The Daily editorial staff has disappointed again. In last week’s Daily, two items on the opinion page directly supported the recent court decision finding the phrase under God in the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional. I disagree, but I can respect other’s opinions.

However, there was nothing giving an opposing view. Maybe there were no dissenting letters, but after those items ran, I was sure there would be at least one. Apparently not, because the only item concerning the decision in Tuesday’s Daily is an editorial which supports the decision. According to Rachel Faber Machacha, in her column last week, “the country united against (the justices who made the decision).” Everywhere, apparently, but here in Ames.

Even with three items in favor of the decision, they haven’t made a good argument. Faber’s column last week said that it was right because the reason for the phrase “under God” was “discrediting communism and endorsing God as the creator and guiding force behind the United States.”

However, discrediting communism is not necessarily a religious act. As for “endorsing God,” that was done in 1782 when the Continental Congress approved the Great Seal of the United States, which incorporates the phrase “Annuit Coeptis” in a context that translates as “Providence (God) Has Favored Our Undertakings.” Considering that some of the people who helped design and approve the Seal are the same people who helped write the Constitution, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t violate the First Amendment.

Mr. Krewson wrote in his letter that the decision should stand because “this country was not founded under a religion or any specific belief regarding a god,” and the Founding Fathers, through the First Amendment to the Constitution, banned the establishment of religion by the government.

These are true, but what religion does the phrase advocate? None. God in the pledge is non-specific, not Christ, or Ba’al, or Vishnu. No religion is advocated. None is established by the Pledge. Nor would the Founding Fathers think there is. The recitation of the Pledge does not force anyone to adopt any religion, and if someone disagrees with it, they do not have to say it. There is no punishment for not saying it. The mere mention of God by a government agency does not establish a religion, otherwise we would all be off worshiping Thor every Thursday.

The editorial this week was the most disappointing, though. Five people signed it, and they had a full week, including three days without any classes, to work on it. The only arguments they came up with were the ones Faber and Krewson wrote about. There were a couple original ideas added, but after reading them, I seriously hope that no one on the editorial board ever passed a course in debate at Iowa State.

A few of the arguments against the decision are listed, and then the statement, “Those arguments are convincing when taken at face value, but ultimately misleading. They could be debunked by those who know better if our national discourse could handle lines of thought that can’t be scrolled across the bottom of a television screen.” OK, so the ruling is right because somewhere there are reasons why, but they are not going to tell us because we wouldn’t understand. The editorial finishes with a comparison of terrorists and people who support the pledge. They will have a point there – as soon as a couple thousand people get murdered for not saying “under God.”

Willie Griebel

Senior

Aerospace Engineering