The Pledge of Allegiance
December 1st, 2008 | 
This past weekend, the pastor who helped get the phrase “under God” inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance, The Rev. George M. Docherty, died. According to this AP article,
Docherty delivered a sermon saying the pledge should acknowledge God in 1952 at Washington’s New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, just blocks from the White House.
On Feb. 7, 1954, he delivered it again after learning that President Dwight Eisenhower would be at the church.
Congress inserted the words a few months later.
Additionally, Rassmussen just released a report saying that 77% of U.S. voters believe school children should say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning at school. Of those surveyed, 82% say that “under God” should remain in the Pledge, even though it’s use, the report says, “has been challenged in the courts in recent years.”
Personally, I don’t really have any beef with the Pledge of Allegiance, but I DO think that “under God” should be removed. Apparently I’m in the minority. Now, I’m no Constitutional scholar, but “under God” has no business in a pledge of patriotism to the United States.
Why? Because it blatantly ignores the religious plurality that exists in the United States — a plurality which shapes its very nature. Even though lots of reports overwhelmingly declare a majority of Americans believe in God (between 80 and 95 percent), there are plenty of people who fall in the 5 to 20 percent who don’t believe in God (which is at least 15 million people, and as much as 60 million). Furthermore, to which “God” is the Pledge referring? Is it the God of Judaism? Christianity? Mormonism? Islam? Most people probably assume that “under God” is indeed referring to the God found in the Bible of Christianity (it was advocated by a Christian pastor, after all), and that’s just fine by them.
But here’s the thing: There is no such thing as a “Christian” nation. In fact, the United States — as a cultural and political force — is in many ways an embodiment of the very sort of entity Jesus (and Paul) was trying to subvert. That the United States is the richest nation does not mean it is specially “blessed” by God. It is the poor who are blessed, remember?
In the end, I’m with David Waters:
It isn’t our belief in God that makes us different. It’s our belief in the liberties (religious and other) enshrined in the Constitution. The American creed is faith in liberty for all, not the religion of most.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed to have articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always sign up for email updates and have fresh content delivered daily to your inbox.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
[...] ‘under God’ be in the Pledge of Allegiance? December 2, 2008 Jake Bouma thinks not, contrary to many: “Because it blatantly ignores the religious plurality that exists in the [...]
[...] great discussion going on about the phrase, “Under God” in the pledge of allegiance. Check it out! [...]
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
No feed reader? No problem! Subscribe by email to receive daily updates featuring the freshest content from JakeBouma.com!
So true. Thanks for posting this.
Well played…
I agree with the rejection of the phrase "under God," but not because I share any concern for plurality.
In fact, I would argue that America only achieves plurality insofar as the aforementioned religions can be re-scripted to support the American religion exercised through the disciplines of consumerism and military power. In other words, when Gap starts selling Muslim headscarves, you'll know America has achieved "religious pluralism."
In regards to your 2nd point, just because America is not a Christian nation, does not mean a Christian nation does not exist.
"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. – 1 Peter 2"
It seems to me that the idea of America as "one nation under God" is actually rather blasphemous. Thus it's sadly ironic that those who introduced the phrase did so under the impression that they were expressing the Christian faith, when in reality it has only revealed the degree to which the Christian faith has been corrupted.
Scott: I agree with your point about religious plurality becoming actualized only via consumerism and military power. The point I am making, however, is less about social theory ("melting pot", "tossed salad", "coerced assimilation", etc.) and more about basic demographics — America just isn't made up of 100% practicing Christians. I don't think we disagree, I think we're making two different points.
The whole "nation" thing is semantics, methinks. Is the author of 1 Peter thinking in terms of modern, democratic, nation-states? Or is "nation" meant as "united body of people who worship at the throne of God and not an earthly authority"? I may be in over my head here, but I think the distinction — if subtle — is really important, especially in regards to the "under God" debate.
A bold post…and I couldn't agree with you more. I used to be a public elementary school teacher and every morning they would recite the pledge over the intercom and expect every child and teacher to recite it. I began to wonder why we force children to say it, but once they are out of elementary school, they will likely never have to say it again unless they go to some sporting events or become a congress person. If it's so important, why don't we say the pledge every morning at work? Years ago, I took to repeating the pledge without the "under God" phrase, but ultimately I came to see it as a minor bit of idolatry (why do we pledge allegiance to a flag? Why not allegiance to the country) so I stopped saying it altogether. And I gave my students the choice to say it, or sit quietly in their seats.
