You do not understand the difference between the Pledge and the Declaration of Independence. In the D of I God is mentioned as is the Creator. Nobody reads the D of I on a daily basis and when it is read it is usually read in school in a history class and, one hopes, in context. The Pledge is recited every day and as such serves to reinforce national loyalty therefore the use of under God is objectionable since these words reinforce a particular religious aspect and not the national. The argument that no one is required to recite the pledge is not relevant. Read the decision to understand why.
The problem that has to be resolved is the conflict between the separation of church and state and the clearly monotheistic slant that the D of I has. This can be resolved by accepting that the D of I needed to gain legitimacy and calling upon a Creator and/or God served that end. The point is that the separation of church and state is more important because it is a fundamental tenant upon which the USA is built. The D of I is an inflammatory document that every revolutionary group since has read and used. It justifies throwing out the legitimate power structure for another. Said in another way, the British in 1776 considered the American revolution to be a terrorist operation. The British lost and the terrorists became heroes.
Here is the first section of the D of I
"IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world." |
