The Pledge of Allegiance has been recited by tens of millions of school children over the years and is familiar to most Americans — but was the 1950s addition of the phrase "under God" an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state? Atheists and some theists argue that it is and, moreover, that it's fundamentally immoral because it tells people that there is an inherent, officially supported connection between American patriotism and belief in a particular sort of god. This religious nationalism is connected to violence, hostility, and distrust towards both atheists and minority dissenters.
Because of the words “under God,” many regard the Pledge of Allegiance not simply as an expression of patriotism, but also as an expression of religious piety. Furthermore, it has been used by many as evidence that this is a religious nation; not simply in the sense that most people are religious, but rather that the government itself is founded upon religious (typically Christian) principles.
Over time, the Pledge of Allegiance has grown to become not just something for children to recite, but rather a political issue for politicians to use in an effort to prove who is the most authentically patriotic. This politicizing of both patriotism and piety has led to quite a bit of violence against those who have dared to remain silent, whether for political or religious reasons.
One may wonder, is the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance genuinely divisive? The answer is clearly 'Yes.' Even before the current wording, many like the Jehovah's Witnesses experienced vicious attacks for their refusal to recite in school. With the addition 'under God,' another layer of exclusion and division is added.
What's wrong with having "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Most Americans today probably grew up pledging their allegiance while declaring that America, in addition to being indivisible and promoting "liberty and justice for all," is also "under God." During the same time, distrust of and hostility towards atheists has remained the highest of any group and decreased slower than any group. There is a connection: the government cannot promote the idea that patriotism and citizenship are linked to belief in God without also thereby teaching that atheists are less patriotic and less deserving of trust.
Support for keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is popular in America. Even some atheists, as well as normally staunch defenders of secularism and church/state separation, question whether it's necessary or appropriate to remove "under God" from the Pledge. A variety of arguments and claims are offered by apologists for the current Pledge of Allegiance, all of which fail. Either they ignore the basic arguments of critics or they are historically and factually inaccurate. The best defenses and justifications for keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance offer no good reasons not to get rid of it.
What this decision held was that it was unconstitutional for the government to officially insert that phrase into the Pledge of Allegiance and for government officials (in schools) to lead students in reciting the Pledge with that phrase included. In other words, individuals continue to be free to do as they will, but the government is prohibited from telling them what they should do - exactly as was the case when the government banned state-sponsored and state-organized prayers in public schools.
Mandatory flag pledges in public schools were a product of war-inspired America, with the first appearing in several states during the Spanish-American war. Many more joined during World War I, with the recently formed ACLU tracking only a few dissents. It wasn't until World War II was drawing close that the practice was challenged directly in a way that rose through the court system. Why have Jehovah's Witnesses refused to have their children to say the Pledge of Allegiance at public schools? How were the children treated, and what happened in the various court cases?
The Jehovah's Witnesses won a legal victory with regards to their children saying the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, but the public hated them for it and they suffered greatly. Although many Court opinions have provoked strong reactions, none have provoked such a wave of violence across the entire country. It is this which should, without question, demonstrate not only why the government should not get involved in either supporting or hindering religion, but why the government should not disparage any minority. By doing so, official sanction was given for people to vent anti-Witness feelings.
