How Does the Phrase 'Under God' Live on in Patriotic Rhetoric?

Life in modern American society is complex, challenging, and constantly changing. We're all chasing the elusive American Dream, trying to find a sense of self in a culture of conformity, and searching for someone to connect with and share the chaos. Our government and Constitution are fundamental foundations in which society can anchor its morals, identify its principles, and protect citizens' rights. Therefore, it is important that the government not only upholds the Constitution, but also that it abstains from favoring any group within those who are governed. Our nation's Pledge of Allegiance belies this commitment to impartiality by including "Under God", and it needs to be amended. The Pledge of Allegiance should omit the phrase "Under God" in order to embrace all of the faiths or lack thereof that compose the melting pot that we all call home: America.

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some" (Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Lee v. Weisman). The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, guarantees that individuals will have freedom of religious expression. The government and its agencies will not recognize any one religious faith as more valid than any other faith or secularism, and the government and its agencies will not promote religion above non-religion. As individualism wars with conventionality, it is imperative that our government strives to be unbiased in public discourse and rulings in regards to religion so that all Americans can feel united rather than judged.

Even if it wasn't the government's responsibility to maintain impartiality, the tradition of maintaining religious overtones and diction in public avenues is contradictory with the current religiosity trends. On the whole, our society is drawing away from organized religion. In 1990, ninety percent of the adult population identified with a major religious group and in 2001, only eighty-one percent of the adult population identified with a major religious group. Even more significant, the number of adults who classify themselves in non-Christian religious groups has increased from about 5.8 million to about 7.7 million, while the proportion of non-Christians has increased only from 3.3 % to about 3.7 % in between the 1990 and 2001 surveys. (http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm) It's possible that the government will be forced to weed out the Judeo-Christian emphasis in public conduct because the majority of America will be of another faith or no faith at all.

The phrase "Under God" puts a religious spin on our nation's Pledge of Allegiance, and violates the separation between church and state that preserves the protection of religious individualism. Some supporters of the religious Pledge plaintively claim that the phrase is a meaningful tradition and it is unpatriotic to even suggest revision. Ironically, this allegedly traditional phrase was not present in the first pledge. Penned by Francis Bellamy and published in 1892, the original Pledge of Allegiance was spoken: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all" (http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm). Bellamy made no mention of religion, allowing for a purely patriotic sentiment. This sentiment was marred when President Eisenhower plugged the controversial phrase "Under God" in, setting the stage for discord and disharmony. To explain his addition in 1954, Eisenhower stated, "In this way we should constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war." Our soldiers' faith, in whomever they revere, cannot be a powerful resource if that faith is not universal. How can we place a denomination on the devotion that we pledge, when the very people who are risking their lives to preserve our way of life do not all fit the definition? The rote religious recitation that separates citizens everywhere rails against these virtues that our founding fathers strived to instill. "The [First] Amendment's purpose... was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion" (U.S. Supreme Court, Reynolds v. United States 1879). It's been a constant battle to separate civic and religious causes, and by drawing attention to the Supreme Court's activism and support of the separation of church and state, we can all become better informed and more proactive in making a change.

The inclusion of "Under God" excludes atheists, agnostics, deists, and Buddhists, religions that don't support monotheism or the existence of a higher power at all. The Pledge of Allegiance is an oath that Americans take in public places to unite themselves in patriotic faith. In this age of political correctness, it's impressive that the phrase "Under God" has survived this long in our increasingly diverse country. Why should our nation identify singularly under any deity that is not supported by every constituent? "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God" (George Bush, 1987). This statement was uttered in all seriousness while campaigning and not only is it offensive, it also encourages religious intolerance. America was founded to protect religious tolerance and freedom, and we should be progressing towards ideal equality in keeping religion separate from politics rather than regressing and returning to a less secular government.

We're now in the present, and this influence needs to be lessened in our society. Our public life has changed because the people that compose it now are so much more diverse. No longer can we root our morals and norms solely in what the church dictates as society evolves, and our Pledge of Allegiance, an embodiment of our country and patriotism, should reflect that. Recently politicians have been infusing faith into their campaign and policy making, but this belies what our original leaders would've wanted. It does not do equal justice to all men by keeping God in our pledge and all the implications that arise with our government backing a specific religion in civic demonstration.

The argument exists that because most of our nation supports keeping "Under God" in the Pledge; it should remain in order to mollify the overwhelming
majority. Coincidentally, majorities in both houses of Congress along with the attorney generals in all fifty states assertively back the conservative opinion to leave the Pledge as is. However, any educated citizen does not need to search hard in order to find examples of when the American public supported something that is now, in hindsight, considered unjust or irrational. Look no further than the duration of slavery or the treatment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. Our government is essential because it acknowledges the minorities, gives them a voice, and supports their right to digress from the masses. This freedom defines our country, and its inhabitants. Our country has no national language, or governmentally advocated religion, and this sends a powerful message about our diversity and cultural tolerance to foreign nations and diplomacy. This controversial debate over an oath that is intended to bolster our sense of unity actually weakens our international reputation and clout. While no decision should be based on how it is perceived by other countries, such a dividing factor should be resolved in order to present a singular facade. William Safire wrote in the NYTimes: "...the solution is for the court to require teachers to inform students they have added the right to remain silent for a couple of seconds until others choose to say 'Under God'." This "solution" offers up an example of exactly what won't work. Why should the dissenting students have to segregate themselves and hold their tongue? This teaches our future generations that their freedom is restricted, that if what they feel or think isn't accepted or popular that they should be quiet and consequently be forced to defend their differences, which is supported by the Supreme Court's precedents: "School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community" (U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Santa Fe v. Doe). The Pledge of Allegiance should be reverted to its nondiscriminatory form and become a wholly unifying promise to uphold patriotism.The choice to practice or not practice religion is a private one that should only serve to unite people together in celebration of a similar faith, not separate those who do not. One might argue that everyone has the choice to say or not say those two words of the pledge, but the bottom line is that they shouldn't have to make that choice. Also, the Pledge is said frequently in public schools so children are inculcated religiously at an impressionable age. At a time period when social conformity is so strongly encouraged, a young Buddhist, atheist, or Wiccan would be hard pressed to stand out by refraining from saying the pledge or saying the pledge in its entirety. Again, this is not a choice they should have to make in a country with no nationally affiliated religion, much less one that prides itself on freedom and individualism.

The Supreme Court should rule to amend the Pledge of Allegiance and continue to promulgate the separation of church and state. "There is no such source and cause of strife, quarrel, fights, malignant opposition, persecution, and war, and all evil in the state, as religion. Let it once enter our civil affairs, our government would soon be destroyed. Let it once enter our common schools, they would be destroyed" (Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Weiss v. District Board). In purifying our Pledge of Allegiance, our country will return to the original nonbiased principles that it was founded to uphold and protect.Those who practice a monotheistic faith and support "Under God" in the pledge essentially lose nothing in its removal. Their faith isn't rooted in patriotism, and their patriotism shouldn't be rooted in their faith. In removing "Under God" from the United States Pledge of Allegiance, our country will be furthering its celebrated democratic ideal of equality and reinvigorating our citizens' patriotism by purifying it of any segregating factors.