Supreme Court should uphold pledge decision
This term the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear the controversial case surrounding the phrase under God in the Pledge of Allegiance. An appeals court previously ruled that the reference to God in the pledge violates the First Amendment and should not be used in public schools. The Supreme Court would be wise to uphold this decision.
In 2000, Michael Newdow of California filed a lawsuit, charging that it was unconstitutional for his daughter, then in second grade, to listen to the pledge being recited by her classmates. Newdow, who is an atheist, said he was only trying to separate church and state, not cause a national uproar, according to an article in USA Today. But the case ¥¥has caused an uproar. The Bush administration is furious about the current ruling, but if they took a closer look at the logistics of the case, they would find that under God is in fact unconstitutional and should be removed.
In a nation that supposedly prides itself on being a melting pot and celebrating diversity, it is hypocritical to directly associate allegiance to God with an allegiance to America. Allowing under God in our nation's pledge unfairly portrays our country solely as a Christian nation. Is someone who does not believe in a Christian God, or any God for that matter, un-American? That is the implication we provide by allowing the phrase in the pledge and ignoring the increasing percentage of the population that is Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jehovah's Witness, Neopagan, atheist or agnostic.
The United States was built on the premise of freedom of religion, which, logically, should also include the freedom not to have religion. The original Pledge of Allegiance did not traditionally contain under God. It was added in 1954 after the Knights of Columbus successfully petitioned Congress to include the phrase. Ruling to omit under God will not be the first time the pledge has been edited to better suit the needs of the nation. Our nation needs to recognize that a vast number of people are being negatively affected or ostracized because of the blatant unification of church and state. The phrase under God should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance as easily as it was inserted.
Additional spy agency in U.S. is not necessary
Recently, the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept.11 terrorist attacks has been toying with the idea of creating a domestic spy agency. This is unnecessary and should not be done.
The proposed agency, modeled after the British MI5, would focus on covertly obtaining information about people in the United States. Advocates of the agency say that it is essential in bridging the gap between the Central Intelligence Agency, which concentrates on acquiring secrets from abroad, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which apprehends domestic law-breakers.
But creating another agency and giving it an immense amount of power is not the answer. Instead, the government should focus on creating a better relationship between the FBI and CIA. Working out the kinks with these two prominent agencies should be first priority, not dreaming up an entirely new entity. Adding a new spy agency into the mix will bring along a whole new batch of problems, boundaries and miscommunications.
Since Sept.11, drastic changes have taken place to prevent future terrorist acts. The Bush administration has created a plethora of positions, departments and legislation to fight terrorism and appease the public. It has gone far enough. Creating more bureaucracy is not the answer to bureaucratic problems. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security and The Patriot Act are already hard at work compromising many Americans' privacy. The proposed domestic spy agency would further delve into citizens' lives. This could prove disastrous for immigrants or those of suspicious heritage.
And let's not forget about the newly formed Terrorist Threat Integration Center, an organization that gathers information for the CIA, FBI and other government agencies. The creation of a new spy agency would be pointless. There are already enough organizations in place monitoring domestic security without a spy agency that's duties would overlap those of already existing organizations.
17 Archives
