No

by Xiaoqian Lim

Created on: January 04, 2008

From its original 23 words, the Pledge has evolved into a controversial oath containing the addition of two words indicating America's unity under a single supreme deity. The insertion of this phrase, the last change made to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, was an anxious attempt by Congress to defend the capitalist nation of America from the seemingly wildly infectious disease that is Communism, but ultimately resulted in the trampling of the constitutional rights of the minority by uniting America "under God."

Although most Americans are very familiar with the Pledge of Allegiance, few are aware that it was authored by Christian socialist and Baptist minister Francis Bellamy for a Columbus Day commemoration in 1892. After numerous drafts and adjustments, Bellamy settled finally for the words: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands - one Nation indivisible - with Liberty and Justice for all" (2).

For Bellamy, writing the Pledge was a slow and carefully thought out process. To begin, he reviewed America's history, including landmark events like the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the drafting of the Constitution, and the purpose of the Civil War. He also kept in mind the values of the American people, taking into account that America at the current time was not ready to hear that everyone deserved equality. Instead of forming a parallel to the slogan of the French Revolution, "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity," which he looked to for inspiration just as the Founding Fathers had done, Bellamy omitted the word "equality" and incorporated the words "liberty and justice" into the Pledge. To Bellamy, the statement was true and through his Pledge he was able to represent America as single unwavering power (1).

However, Bellamy's initially unaltered meticulous word choice went through several alterations in the years following its publication. In 1923, at the insistence of the American Legion's National Flag Conference, "my flag" was replaced with "the flag of the United States." The next year, the words "of America" was added after the previous addition. The final modification took place during the Cold War, when anti-atheist and anti-Communist feelings were prevalent in America largely due to Senator Joseph McCarthy's "red scare" (9). In order to protect America from Communism, Congress amended the Pledge to include the phrase "under God." Representative Louis C. Rabaut, introducing the decision to alter the pledge to the House, suggested the addition of "under God," preceded by a comma after "one Nation." The library of Congress was requested by the House Judiciary Committee to offer their opinion of three adaptations: (1) "one Nation, under God," (2) "one Nation under God," and (3) "one Nation indivisible under God." They recommended the second choice, reasoning that the undivided phrase supported the view that America is founded on the belief in God (6). The Act of 1954 was signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, officially adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, which would remain unchanged to this day.

The addition of the phrase "under God" in the 1950s was specifically an attack on atheism, a belief associated with Communism, by the American people. This fact was declared by McCarthy in his address to the Ohio County Women's Republican Club on February 9, 1950, "Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity" (qtd. in 9). Secretary of State John Foster Dulles went even further, believing that the United States opposition to Communism was based on the fact that its leaders were atheists and not because the Soviet Union was under totalitarian command (3). Even though the threat of Communism has greatly diminished in the 21st century, the words intended to combat atheistic Communism in America continues to linger in the nation's Pledge, creating a feeling of ostracism in a nonbelievers.

Early opposition to the newly adapted Pledge of Allegiance came from self-proclaimed atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair. In April 1964, she threatened Baltimore public schools to a challenge in court, where she would force them to eliminate the words "under God" from the daily Pledge. She wrote in a letter to the city's Board of Education, "We believe that it is an unconstitutional practice which violates the principle of separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." She communicated her wish for her sons' participation in the Pledge only if it made no mention of a God. Consequently, her son sat down during the Pledge, which was "a signal for abusive treatment by fellow students, teachers, administration, and neighborhood persons" (qtd. in 5). The Board refused to act, justifying their position with the fact that they had no control over adjusting the Pledge to Murray's ideals. In pursuit for the removal of the religious phrase, Murray brought suit in federal court against her son's public elementary school in Hawaii in September 1964 for holding the Pledge with the phrase "one nation under God." Murray argued that it disregarded her son's beliefs, making it "in violation of [his] right to be free from religion" (qtd. in 5). Madalyn Murray's questioning of the constitutionality of the Pledge was only the beginning of a debate still relevant today.

