Defending the Pledge of Allegiance: One (Indocti)nation Under God
Michael McGough wrote for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
"[P]rotectors" of the pledge should have the intellectual honesty to say why they believe schoolchildren must pledge allegiance not only to the American flag but also to "one nation under God." Defending "under God" before the Supreme Court, then-Solicitor General Ted Olson implausibly argued that the phrase was an exercise not in theology but in history -- "a civic and ceremonial acknowledgement of the indisputable historical fact that the [Constitution's] framers [believed] they had a right to revolt because God gave them the right to declare independence."
The pro-pledge demonstrators who gathered outside the Supreme Court carrying signs declaring "Keep USA 1 Nation Under God" clearly did not regard "under God" as a historical footnote . Their emotion and energy -- and the seriousness with which they are taken in Congress -- are the best refutation of the idea that this controversy was not about religion.
"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation," [Justice Robert Jackson] wrote [in the 1943 Supreme Court decision upholding the right of children not to pledge allegiance to the flag], "it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." Those who would strip the federal courts of the right to defend that freedom should have the courage of their convictions and admit that they prize orthodoxy -- religious orthodoxy and political orthodoxy -- above the individualism celebrated by Justice Jackson.
There is no question but that religious conservatives in America today are the foremost defenders of political and religious orthodoxy -- enforced orthodoxy, that is, which is the problem. Simply supporting and endorsing orthodoxy isn't a bad thing; on the contrary, the political atmosphere wouldn't be as healthy if there were no such people around. Trying to use the government to enforce orthodoxy, whether political, religious, or cultural, is quite another matter entirely.
If religious conservatives were more honest in their arguments and acknowledged that the whole point of retaining "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance were about promoting particular religious beliefs, they wouldn't stand a chance in the courts. They would even lose some support in the public. It's not surprising that they would use dishonest arguments when in the court, but why don't some of the stop to reflect on what it says about their religious and political ideology that they can only move forward by lying?
And remember that the phrase “under god” was not added to the Pledge until 1954, 62 years after the Pledge was first written. Would it really be such a big deal to take that phrase out and remove this mixing of church and state?
“Would it really be such a big deal to take that phrase out and remove this mixing of church and state?”
Oh, other than moving heaven and earth? If you think the right wing funhouse is unhinged now just try removing that phrase!
The issue that seems to be ignored is whether it is proper to have a “Pledge of Allegiance” at all. A “pledge” is an oath, and “allegiance” is (according to dictionary.com) “loyalty” which (according to the same source) is “faithful adherence to a sovereign, government, leader, cause, etc.”
So we are forcing our children to give an oath that they will faithfully adhere to whatever the government says.
“I give my oath, to the flag of the Government (rediculous…how can you have fealty to a flag?), and the Government for which it stands (the flag stands for the Government? I thought it stood for the original 13 colonies {3 of stripes}, the number of states {stars}, and possibly a few other things, though not detailed in law {symbolism of colors is open to interpretation, and not written down in hard fact}…pledging not to the Government alone, but to the Government that the flag stands for), one nation indivisible (no withdrawing from it, no arguing with it, just going along with it no matter what), with Liberty and Justice for all (standard boilerplate?)
This pledge is an attempt to impose nationalism and blind obedience on a country which needs individualism and rational thought.
Far better is this:
“I choose to give my support to the people of the United States of America, regardless of race, gender, or creed, and to the principles for which this country stands: Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.”