I lean towards leaving "under God" out of the pledge, of only out of hospitality to those who are greatly offended by it. Symbolically, it changes little, and if it makes them feel that this country welcomes them more, such a change serves the nation's best interests (and might make them think that Christians are slightly more reasonable people).
Scott: I too disagree with your exegesis of 1 Peter 2. 1Pet 2.4-11 is about the relationship between Jews and Gentiles. If I'm not mistaken, that passage in particular is written to Gentiles who are, through Jesus Christ, included in the promises of God. Hence the following verse (10): "Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."
That is to say, the Christian nation is not a nation-state, but the body of Christ. That's trans-national and super-natural. The point here is that those who believe in Christ are included in the promise of God in spite of their national affiliation (Judean, Roman, etc.)
@Jake, yeah, I guess we are making two different points (but both good points?! :). To the extent that liberty means the 'the freedom to hold a particular belief' then I agree that "under God" creates a logical contradiction.
re: semantics I would say both!, in that the Church as a nation is not itself a geographically bounded entity, but it nevertheless challenges such entities.
@Ted, I thing trans-national and super-natural are pretty good descriptions. I would add that while "nation" does address the relationship of Jews and Gentiles, it also, more importantly for our present context, serves to deconstruct the contemporary Christian/American concept the national affiliation.
Not to drive Jake's post further down a tangent, but there's a nice study of 1 Peter 2:9 at the WCC site.
Interesting post. I would assume that you would then carry this thought across the board to removing "In God We Trust" from our currency, signage and plaques from the courts, etc? Not sure how you could limit this to just the pledge.
Brian: Thanks for your comment… I agree that at some point, pledging allegiance to a flag becomes idolatry. However, it goes back to my point about the 5-20% of Americans who aren't believers… for them, it's certainly not idolatry. That being said, I appreciate that you gave students a choice as to whether or not to recite it.
Ted: Hey, thanks for stopping by… not sure if you've ever commented here before, but I appreciate your insight. How'd you come upon this blog?
Scott: They're both great points. :) Oh, and thanks for the twitter love.
Martin: Yes, I would indeed carry my conclusion across the board to include currency, signage, etc. Would you?
@Jake: Nope, this is a first comment, though I've subscribed for a few weeks. I was trying to remember how I ended up here, but failed. I think we probably know someone in common or something. I'm a Wartburg Seminary student.
Jake, while this argument goes far beyond constitutional law, I thought you might like to know the legal arguments for keeping/getting rid of the words "under God". As you noted, the words were added to the pledge after a minister, who knew President Eisenhower would be attending church, added into his sermon the importance of the acknowledgement of God (in the midst of the red scare). An atheist father recently brought a challenge in the 9th Circuit to get rid of the words "under God" because he felt his daughter should not have to be subjected to a religion he did not subscribe to. (The Supreme Court dismissed the case based on standing because he did not have legal custody of his daughter.) The 9th Circuit, however, agreed with him based on a coercion test of the establishment clause. Jurisprudence surrounding the establishment clause is very scattered, but the Supreme Court (at least pre-Alito and Roberts) generally feels that when, for example, the 10 Commandments are posted in an elementary school classroom, the children are "coerced," in violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. Although they have not granted certiori to hear a pledge case, current precedent (again, however, there have been personnel changes on the Court), would suggest that if a parent of an elementary-age child were to bring a case challenging the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the pledge, as applied to her child, she could win. Okay, just thought you would want to know. Good luck with your argument!
I may be the most non patriotic yet patriotic person I know. I love this country, and I truly appreciate the sacrifice of men and women to allow me to live in a “free” country. But, I have a problem with patriotism when we begin to worship a country, or probably more true, the idea of the perfect country. The truth is, I don’t say the Pledge of Allegiance simply because I have pledged my life to Jesus, and I’m not sure I feel comfortable hitching my wagon to something that I don’t agree with. It doesn’t matter what party is in office.
D: You took the words right out of my mouth!