September 19, 2005
On the Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America , and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Much has been made recently of two small words in that pledge. Under God. Those two words have ignited a firestorm of controversy over the last few years. One side thinks that “under God” is the cornerstone of our very nation. The otherside thinks that “under God” is a tool of religious oppression and persecution. Both sides are irrational and mistaken.
First, some history is in order. From its socialist beginnings, it has changed several times:
1892 to 1923:
“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”
1923 to 1954:
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”
1954 to Present:
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”
The changes in 1923 are largely immaterial, just explicitly stating the fact that the flag was the US flag. One would think that it was an implied meaning before the change. The 1954 change was considerably different. In the early days of the Cold War, the leaders of this nation were looking for ways to differentiate ourselves from the “godless Communists” of the Soviet Union. Eisenhower pushed the “under God” addition, explaining that: “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.”
Looking at it from this view, the phrase “under God” would certainly seem unconstitutional. The First Amendment clearly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. However, I cannot hold that as true. Given that I take an originalist view of constitutionality, I have to look at what an “establishment of religion” entailed at the time.
The “establishment”, in revolutionary times, was a very specific matter. It was a response to the Church of England. It was not even related to a state-named religion, it was a reaction to a state-run religion. At the time, taxes were used to support the clergy, there were religious tests upon holding public office, and non-state denominations or religions were subject to all sorts of discriminatory practices. In short, I see nothing in the “under God” addition that violates the establishment clause. It may violate some of the precedent developed over years of Court rulings, but I believe precedent can sometimes move too far away from originalism to be valid. The addition of “under God” to the pledge may be near the limit of the establishment clause, but I think it skates the near side of the limit.
At the same time, I think that “under God” should be removed from the Pledge. When I look at it in today’s world, it can only divide our nation, and that is exactly opposite to the purpose of the Pledge. The nature of a pledge is that it should be something that all Americans can get behind. Despite its socialist roots, and its use as pure propaganda, the ideals of supporting our Republic, and liberty and justice for all, is a worthy goal. We may do well to be reminded from time to time.
But the addition of “under God” changes quite a bit. It suddenly becomes a pledge that causes a significant subset of our population to have reservations about reciting it. I don’t hold my atheism with quite the same fervor as Michael Newdow, so the Pledge doesn’t bother me too much. But I can understand the mindset of those of those who are more sensitive to these issues than I am. Simply put, America is a nation that was founded by Christian men, but it was founded more on Enlightenment thinking than religious thinking. The addition of “under God” does nothing to improve the Christianity of the nation, but it does divide and denigrate those who don’t hold those values. I don’t think that is consistent with anything that we would hope to accomplish with a “Pledge of Allegiance”.
The Pledge of Allegiance should be a unifying statement of allegiance to the values this nation was founded upon. Adding “under God” undermines that statement, by claiming America as a nation founded on a religious basis, as opposed to a basis of liberty and individual rights. If we have a Pledge that fails to represent the nature of this nation, what worth does it have?
Forward Biased linked with Carnival of Liberty XIII
8 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
It should be noted that many people in Elk Grove (where I live), who know Newdow, believe that much of his vehemence in this is motivated by his anger at his ex-wife and his bitterness over his failure to gain custody of his daughter, not atheism or a belief in Constitutional principles.
Personally, I can’t stand the guy. But he has a right to his beliefs. That said, much as I don’t believe in coercing others to believe as I do, I think he’s wrong for trying to force his beliefs on others. That has nothing to do with whether I agree with the words “under god” in the Pledge.
Personally, I think the scope of the debate is all wrong anyhow. The debate should be about the existence of an officially sanctioned pledge of allegiance in the first place, regardless of what words are in it.
Eric,
I didn’t want to get too deeply into that part of it. I consider it slightly worse than having an officially recognized national anthem, or individual states having their “State Bird” or “State Tree”. Provided that it doesn’t become and official Big Brother thing recited every morning, I consider it to be more of a Stuart Smalley “Daily Affirmation”. You know, my country is good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like it!
“The addition of “under God†does nothing to improve the Christianity of the nation, but it does divide and denigrate those who don’t hold those values.”
That is crazy talk.
I haven’t always been Christian, and I have had bad feelings in the past about organized religion like many people do, but I grew up surrounded by “ceremonial” religion — the Pledge, a prayer in public elementary school (we never got the memo apparently), prayer before graduations (again, public) and state university and my public high school football games. None of this was a big deal — it didn’t exclude non-believers or doubters. The great majority of people found comfort in these ceremonies and no one was burned at the stake for not believing. All that was asked was you respect the group and shut up for a second.
We reward people for being hypersensitive wussies, and this is the type of litigation we get. Newdow and his supporters are the ultimate in self indulgent egotism. I can’t believe we waste money fighting these battles.
Is the pledge “different” with Under God or without? I don’t know or care. But this has nothing to with the Constitution.
As for our founders, they were enlightened in many ways. They wanted the Fed govt to not have an official religion (thus, the Establishment clause). But they expected the States would have their own established religion. Yeah, look at the First Amendment. “Congress shall pass no law….” Many states adopted similar provisions, but they still instituted largely protestant ceremonies into their govt rituals, like prayers when opening court or legislative sessions.
Some of the founders were deists rather than Christians, but no one thought the first amendment would treat “atheism” as a religion.
KJ,
You’re missing my point. I said the Pledge isn’t unconstitutional. That’s not where I’m going with this. I also think Newdow’s an idiot.
But stepping back from it, if we’re going to have a Pledge of Allegiance to The United States and what it stands for, why should we write a Pledge that is heavily biased towards theism?
I want a pledge that everyone in favor of a Republic, Liberty, and Justice, can say with pride. If we add in “under God”, some people can’t do that in good conscience. Do we want our Pledge to do that? I’d rather stigmatize those who are against liberty and justice (i.e. communists) than atheists…
Ok.
*Rosanna Rosanna Dana voice.Nevermind.
In my view, the addition of ‘under god’ does violate the establishment clause. I notice that in the media, they usually say that the court ‘ruled against the pledge’. This statement is not accuarate. I doubt Newdow would be ‘against the pledge’ if not for the injection of religion. If you are an atheist like I am, people treat you as though you are un-American or unpatriotic. They also like to bring up the anti-communist angle as if atheists are communist by default (I wonder if they had ever heard of Ayn Rand. She was as far from communist as one could get and she was an atheist).
The pledge itself is another question entirely. Should we pledge ouselves to a government? I am glad you brought up the pledge’s socialist origin. I wonder how many people would support ‘the pledge’ if they knew that? What was the pledge’s origianl purpose?
If government threatens the life, liberty, and property of individuals, should we still stand up and pledge to its flag? Of course not!
I am not saying that we are to that point yet but I could see that day comming and I am not saying that I am nessasarily ‘anti-pledge’either.
Good thougt-provoking post.
Carnival of Liberty XIII
A hearty forward-biased welcome to readers from Instapundit, Michelle Malkin and other friends of, and members of, the Life, Liberty and Property Community! If you’ve never been here before, why, pull up a chair and set read a spell.
I’ve known people who’ve said that their religion prevents them from saying the Pledge (with or without “under God”) because it makes the flag a “false idol.”
Personally, I don’t like “under God” in the Pledge, but I think that it’s just about the last bit of patriotic civic education left in the schools, even though it’s ceremonial rather than substantive, and that’s a major reason why it’s become such a touchstone.