious seems to me to make it worse, not better" (Laycock, 48)

Works Cited:
Laycock, Douglas. "The Phrase 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance: Violation of the
 First Amendment." You Decide! Current Debates in American Polititcs. Ed. John
T. Rourke. New York: Pearson-Longman, 2007.
Sekulow, Alan. "The Phrase 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance: Acceptable
Traditional Expression." You Decide! Current Debates in American Politics. Ed.
John T. Rourke. New York: Pearson-Longman, 2007.