Final Words on the Pledge of Allegiance

Well, this probably won't be the final time I post on the matter, but I've come across a document that lays out all the reasons why the use of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is wrong and why the arguments of the Pledge's defenders are all wrong. Once you read that, there's really nothing left to be said.

Douglas Laycock spoke at a Pew Forum event, explaining why Michael Newdow is right. On the question of whether the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is "no big deal":

I think the Pledge of Allegiance is different from all these other examples of things that might be de minimis. It's different from "In God We Trust" on the coins. It's different from politicians making speeches and so forth. The reason it's different is really unique in the culture. Government doesn't do this to adults; it doesn't do this to children in any other context. In the Pledge of Allegiance, we ask every child in the public schools in America every morning for a personal profession of faith. ... [T]his asks for a personal affirmation: I pledge allegiance to one nation under God. Now if God does not exist, or if I believe that God does not exist, then that isn't one nation under God. We can't have a nation under God unless there is a God. It doesn't say one nation under our god, or some gods, or one of the gods.

It pretty clearly implies there is only one God, and if there is only one God, then the God of the Pledge is the one true God, and other alleged gods around the world are false gods. It says one other thing about this God – it doesn't say much, can't say much in two words – but the nation is "under God." God is of such a nature that God exercises some sort of broad superintending authority so that it is possible for a whole nation to be under Him. ... This is not God as First Cause who set the universe in motion and doesn't intervene any more; this is not God as a metaphor for all the goodness imminent in the universe or imminent in the population. This is God exercising some kind of authority over at least this nation; maybe over all nations. ... [We have] 15 percent of the population, with 7.2 million children in public schools who are being asked to personally affirm every morning a religious belief that is different from the religious belief that is taught or held in their home and by their parents. And it is the personal affirmation request in the Pledge, it seems to me, that makes the Pledge unique. It is different from all the other kinds of ceremonial deism that go on in the country.

On whether the Pledge of Allegiance is religious or not:

Here is a quote from the government's brief: "What it really means is, I pledge allegiance to one nation, founded by individuals whose belief in God gave rise to the governmental institutions and political order they adopted, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Now if that were what it means, if anybody thought that was what it meant, we would not have had the great political outcry in response to the Ninth Circuit's decision. If people want to get mad about this because it had some recital about what the founders believed, or because of the other point the government makes – that it's in reference to historical and demographic facts that most Americans over time have believed in God – that would be one thing. But people don't get angry at a recital of historical and demographic facts. People get angry because they know what it means; it's plain English. They believe what it means, they want people to say what it means, they want their kids to say what it means.

And I'll tell you a dirty little secret: They want to coerce other kids to say what it means and what they believe to be true. They know that "under God" means under God. And if it doesn't mean under God, if we were to take the government seriously for asking children every morning to say the nation is under God but not to mean the nation is under God, well, Christians and Jews have a teaching about that, too. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord Thy God in vain." If we don't mean it, if it's a vain form of words that doesn't mean what it says, then it is indeed a taking of the name of the Lord in vain. That is why the brief that I filed is on behalf of 32 Christian and Jewish clergy who do care, not only about not coercing other people to practice their religion, but also care that if we are going to practice religion, we mean it seriously.

It doesn't say anything about what the founders believed or what they were thinking. It's in the present tense. It's in the first person. It is what I, the student, believe today about the relationship between this nation and God. That's what's so troubling about it. "One nation under God" does not talk about history. It talks about theology and the relation of this nation today to God today and it does say we're under, that is a particular kind of God. I don't think that's going to trouble the Court much because it doesn't eliminate many conceptions of God, but it does eliminate some, as I said. But it's hard to talk about God without talking about some conception of God. It's impossible to be truly neutral in God-talk because humans have evolved too many radically diverse understandings of God.

On why it is important for the government not to be endorsing a religious position:

[O]ver and over and over the Supreme Court has said the reason it will not allow the government itself to take a position on a religious question, will not allow the government to endorse a religious viewpoint or an anti-religious viewpoint is because government should not make any citizen's political standing in the community depend upon his religious beliefs, not even implicitly, not even by implication. ... This is very direct and explicit. Now, children, it is time to pledge your allegiance to the United States of America, and to do that, you have to pledge that the nation is under God. We have linked religion and politics, religion and patriotism, religious faith and patriotic standing inseparably right in the middle of one sentence. And the only way to avoid the religious part is literally to drop out mid-sentence and then come back in.

Another speaker at this event was Jay Alan Sekulow, Chief Counsel for Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice. He of course defended the inclusion of the phrase "under God," but his arguments were so awful that his side would have come out looking better if he has simply not shown up. Then, at least, people wouldn't have been able to contrast his position with Laycocks. I've quoted a lot above, but don't get the idea that I've quoted all the important parts - those are only the highlights, whittled down the minimum that I could manage. Yes, there's that much that's worth reading

Read More:

• Religious Right
• Christian Extremism
• Christian Nationalism
• Religious Intolerance & Bigotry
• Separation of Church and State 101
• Ten Commandments
• Newdow v. U.S. Congress (case summary & explanation)
• Pledge of Allegiance (background & origins)