Trashing the Pledge

Many people claim to be defending the Pledge of Allegiance when they oppose efforts to remove the words "under God." But is that really the case? Arguably, those who make a big show of "defending" the Pledge of Allegiance are actually undermining it by trivializing it and by using it as a platform for their own political and social agendas.

An editorial in the Daily Herald a couple of years ago made this case:

[S]acred things are to be treated with reverence, and not to be bandied about haphazardly. ...Remember when the 9th Circuit decision first came out, and Congress made a tacky show of standing on the steps of the U.S. Capitol Building to recite the pledge? Was that a show of devotion or a political photo-op? ...If people truly respect the pledge, they will use it sparingly and with solemnity, and not wear it out for light and trivial reasons.

Thus, perhaps the people who criticize the ways in which the Pledge are used today are taking it more seriously than its defenders? Americans United for the Separation of Church and State certainly takes the Pledge of Allegiance seriously when they contemplate its effects:

Children are bound to perceive the phrase as affirming a belief in the existence of God and national subordination to God, and as expressing commitment to a nation defined by religious devotion. To this extent, teacher-led classroom recitation of the Pledge is a religious exercise – an exercise in religious affirmation – and hence forbidden, even if student participation is not formally required, because of the special risk of indirect coercion.

It is worth considering that this may not be a debate between those who hate and those who love the Pledge of Allegiance; rather, it maybe a debate between those who still recognize its power and meaning against those who, having cloaked themselves in it so long, have lost sight of what it really is.

 

Read More:

• Separation of Church and State 101
• Church and State News
• Pledge of Allegiance
• Secularism 101