|
Dear Editor: I'm concerned about the Congressional response to the 9th Circuit's Pledge of Allegiance ruling. Republicans and Democrats from both the Senate and House have insisted, in fiery rhetoric that would make Jonathan Edwards proud, that we are "One nation under God." It is especially galling that they do this not as private citizens but as leaders of our government. While many Americans are members of a monotheistic faith, there is a significant minority who are not. As a polytheist in a land whose Constitution separates church and state, it is alienating to be told by state leaders that monotheism should be enshrined in a national pledge of unity. A statement of national unity can be potent without including a divisive religious sentiment. We can be "One Nation, indivisible," regardless of the natures of our gods. Let's return the pledge to its pre- 1954 form and do exactly that. |
The above is a letter that I sent to my local newspaper, and I'd like to expand on it a bit here. In a way, most of this discussion is moot, and the decision largely symbolic. It is likely that either the full panel review or the Supreme Court will overrule the decision. But even so, we don't need "Under God" in a pledge of national unity. As anyone who reads the newspapers regularly will now know, it didn't start with those words; they were added in 1954 in an explicit attempt to promote Christianity.
Prior to this court decision, I hadn't given much thought to the pledge. I didn't, and still don't, think it causes serious emotional harm for people either to recite it as-is or to omit the words "Under God". However, it's both constitutionally correct and more appropriate to have a secular pledge of allegiance as our official pledge. There's no point in having a pledge of unity that divides the nation into monotheists and others.
Opponents to the ruling seem to have one of several complaints. Either they think that the court forbade people to use the word "God" while reciting the pledge, or they believe that "under God" is general enough to be appropriate for any citizen. The first argument indicates a lack of understanding about the ruling; the decision in no way barred people from choosing to say the words "Under God" while reciting the pledge, but instead indicated that the official version of the pledge ought to be secular. The second argument indicates a lack of understanding about the diversity of religious belief in the United States, ignoring the fact that there are American animists, atheists, and polytheists who are proud citizens under no gods, or under multiple gods.
In truth, it is the public's and politicians' responses that have bothered me far more than the state of the pledge before the decision or the decision itself. From politicians who I'd expect to know better, I've seen quotes about reaffirming that we "are one nation under God", about amending the Constitution if the decision isn't overturned, and about remembering the name of the "atheist lawyer" who wrote the decision, should his name ever appear before the Senate.
These sentiments are particularly alarming from politicians, whose ignorance about the American diversity of religious belief informs government policy. On June 26, 2002, in a 99-0-1 vote, the Senate passed a resolution affirming the Pledge of Allegiance and asking the court to reconsider the decision. Sadly, our nations's most influential political leaders forgot, in their rush to be patriotic, about the patriotism of non-monotheistic citizens.
Maybe I'll think about changing how I recite the pledge, after all. It will take some re-training, but I favor the following version, slightly modified from the pre-1954 pledge:
I pledge allegiance to the flag,
Of the United States of America.
And to the republic for which it stands,
One nation, indivisible,
With liberty, equality, and justice for all.
For more information about the phrase "Under God", the national motto, and our money, see the excellent article, The U.S. National Mottos: History, debate, origins, controversy.