More recently, the Pledge debate has been revived by Michael Newdow. Outraged to discover that his daughter participated in the recitation of a teacher led Pledge, he filed a lawsuit against the Elk Grove School District, which supported the voluntary practice (10). His initial lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality, but his appeal to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals was successful. According to a federal appeals ruling, the Pledge recitation in public schools is an unconstitutional "endorsement of religion," violating the First Amendment's establishment clause, because of the words "under God" added by Congress in 1954 (4). The Ninth Circuit backed Newdow, reasoning:
The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers 'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.' (qtd. in 4)
The Ninth Court decision was one of few rulings that encouraged the excision of the words "under God," but would later be struck down by the Senate.

The majority of Americans defend the presence of God in the Pledge. In response to the Ninth court ruling, Senate intervened with a unanimous vote of 99-0. In addition to denouncing the ruling and demanding for "common-sense" jurists, House Speaker Dennis Hastert said in defense of the current pledge, "The Pledge of Allegiance is a patriotic salute that brings people of all faiths together to share in the American spirit" (qtd. in 8). This view is shared by many others, who believe that it does not promote religion, so it is not unconstitutional. The supposed promotion of monotheism that people against today's existing Pledge frequently discuss, can actually be defined in different ways to different people. The phrase "under God" is then simply "rote and ceremonial," (qtd. in 8) meaning that it could refer to a single deity, to more than one, or none at all (7). However, others that defend the words believe that it should stay because it acknowledges the fact that there is a higher authority that holds the United States "accountable" (10). Most people in support of the Pledge either see "under God" as being inclusive, implying that it can defined in multiple ways, which means the words are unimportant and can be deleted, or exclusive, meaning that the God named in the Pledge is religion specific, which means that the phrase is unconstitutional by endorsing a specific religion.

Not only does the "under God" phrase reject atheism, but it denies polytheistic religions, such as Buddhism. For a Buddhist to say the Pledge would be an expression of their patriotism, but saying its current form contradicts their religious beliefs. Since recitation of the Pledge is not a requirement, a Buddhist student could choose to remain silent to stay true to their religious beliefs, but by doing so they are refused the opportunity for patriotic expression. Remaining silent could also lead to stigmatization and a label of being unpatriotic. The millions of Buddhists residing in America are being told clearly that their religion is being excluded by the government, a violation of the Establishment Clause, which bans the Federal Government from favoring one religion over another (10).

The inclusion of the phrase "one Nation under God," splits the unity of the "indivisible" country described by Francis Bellamy. Bellamy's original words are compatible with the diverse beliefs held by Americans in the United States and do not exclude atheists and polytheists as the present Pledge does now. The problems caused by the modern Pledge of Allegiance could easily be reversed if America reverted back to Bellamy's original words - a statement he labored over to perfect, but now is contradicted by two words because as long as the expression "under God" remains in the modern day Pledge, America will stand as a Nation divided without liberty and justice for all.

References
1. Baer, John W., Dr. The Pledge of Allegiance: A Short History. 1992. Free State Press. May 17 2007. .
2. Ellis, Richard J. To The Flag: The Unlikely History of the Pledge of Allegiance. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005, pp. 1.
3. Greenberg, David. "The Pledge of Allegiance: Why We're Not One Nation Under God.'" Slate. June 28 2002. Washington Post. 1 May 2007. .
4. "Lawmakers Blast Pledge Ruling." CNN.com. June 27 2002. Cable News Network LP. May 8 2007. .
5. Le Beau, Bryan F. The Atheist. New York: New York University Press, 2003, pp. 109, 116.
6. Lynn, Ken. "The Origin and Meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance." FreeThought Today. May 1999. Freedom From Religion Foundation. Orangevale. 1 May 2007. .
7. "The Pledge Of Allegiance: Does It Harm Our Children Or Are We Overreacting?" Complete Wellness Massage. May 18 2007. .
8. "Senators call Pledge decision stupid.'" CNN.com. 27 June 2002. Cable News Network LP. 8 May 2007. .
9. Walker, Cliff. "Must We Stand for the Under God' Pledge?" Positive Atheism. Aug. 23 2001. Positive Atheism Magazine. 1 May 2007. .
10. Williams, Mary E., Ed. Opposing Viewpoints: Religion in America. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006, pp. 117, 122, 124.

Learn more about this author, Xiaoqian Lim.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.