The U.S. Pledge of Allegiance
Controversy about the Pledge
Sponsored link.
What does the phrase "under God" imply?
Considering that the phrase consists of only two words, it implies a lot:
-
That a deity exists. Traditionally, God is viewed as at least
omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (with infinite powers). Many
religions add other attributes, such as all-loving.
-
Maleness: "God" implies a male deity. There is no room in the
Pledge for any female deity/deities who are normally called "Goddesses."
-
Uniqueness: The phrase implies monotheism: that there is only
a single deity who one who rules over America.
-
Omnipresent: The phrase implies that God rules over all of
America, and is present everywhere.
-
Control: Most Americans probably believe that the phrase
indicates a God who interferes with events on earth, guiding the U.S. in
the direction that he wishes.
Agreement with, and opposition, to the phrase:One would expect that most of the approximately 88% of adult Americans who identified
themselves as Christians back in 1954 would have had no objection to the
Pledge. The percentage of Christians has been dropping recently and by 2001
reached about 76%. However, it still represents a substantial percentage of Americans.
There are other world religions who also believe in a single male deity,
including:
Islam, Judaism, and
Sikhism. However, all four of these monotheistic faiths
attribute different names, attributes, and expectations to their concept of God;
they do not worship the same deity. So, the exact attributes associated with "God"
in the Pledge is unclear. However, one would expect some opposition from
religious minorities. For example:
-
Atheists have no awareness of the existence of God;
some actively deny the existence of any deity.
-
Agnostics are undecided about the existence of God;
-
Buddhists generally have no belief in a personal God;
-
Deists believe that God exists, created
the universe, wound it up, let it go, departed and hasn't been seen since.
Thus, they believe that we are not "under God" because God isn't around
any more.
-
Humanists and Ethical Culturalists base their beliefs and practices on secular considerations;
-
Many Jews, who because of centuries of Christian
persecution, tend to oppose all government involvement in religion;
-
Some Theists who object in principle to state-sponsored items with
religious content, such as the Pledge of Allegiance,
national motto, and prayers in public
schools, because of the degree of compulsion which is inevitably present; and
-
Many religious liberals, and others, who rigorously defend the principle of
complete
separation of church and state, and would oppose
religious content in the Pledge on principle.
The stand taken by Pledge of Allegiance Restoration Project:
1
-
Imagine, for a moment, that you are a Jewish student. You have the
choice of
-
Reciting a pledge that an Atheist -- a person who has no belief
in the existence of a God -- wrote: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to
the Republic for which it stands; one nation, without God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all."
- Refusing to recite it, and leaving yourself open to being belittled,
harassed, insulted, assaulted, etc.
As the Pledge of Allegiance Restoration Project writes: "Would you
repeat all the words? Would you skip over the phrase "without God?" Would it
make you feel comfortable about being an American?"
Or, as one person posting to a forum said, would you recite "under all."
-
Imagine that you are a Christian, and you were forced to read a
pledge written by an Muslim -- a person who believes in the existence of
Allah: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to
the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under Allah, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all."
-
Imagine that you are a Muslim, and you were forced to read a pledge
written by an Wiccan -- a person who follows an earth-centered religion,
and believes in the existence of a God and a Goddess: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to
the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under the God and Goddess, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all."
-
Imagine that you are a Wiccan, and you were forced to read a pledge
written by an Christian: "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."
"That is the situation today for millions of Americans who do not believe
they are 'under' God. Some find God within their own hearts. Others believe they
are part of -- not under -- a sacred universe. Still others do not believe in
God at all. Yet every day the religious beliefs of these patriotic Americans are
violated by our government in schools, in public meetings...anywhere the Pledge
Of Allegiance is led and spoken." 1 Actually, the second example is not a
particularly good one, because "Allah" simply means "God" in Arabic. Those
Christians in the Middle East who speak Arabic generally pray to Allah, and
would probably not have any objections to this wording. However, most
Americans probably associate the name Allah with the concept of deity as
understood by Muslims and would object.
Sponsored link:
Why does it all matter anyway?
There has been a lot of negative reaction to the Circuit Court's decision:
- Why was the valuable time of the court taken up over what is truly a
trivial matter?
-
If a person doesn't like the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of
Allegiance, they can remain silent while the words are recited.
-
If a person doesn't like the phrase "In God we Trust" on coins or
bills, they can not look at it.
- It would cost the government a lot of money to pull all the bills and
coins from circulation and replace them.
- The group sponsoring this web site has been criticized for giving so much
attention to the subject.
These are very good points that should be carefully considered. Including "under God" in the Pledge of
Allegiance and the term "In God we trust" on coins and bills does not
really have much impact of the public's religiosity and spirituality.
Teddy Roosevelt expressed his opinion that putting the term on our money
diminishes the idea of God. It does contribute to what is called "civil religion"
(a.k.a. "civic religion") but that is a a
washed-out version of real religion. There are other considerations:
-
The phrase is "under God." It is not "under Rama," "under Allah,"
"under "Ahura Mazda," "under Krishna," or "under
the Goddess." This implies that the full weight of the government
and school system is behind the concept of the deity of Jehovah and Jesus
Christ.
- Consider the fate of children who do not believe in the existence
of a personal God. These include children who are (or who are the sons and
daughters of) Agnostics, Atheists, some Buddhists, Ethical Culturalists,
Humanists, secularists, most Unitarian Universalists, etc.
- Consider also
the fate of children who believe in a God who is different from the
Judeo-Christian deity. The phrase is telling them that the government and
school board thinks that their God does not exist.
- Consider what Christian
and Jewish students will feel: that the government and school considers
their God to be paramount.
The result is to accentuate religious differences among students. The
beliefs of Jewish and Christian students are given support; this promotes
Christian triumphalism. The beliefs of other students are denigrated. This
produces hurt feelings and anger.
-
As Blaise Pascal once said: "Men
never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
religious conviction." The potential result of supporting the
beliefs of Christian students and denigrating the beliefs of others is increased
harassment
and violence perpetrated towards religious minorities.
-
It would cost money to remove "In God we trust" from coins and bills. But
it would be minimal. As new coin and bill designs are created, the phrase
could simply be left off. Old coins and bills would, over time, be replace
with religiously-neutral versions.
- We don't feel that we have given excessive attention to the controversy.
This section consists of one short menu and three essays on the topic. That
represents only about 0.2% of our total web site's contents.
Recent attempts to expand the use of the motto:
- 2001-FEB: Virginia: Pledge bill
defeated. State Senator Warren E. Barry introduced a
bill making the recitation of the pledge of allegiance mandatory for every public school
in Virginia. In doing this, Senator Barry violated his oath of office, in
which he promised to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court
has interpreted the Constitution as implying that anyone has the right to
refrain from reciting the Pledge. Under his bill, any student who refused to recite
the pledge, without a valid philosophical or religious
objection, would be suspended. Delegate Robert G. Marshall
suggested that the bill be amended to require school
buildings carry the national motto. The amendments were
rejected by the Senate Education and Health Committee.
Reference used:
-
"Pledge of Allegiance Restoration Project," at:
http://randomfilm.com/ This is no longer online.
How you got here:
Copyright © 2002 to 2007 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Tolerance
Originally written: 2002-JUN-26
Latest update: 2007-NOV-09
Author: B.A. Robinson 
|
Page Translator:
