Political Rhetoric and Religion

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all”. The Pledge of Allegiance was originally penned in 1892 by Francis Bellamy and has since had many revisions. In 1954 the pledge was modified to what it presently says, including the phrase, “under God”. The Pledge of Allegiance is mostly used in public schools and is recited by school children according to a law that says schools must offer the Pledge on a daily basis. In the past when one would think of the Pledge of Allegiance they did not see it as a religious decree, rather it was seen as an obligation we, as citizens, had to our country. In recent years, however, there has been uproar in regards to the “under God” utterance in the Pledge of Allegiance because this phrase offers a religious suggestion to all who utter it. In this paper I will look at rhetoric and religion in the political sphere, and whether or not it should have a place in our governmental policies and practices.

When our founding fathers established the United States of America, they were all rather religious people. Out of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, the document that our nation was built upon, 30 of them were religiously affiliated to the Episcopalian religious sect. The remaining 26 signers of the Declaration of Independence were affiliated with various other religious sects including Catholic, Congressionalist; Unitarian, Quaker, and Presbyterian. Considering the fact that all of the founding fathers clearly were religious people, then it is understandable why God played a role in the phrases and documents upon which our nation was built.

The United States’ national motto is, “In God We Trust”. This motto has been debated many times in recent years because of the religious sanctions it implies in regards to U.S. citizens. What about those citizens who consider themselves to be un-affiliated with any religion, or those who believe in a religion, but do not worship God? To those people, and other outraged citizens, a belief in God should not play a role in our government and should be removed from both the national motto, and the Pledge of Allegiance, and any other document or phrase penned by our government that suggests any religious affiliation.

In a recent debate over religious sanctions in governmental proceedings, The American Center for Law and Justice Website has an article about the religious phrases used in our government motto and the Pledge of Allegiance. The article, titled ACLJ & Members of Congress Defend National Motto & Pledge at Capitol Visitor Center and published under Jay Sekulow’s Trial Notebook, discusses how in the new visitor center at our nations capitol has the national motto, “In God We Trust” and the Pledge of Allegiance which contains the phrase “under God” both engraved in the new center which has posed a threat to the non-religious visitors of the center. The group opposed to the engraved phrases is the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). This group says that the phrases engraved goes against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The ACLJ, however, believes that the lawsuit should be dropped stating that their position is clear: “The fact is that Congress acted appropriately and consistent with the Constitution with the inclusion of the national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance in the Capitol Visitor Center. These expressions echo the sentiments found in the Declaration of Independence and recognize the undeniable truth that our freedoms come from God” (ACLJ Website). Clearly there are confrontations over whether or not the government and government buildings have the right to insist on having religions phrases posted as decorations, however, since the national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance are depictions of our nation as a whole, should it be accepted? Some agree that it should.

Although the previous examples of religion in politics are traditional examples that have been in effect for many years and will most likely not change, there are many current examples of rhetoric and religion in politics that mainly come from the staunch Conservative side of the political spectrum. Case in point, according to a Boston Globe article by Brian MacQuarrie titled, Dobson spiritual empire wields political clout, Dobson stated, “Two starkly contrasting worldviews predominate today's moral and cultural debate. One side defends the traditional values that have made this nation great for more than 225 years; the other works to chisel away at that foundation” (MacQuarrie). The sides that Dobson is referring to are the Democratic and Conservative sides in which the Conservatives are the ones that hold the traditional values, and the Democrats are the ones that are working to “chisel away that foundation”. MacQuarrie continues by saying, “Dobson stands in the vanguard of a crusade by evangelical Christians to place their agenda at the forefront of public debate over presidential and congressional elections, judicial appointments, gay marriage, and the ''life issues" of abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem-cell research” (MacQuarrie). Many religious conservatives agree with Dobson on the issue of religion being a motivating factor in politics, and these are the voters that are believed to have played such a crucial role in the re-election of President George W. Bush in 2004.

Though religions conservatives may have helped play a role in winning the election for their favored party, it is hard to say that these religions groups still have the same effect on elections as they used to. In the last election a democrat was elected, and although a groups such as Dobson’s’ strongly disapproved, President Obama still won. These days it seems as though the religious extremists are just getting bashed in the news for their outrageous comments and ideas about the government being corrupt. This leads me to believe that religion and politics should not mix because the country is full of so much diversity and there is not way to appease all religions in relation to the government.

The traditional aspects of our government that were based on religion should stay in place because that is what makes us the country we are. Our founding fathers were the ones who established this nation, which was based on the religious views they currently held. With time, however, more religions have emerged in our country, which is what makes us the melting pot that we call the United States. Religious beliefs of a particular politician should not play a role in determining the fate of our nation because this will only end in destruction. This does not mean that all people who have religious beliefs should be thrown out of the government, rather, politicians need to set their religions agendas aside when making decisions that regard the nation as a whole so that they can attempt to accommodate all religions and walks of life in our nation.

References:

"ACLJ & Members of Congress Defend National Motto & Pledge at Capitol Visitor Center." American Center for Law and Justice. 13 Nov. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.

MacQuarrie, Brian. "Dobson spiritual empire weilds political clout." Boston Globe 09 Oct. 2005. Print.

"Religions Affiliations of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America." Adherents.com. 04 Nov. 2005. Web. 18 Nov. 2009. .