The government-approved God of America

How the supreme court dropped the ball on the pledge of allegiance

2004.06.17 — Culture | Law | by Derek Jensen

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, [under God,] indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The Supreme court ducked the issue of the constitutionality of the phrase “under God” in the pledge of allegiance this week. It was a chicken-shit thing to do and opens the door to a lot more questions.

To be precise, the case didn't so much concern the wording of the pledge but rather the right of the parent, Michael Newdow, to demand that his daughter not be subject to pledging her allegiance to the republic at her school.

In its 8-0 ruling (1 recusal), the court decided that Michael Newdow didn't have the legal right to argue a case on behalf of his daughter because he doesn't have custody of her. That raises the question of what rights a non-custodial parent does have.

Do they have any say in the child’s upbringing at all? Dahlia Lithwick of Slate thinks not. She argues that non-custodial parents have no right to override the custodial parent’s decisions about, say, the religious upbringing of the child. But Newdow doesn't want to convert his daughter to Islam. He only wants to protect her from having to pledge herself to the government-approved God of America at school. That’s a reasonable degree of influence, especially since he had to go to circuit court to exercise it.

In my mind, any school that coerces its students into pledging their allegiance to anything is out of line. We send our children to school for an education, not a political indoctrination. They should study our government with a skeptical eye, not pledge their blind devotion to it.

It is bizarre that this country, born out of a bloody revolution in the name of liberty over something so trivial (sorry principled) as a minuscule tax on imported goods (sans representation, of course) would have an oath of allegiance in the first place. Its own wording professes liberty, yet the very nature of an oath of this sort is coercive and dogmatic.

John Ashcroft praised the ruling with disingenuous language.

[It] ensures that school children in every corner of America can start their day by voluntarily reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

First of all, it’s a little scary that the Attorney-General of the United States is cheerfully suggesting that every child in every corner of America should start their day with the pledge. But, more to the point, if you think that children pledge their allegiance to anything voluntarily, you don’t know children. They don’t kiss grandma without a little prodding. In groups, they just follow along and do what they’re told… or they don’t…. It depends on their mood and blood-sugar level, not their patriotism. Coercing them to join in a group-think oath is just social indoctrination.

A certain degree of social indoctrination is okay—even necessary—if we don’t want a bunch of savages and social misfits running around after graduation day. But we shouldn't allow the government (in the form of a public school) to include a religious aspect to it. There should be no government-approved God of America.

The phrase “under God” was added in 1954. It’s not original to the pledge (which was entirely generic to begin with), and it wasn't inserted casually to acknowledge the religious tradition in America. It was added by Congressional legislators to make it clear that America was a Christian nation allied against the godless communists and anyone who didn't like it could shove it.

Their wording was that it was meant to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator." They did not mean Krishna or Odin.

Now, America was not founded as a Christian nation. Many of the founding fathers were barely religious at all and most rejected the idea that Jesus was the divine son of God. They remembered the excesses of the Pilgrims and Puritans in burning suspected witches. And they remembered the excesses of the Catholic church in burning heretics and converting pagans at the point of a sword. And they didn't want the new government to sponsor any particular religion, such as—to pick an example out of a hat—Christianity.

In fact, they made it the very first thing in the Bill of Rights.

Lastly, imagine if the shoe were on the other foot. Imagine an America (or even just a town in it) with a Hindu or Islamic majority. Christians wouldn't want to be continually confronted by state-sponsored religious practices they don't believe in. It would be un-American.

Actually it was. At one time, it was common practice for schools to have required Bible readings or recitations of the pledge of allegiance, but these clashed with folks whose religion required them to read a different version of the Bible or forbade them from pledging their allegiance to any power other than God.

Separation of church and state isn't just a pie-in-the-sky ideal. It's a practical solution for the American melting pot of cultures.

f e e d b a c k

s i d e b a r