The Pledge of Allegiance as Religious Practice

Some defenders of the Pledge of Allegiance argue that reciting the phrase "under God" is no worse than carrying around money that has "In God We Trust" printed on it. Ignoring for a moment the possibility that perhaps printing that phrase on our money is itself wrong, this argument ignores the fact that carrying money is passive while reciting a loyalty oath that injects religion into our conception of patriotism is quite active.

Andrew Napier writes:

Defenders of the current pledge might cite the use of phrases like "in God we trust" found on our money or the fact that we swear on the Bible in court as markers that contain the same mixture between government and religion. Should we do away with those as well? But there is a difference between the two. "In God we trust" is simply a phrase printed on a piece of paper, while the pledge is a phrase recited over and over again each day. In essence, the phrase on currency represents a passive religious and historical marker, while the phrase found within the pledge represents an active religious practice. If children are forced to recite the pledge every day, it can easily be taken as conditioning through repetition.

Overall, we should be aware of where the line that divides tradition and current religious dogma lies. The line is crossed when those traditions impede the rights of those who disagree with traditional religious dogma. Any historical significance the phrase "under God" has within the pledge is negated by the fact that the phrase is a recently added, ad hoc measure against the red scare, and as Newdow himself seems to be pointing out, the phrase can easily violate the beliefs of others.

Napier seems to think that swearing on a Bible in a court also qualifies as "symbolic," historical practice - he doesn't appear to realize that such oaths are not required precisely because they are an inappropriate demand for the government to make on an individual. Even if they are symbolic, it would be a grave error to assume that symbols are unimportant.

Aside from that, though, Napier makes a very good point when he observes that traditions shouldn't be allowed to infringe upon the rights of minorities. All sorts of discrimination and institutionalized prejudice were once "tradition," but over time we have gradually done away with them because we understand that not all traditions are good. The inclusion of the phrase "under God" would seem to fall into that category.

Read More:

• Secularism 101
• Separation of Church and State 101
• Religion in Public Schools
• Newdow v. U.S. Congress (case summary & explanation)
• Pledge of Allegiance (background & origins)