Lecturer in the Department of Politics at Princeton University
Pro to the question "Should the Words "under God" Be in the US Pledge of Allegiance?"
"For the purposes of our establishment clause discussions, we need to recognize that vast numbers of Americans share a four-century-long commitment to a divine mission for America. No matter how strictly we might separate church from state, we will continue to find religion intertwined with the republic in the minds of at least a majority of American voters... For these millions of Americans, religion is in service of the nation, which is, in turn, in service of a religiously based higher calling. Accordingly, many of the activities challenged under the establishment clause--with the possible exception of parochial school aid--are designed not so much to benefit religion as to preserve the moral fabric and transcendent destiny of the country. Much of the outcry following the Court's banning of public school prayer and bible reading, for example, was centered on the ruling's damage to the country, not to the churches. Similarly, by singing 'God Bless America,' or reciting 'one nation under God,' we are affirming America's heritage and its glorious future far more than we are worshiping the Almighty."
Church-State Constitutional Issues: Making Sense of the Establishment Clause, 1991
Experts JD's (lawyers), US Presidents, federal appellate opinions, US Founding Fathers, Members of Congress, members of state legislative bodies with significant involvement in, or related to, the "under God" conflict and/or government and constitutional law, and those with PhD's in government, constitutional law or other relevant fields. [Note: Experts definition varies by site.]
Involvement and Affiliations:
Lecturer, Department of Politics, Princeton University
Former President and Chief Executive Officer, Medarex