Congress’ Affirmation of ‘One Nation Under God’ in Pledge is Political Manipulation, says Frank
WASHINGTON, Oct. 23, 2002–As Congress debated military action in Iraq and pushed to go home and campaign, the Senate and House quietly passed a bill reaffirming the reference to “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Rep. Barney Frank, along with only four other congressmen, voted against the almost unanimous legislative action, which was to be sent to the White House for President Bush’s consideration.
“I voted no because I was really angry at this political manipulation of religion,” Frank said. “The Republicans brought that up solely for political purposes before the election. And I think people who are truly religious should resent this effort to kind of manipulate religion for political purposes.”
Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.) introduced the bill one day after a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on June 26 that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional because the phrase “one nation under God” violated the separation of church and state.
Congress added “under God” to the pledge in 1954.
The Senate unanimously passed Hutchinson’s bill, and sent it to the House immediately. The House Judiciary Committee, of which Frank is a member, approved the bill with minor changes.
Frank did not attend the committee meeting because “it was a waste of time,” he said. “This wasn’t about whether or not God should be in the pledge of allegiance. It was … for political purposes, because whether that bill was voted on or not, the pledge would never have changed.”
The House took a roll call vote on Oct. 8, and the result was 401 yeas, 5 nays, 4 present and 21 not voting, including Rep. Richard Neal, a Democrat who represents the 2nd District of Massachusetts. The Senate approved the House version of the bill on Oct. 17.
“I think we are suffering much too much from this effort to bring religion into politics, so I voted against that as a protest,” Frank said.
Other congressmen who voted no on the bill discussed the constitutional issues.
“It is important to acknowledge that any court ruling based on constitutional rights will be unpopular,” Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) said on the House floor. “You do not need constitutional rights to say something popular. You only need rights when the majority has the legislative or police power to stop you from expressing your views.”
Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) said in a statement that although the pledge is recited daily in many schools nationwide, “we must remember that our nation was founded by a diverse group of people, including pilgrims who came here, and continue to come here, to escape religious persecution and embrace freedom of church and state.”
Massachusetts requires recitation of the pledge every morning in all grades in all public schools.
“The Pledge of Allegiance did not use to say ‘under God’ when my parents went to school, my grandparents went to school,” said Steve Benen, spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “We believe the Pledge of Allegiance should have the same language it had before 1954.”
Without the phrase “under God,” the pledge “was good enough to get through two World Wars, good enough to get through the Great Depression,” Benen said. “The bill from last week does not matter at all. It was simply a political gesture.”
He also said that the legal controversy is going to continue regardless of last week’s vote. “It was simply politicians in the election year. It does not have an effect on the law. It does not change anything.”
Published in The New Bedford Standard Times, in Massachusetts.
