I was recently pleased to hear that Michael Newdow has undertaken a new court case against the failure of our country to respect our constitution and limit the establishment of religion. The problem may not seem like a big one to most people. However it is one that personally has always irked me. The pledge of allegiance, until the 1950’s, didn’t include the “under god” clause. During our cold war against the Soviet Union the clause was added in order to show the difference between the Atheist Soviet union and the supposedly Christian America. The only problem being that America was never founded as a Christian nation. Yes Christians may have founded it but it was not founded to be a nation solely of Christians or for Christians.

The act of placing the under god clause is actually an establishment of religion. I understand why it was done, and the historical significance. But that doesn’t make it correct. In fact there is good evidence to show that many of the founders were not Christians at least in the classical sense. Many like Thomas Jefferson were Deists. Even Washington our first president and John Adams our second president state in some of our first international documents that in fact “the government of the United states is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;”(US treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797)

The founders even went so far as to make the first line of the first amendment in the bill of rights states that. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”(1st amendment US Constitution) No law respecting the establishment of religion, means exactly what it sounds like. It is unconstitutional for congress to create a law, which respects the establishment of any religious belief. Regardless of whether that belief is held by a majority of people or is none specific to a single church. By having the word god or any mention of god the congress in fact establishes a monotheist belief.

There are many of us in America, who are legitimately patriotic, yet do not believe in a single god or any god. As a child I fell into this category, sure some of my rejection was based upon a legitimately held critic of America’s negative actions, but most of all it was based upon the fact that I really never fit into the monotheist paradigm. I didn’t believe in god and I refused to pledge my allegiance to a country, which was under him. So I didn’t stand and when I did I made my objection vocally known by refusing to use the clause. To this day I still refuse to stand for it. I am not any less patriotic then the next person but the establishment of religion is a blight, one of many, on our constitution and country.

The point is that because not every one accepts a single deity any time a deity is mentioned by name or even by a title in this case god, it establishes a religious belief. This can be seen as the establishment of a monotheist religion. It may be nondenominational but it is still the establishment by the state of a religion. By establishing state-supported monotheism you effectively disenfranchise every one who isn’t monotheistic, some where close to 5% of the population.

Why is that important, that’s a minority of the population? America is a democracy and the majority is monotheists in general and Christian in particular, and therefore it’s ok, besides we aren’t establishing a specific religious belief. But in fact we establish the supremacy of monotheism and actual religious belief. This is just the reason why the bill of rights was created, to protect the minority from the excess and exuberance that the majority can exert in a democracy.

Imagine for a moment you grew up in a country where the majority of the country felt differently. You don’t have to give up your belief system but every thing in the country is directed towards a system you see as untrue. Perhaps you are a Christian, growing up in a Pagan country. The majority believes in multiple god and goddesses, you only believe in one. This country says it respects freedom of religion and you are allowed to practice your beliefs, but despite supposed protections, every where you look there are state sponsored examples of a specific set of beliefs. Sure its not direct, perhaps every one believes in Odin and the Norse faith, but all the money and the pledge of allegiance say under gods we trust. You would effectively be disenfranchised from much of the political discourse simply by the fact that the statement does not include you.

This is the reality that Atheists and non monotheist people of faith face every day in America, and it was just as much for this reason as any other that the first amendment exists. Our country is supposed to be inclusive, not exclusive. We don’t want to force people to give up their religious belief or faith. It would be wrong of us to ask for it to state one nation under gods, or one nation under no god, but this is not what we are asking. We merely want to be respected as equals. Removing under god does nothing to prevent you from continuing to have your own faith, but it does both respect our position and our constitution. So keep it up Michael Newdow I for one support your constitutional struggle for our freedom from the establishment of religion.