Letter: Meaningless, yet offensive words

I agree with Don Havis that the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals was wrong when they, with a single vote majority, determined that the religious references in the Pledge of Allegiance and on our money are OK and no violation of the Constitution’s strict separation of church and state ("Offensive belief in God” in the March 22 edition of the Daily Journal). Before the Pledge was tampered with in the ’50s, after the author Francis Bellamy’s death in 1931, it was unoffensive and a declaration we all could support, agree on, and be proud of. Then "under God” was added, ostensibly to set us as a nation apart from the "godless” communists, forgetting that Communism was just as much a religion as any other. The main difference was that their "god” at that time was Stalin, more real and visible than traditional religious "gods,” and just as domineering, threatening, and controlling. Aside of the questionable act of changing Francis Bellamy’s unifying pledge of 60 years, what was the point of adding those words that the courts now declare "meaningless?” The words may be "meaningless” to some, but a rapidly growing secular part of the population finds it offensive and divisive. Especially in an academic environment, where young students should develop their minds and be encouraged to question and analyse, it is counter productive to force them to parrot a meaningless phrase. Since the Pledge was tampered with once, in contempt of the author’s fine work, it can be cleaned up and returned to its original, unifying form. And for the words "In God We Trust” on the money? What does it mean? I am often asked that by visitors from abroad, and I am at a loss for an answer that makes me proud. I have even been asked "Don’t you Americans trust your own money?” Well, I do, if backed by the U.S. Treasury, without an offensive religious validation.  

Jorg Aadahl

San Mateo