Flap over Pledge of Allegiance raises concern among some

ORIGINALLY WRITTEN ERIC CLARK
Two words ignited a keg of controversy across the county last week when a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional because it included “under God.”

The court ruled the pledge should not be recited in public schools because “under God” violates the First Amendment’s prohibition against state-endorsed religion.

If the ruling is upheld, the court’s decision would apply to schools in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

How do residents in Marion County feel about the ruling?

Tim Sullivan, pastor of the Parkview Mennonite Brethren Church, Hillsboro, said the decision has struck a nerve with his congregation.

“For the most part, people are reacting negatively to the ruling,” Sullivan said. “They’re saying ‘that’s the way we’re heading in our society-to a more and more secular society.'”

Sullivan said the decision has little to do with faith and more to do with politics.

“(The decision) doesn’t bother me,” Sullivan said. “Eventually (the country) is going to strike down anything about God. I don’t like it and I wish they’d leave it. It might sound fatalistic, but that’s where we’re heading as a country. It’s a fatal effort to try and legislate God.

“Laws are not going to make the country a godly nation,” he added.

Although students cannot be required to recite the pledge, Hillsboro Elementary School, like other schools in Kansas, makes the practice part of the opening routine in its classrooms.

HES Principal Pat Call said the issue is important but needs to be kept in perspective.

“There’s other things in education that are more important than this issue,” Call said. “It falls in the same category as organized prayer. We’ll always have prayer in schools, just not organized prayer. It’s really a lot to do about nothing.”

Call said during his time at HES, only one family has decided not to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance. Call said the family based its decision on religious beliefs.

He said “under God” should be seen in a general sense.

“Personally, I’d like to see the phrase left in,” Call said. “It doesn’t specify a Christian God or a Buddhist god. It’s all how you want to interpret it.

“If you don’t believe in any God, then I could see where it would be an issue,” he added. “We’re all about being tolerant in our country these days. If those who do believe in a god are tolerant of atheists, then why can’t atheists be tolerant of those who believe in a God?”

Geneva Just is one of seven members of the HES Site Council committee. The mother of three said she doesn’t agree with the court’s ruling.

“I don’t agree with what they are trying to do,” Just said. “Being a Christian, I feel they should leave it alone.”

Just, like many others in the area, said the issue is being blown out of proportion.

“Our society is becoming so generic,” Just said. “Things are becoming so generic because certain groups or individuals are getting worked up and offended about nothing.”

More from article archives
Trojans rally for first win of year vs. Nickerson
ORIGINALLY WRITTEN DON RATZLAFF Once in a while generosity reaps its own...
Read More