0.cached.png
By Newsweek Editors
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Hundreds of readers responded to our cover story on the Pledge of Allegiance with opinions reflecting just how divided Americans are when it comes to the issue of politics and religion. More than half supported the recent court ruling to bar "under God" from the pledge. "We are either a nation 'under God' or a nation under the rule of the people. We can't be both," one wrote. Some disputed the notion that refraining from religious reference negates one's love of country. "Do we really believe that reciting two words in our pledge makes a better patriot?" asked a reader. Others defended the wording, arguing that religious expression is an essential component of being American. "If the court succeeds in changing what has made us great--our reliance on God--our country will become like all others," contended one. Another, voicing the thoughts of several compatriots, said simply, "If you don't want to say the words, then don't."
I am a practicing Christian and firmly believe in the wisdom of our Founding Fathers for their foresight in separating church and state ("One Nation, Under... Who?" July 8). One can look at history, or current events, to see what misery governments with religious mandates bring to their people. Neither believers nor non-believers should be obliged to use words in public that are upsetting. We should adhere to the Constitution, which has been our strength for more than 200 years.
James T. Watson
Littleton, Colo.
Making government secular is one of the strongest supports there is to making it democratic, since religion is by definition intolerant. Why can't people understand that sometimes the principle is more important than what they personally want and that protecting the rights of others is, in the long run, protecting one's own? The entire fabric of the Bill of Rights rests on the notion that the "tyranny of the majority" should not trample the rights of those with less popular views. That's the most quintessentially American position anyone can take.
Ann S. Winn-Mueller
Belle Mead, N.J.
Read More on News
Attempts to remove the name of God from our public gatherings and schools are a reminder to the church that we should not depend on our government to require that God's name be said. Nor can we expect government to require that our children pray. It is up to us in the church to teach our children about God, the Bible, worship and prayer. What we can expect of our government is the freedom to practice our faith. This is a time for people of faith to be devoted to God as never before.
Rev. David A. Highfield
Westminster, Md.
Every day in school in the 1940s we recited the Pledge of Allegiance without saying "under God," and we considered ourselves patriotic. During World War II we were called upon to do more for our country than all the demagogues in government have called for since September 11. We drove 35 miles per hour to save gas, bought serial stamps for our war-bond books, managed ration books, knitted socks and scarves, saved lard and planted victory gardens. We did all this with enthusiasm, and we didn't need the phrase "under God" to compel us to help our country. When Congress inserted the phrase to the pledge in 1954, I felt its lovely flow was destroyed. I do not object to saying "under God"; I just think it is unnecessary in affirming one's allegiance to our great country. When so many unresolved matters stand before us, it is silly to make a big issue out of this little phrase when for many years those my age were moved to real, active patriotism without using it. Ask most seniors, and they will say the same. We want prescription drugs, not dubious patriotism.
Margo House
Garden, Mich.
I can assure those out there with limited experience of atheism that we love our country as much as anyone and feel as strongly about liberty and justice as any theist. We also value individual freedom and dignity and ask only that the state not engage in religious endorsement, but remain neutral toward religious or non-religious beliefs. To remove reference to God does not restrict the right of anyone to practice a faith, but conversely, a reference to God in our most recited patriotic pledge requires one to swear allegiance not just to country but to God. In 1954, citizens were forced to choose between patriotism wrapped in God or godless communism. Today it's just God-wrapped patriotism or no patriotism at all.
Carolyn Zeitler
Cameron Park, Calif.
Why must we be a nation under anything? I suggest "one nation, conceived in liberty," which is inclusive yet allows for human shortcomings.
D. K. Sponholtz
Chantilly, Va.
I firmly believe in my God and was raised saying "under God." I will raise my children to say it also. If Michael Newdow has the freedom to change the pledge, don't I have the freedom to say the pledge that I believe in? I live in a free country, and if I want to say "under God," I will.
Kim Greening
Port Orchard, Wash.
I am not among those who consider themselves "under God," but I am just as good a citizen and patriotic American as anyone else. I served for more than 20 years in the Air Force as a fighter pilot and was ready to give my life at any time for my country and my fellow citizens. Excluding me in our Pledge of Allegiance is wrong. "Under God" should be removed from the pledge so that together we can all stand up and say it proudly in its entirety.
Michael R. Judge
Sicklerville, N.J.
Though they were nonpracticing Jews, Michael Newdow's parents said they "never disparaged God." It seems that while he was growing up, Newdow was given the choice of what to believe. Shouldn't his daughter be given the same choice?
Todd Noorman
antioch, tenn.
Canine Conundrum
another
You have no clue what we breeders go through to breed a well-balanced dog. And the breeders of labradoodles apparently have no idea what they are getting into. You can't just decide that you want to breed these dogs. Specific breeds have genetic diseases, structural differences and, as you mention, varying temperaments. You seem to be promoting some inconsequential fad that someone has come up with to make a dime. Breeding takes time, research, lots of hard work and money.
Holly Million
Oklahoma City, Okla.
From Welfare to Congress
Democrat of CaliforniaU.S. House of Representatives
Correction
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines