outline essay
“Why the Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Revised”
By Gwen Wilde
All Americans are familiar with the Pledge of Allegiance,
even if they cannot always recite it perfectly, but probably
relatively few know that the original Pledge did not include the
words “under God.” The original Pledge of Allegiance, published in
the September 8, 1892, issue of the Youth’s Companion, ran
thus:
I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to the Republic for which
it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for
all. (Djupe 329)
In 1923, at the first National Flag Conference in Washington,
DC, it was argued that immigrants might be confused by the words
“my Flag,” and it was proposed that the words be changed to “the
Flag of the United States.” The following year it was changed
again, to “the Flag of the United States of America,” and this
wording became the official—or, rather, unofficial—wording,
unofficial because no wording had ever been nationally adopted
(Djupe 329).
In 1942, the United States Congress included the Pledge in
the United States Flag Code, thus for the first time officially
sanctioning the Pledge. In 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower
approved adding the words “under God.” Thus, since 1954 the Pledge
reads:
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. (Djupe
329)
In my view, the addition of the words “under God is
inappropriate, and they are needlessly divisive—an odd addition
indeed to a Nation that is said to be “indivisible.”
Very simply put, the Pledge in its latest form requires all
Americans to say something that some Americans do not believe. I
say “requires” because, although the courts have ruled that
students may not be compelled to recite the Pledge, in effect peer
pressure does compel all but the bravest to join in the recitation.
When President Eisenhower authorized the change, he said,
In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious
faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall
constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be
our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war.
(Sterner)
Exactly what did Eisenhower mean when he spoke of “the
transcendence of faith in America’s heritage,” and when he spoke of
“spiritual weapons”? I am not sure what “the transcendence of faith
in America’s heritage” means. Of course many Americans have been
and are deeply religious—no one doubts it—but the phrase certainly
goes far beyond saying that many Americans have been devout. In any
case, many Americans have not been devout, and many Americans have
not believed in “spiritual weapons,” but they have nevertheless
been patriotic Americans. Some of them have fought and died to keep
America free.
In short, the words “under God” cannot be uttered in good
faith by many Americans. True, something like 70 or even 80% of
Americans say they are affiliated with some form of Christianity,
and approximately another 3% say they are Jewish. I don’t have the
figures for persons of other faiths, but in any case we can surely
all agree that although a majority of Americans say they have a
religious affiliation, nevertheless several million Americans do
not believe in God.
If one remains silent while others are reciting the Pledge,
or even if one remains silent only while others are speaking the
words “under God,” one is open to the charge that one is
unpatriotic, is “unwilling to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.” In
the Pledge, patriotism is connected with religious belief, and it
is this connection that makes it divisive and (to be blunt)
un-American. Admittedly the belief is not very specific: one is not
required to say that one believes in the divinity of Jesus, or in
the power of Jehovah, but the fact remains, one is required to
express belief in a divine power, and, if one doesn’t express this
belief, one is—according to the Pledge—somehow not fully an
American, maybe even un-American.
Please notice that I am not arguing that the Pledge is
unconstitutional. I understand that the First Amendment to the
Constitution says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.” I am not arguing that the words “under God” in the Pledge
add up to the “establishment of religion,” but they certainly do
assert a religious doctrine. Like the words “In God we trust,”
found on all American money, the words “under God” express an idea
that many Americans do not hold, and there is no reason why these
Americans—loyal people who may be called upon to defend the country
with their lives—should be required to say that America is a nation
“under God.”
It has been argued, even by members of the Supreme Court,
that the words “under God” are not to be taken terribly seriously,
not to be taken to say what they seem to say. For instance, Chief
Justice Rehnquist wrote,
To give the parent of such a child a sort of “heckler’s veto”
over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other
students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the
descriptive phrase “under God,” is an unwarranted extension of the
establishment clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate
effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance. (qtd. in
Mears)
Chief Justice Rehnquist here calls “under God” a descriptive
phrase,” but descriptive of what? If a phrase is a “descriptive
phrase,” it describes something, real or imagined. For many
Americans, this phrase does not describe a reality. These Americans
may perhaps be mistaken—if so, they may learn of their error at
Judgment Day—but the fact is, millions of intelligent Americans do
not believe in God.
Notice, too, that Chief Justice Rehnquist goes on to say that
reciting the Pledge is “a commendable patriotic observance.”
Exactly. That is my point. It is a patriotic observance, and it
should not be connected with religion. When we announce that we
respect the flag—that we are loyal Americans—we should not also
have to announce that we hold a particular religious belief, in
this case a belief in monotheism, a belief that there is a God and
that God rules.
One other argument defending the words “under God” is often
heard: the words “In God We Trust” appear on our money. It is
claimed that these words on American money are analagous to the
words “under God” in the Pledge. But the situation really is very
different. When we hand over some coins, or some paper money, we
are concentrating on the business transaction, and we are not
making any affirmation about God or our country. But when we recite
the Pledge—even if we remain silent at the point when we are
supposed to say “under God”—we are very conscious that we are
supposed to make this affirmation, an affirmation that many
Americans cannot in good faith make, even though they certainly can
unthinkingly hand over (or accept) money with the words “In God We
Trust.”
Because I believe that reciting the Pledge is to be taken
seriously, with a full awareness of the words that is quite
different from when we hand over some money, I cannot understand
the recent comment of Supreme Court Justice Souter, who in a case
said that the phrase “under God” is “so tepid, so diluted, so far
from compulsory prayer, that it should, in effect, be beneath the
constitutional radar” (qtd. in “Guide”). I don’t follow his
reasoning that the phrase should be “beneath the constitutional
radar,” but in any case I am willing to put aside the issue of
constitutionality. I am willing to grant that this phrase does not
in any significant sense signify the “establishment of religion”
(prohibitied by the First Amendment) in the United States. I
insist, nevertheless, that the phrase is neither “tepid” nor
“diluted. It means what it says—it must and should mean what it
says, to everyone who utters it—and, since millions of loyal
Americans cannot say it, it should not be included in a statement
in which Americans affirm their loyalty to our great country.
In short, the Pledge, which ought to unite all of us, is
divisive; it includes a phrase that many patriotic Americans cannot
bring themselves to utter. Yes, they can remain silent when others
recite those two words, but, again, why should they have to remain
silent? The Pledge of Allegiance should be something that everyone
can say, say out loud, and say with pride. We hear much talk of
returning to the ideas of the Founding Fathers. The Founding
Fathers did not create the Pledge of Allegiance, but we do know
that they never mentioned God in the Constitution. Indeed the only
reference to religion, in the so-called establishment clause of the
First Amendment, says, again, that “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.” Those who wish to exercise religion are indeed
free to do so, but the place to do so is not in a pledge that is
required of all school children and of all new citizens.