One Nation Under God? The Pledge of Allegiance in Context

Truth Teller recently wrote an article about The Pledge of Allegiance and Our Public School System. In supporting context and to clarify the issue, the debate over the mandatory use of the Pledge of Allegiance has been one that has been discussed since the 1950's. In it's most recent debate, Justice Alfred Goodwin wrote the assent, stating that it's mandatory use in public schools was unconstitutional. I agree with the assent. However, I feel the reasons stated in the assent are short-sighted and could be expanded on.

The assent argues that the pledge, being established by law, was in direct conflict with the constitutional right to privacy by stating that our nation was unified under monotheism. Judge Goodwin is completely correct, but a much stronger argument can be made. The dissent argues that the reference to monotheism is overstated as being the interpretation of the pledge's clause. That it was more of a reference to the non-discrimination of religion or religions. Judge Fernandez, of the dissent, believed that the reason the pledge was not unconstitutional resided to the fact that there was no possibility of the pledge creating a theocratic state in our nation.

Whether or not a theocratic state could happen due to a passing line residing in our pledge is a good argument. A thin argument, to say the least, but it is doubtful that a theocratic state would happen. The real answer to the debate, as in most things, lie in historical context. By visiting the origins of the Pledge of Allegiance and it's tranmutations can we understand the reasons for the words as they exist today. Those reasons, which I will show, prove that not only is the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional, but that the pledge its self is unconstitutional.

In 1892, Francis Bellame wrote the Pledge of Allegiance. In it's original words the Pledge did not contain any reference to God or religion. The pledge was widely accepted and at the time of World War II, many states had made the pledge mandatory in schools. This brought about the first controversy which caused the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the Pledge. Believe it or not, the first ruling was about religious freedom, but in direct opposite of todays debate. The argument was that the pledge could not be made mandatory because it caused an oath of allegiance to something other than God.

How curious that times have changed so much that our argument now is that the Pledge provides an oath to God, when it should not. So, how did this happen? That courts ruling was that states goal to instill national unity and patriotism was constitutional and that it could continue doing so as long as it did not significantly affect religious rights. In simpler terms, this controversy stemmed from the feelings by religious citizens that the Pledge was an oath that conflicted their oath to God as being the supreme law.

3 years later the issue came before the court once again, which resulted in the decision that states could continue to make the Pledge mandatory, yet they could not punish a student for not reciting it. The solution was acceptable, a band-aid that allowed states to keep their laws and citizens to make the decision of reciting that particular oath. Problems began in the 1950's when the Cold War, with Russia, began.

For those that truly do not understand the Cold War, it was a spitting match between two superpower nations. It was a contest of one-upmanship. This kind of human interaction can be seen all throughout history. Knights in medieval times fought each other and believed that God's will lay with the victor. Even if that winner was clearly wrong, winning a test of combat was a clear testament that God rules in his favor. The Romans and the Greeks would call upon God when they entered battle and whomever God favored would win. This same thought process was seen in the Cold War. The United States wanted to show that they were right and Russia was wrong. We were better. God lies with us. It was a testament that everything was wrong with communism. In order to publicize this philosophy, a law was enacted to insert the words 'under God' into the Pledge of Allegiance.

It was at this time that the Pledge came in direct conflict with the ruling of 1940. By inserting those words into the pledge, it affected religious rights. The pledge then became an issue for the other side of the argument, that now it was unconstitutional due to it's constriction of religious freedom and it's monotheism slant. The very foundation in which the words were added to the Pledge show that it's purpose was to display God's will to our adversaries, that we retained the favor of God.

For these reasons of historical context, the Pledge of Allegiance is surely unconstitutional. It's very nature is an oath to a symbol of our nation, and therefore is in direct conflict with religious oaths and religious freedoms. By the simple process of inserting a mere two words, the Pledge has become a dictation for those of a monotheistic bent. Not only is it unconstitutional to be mandatorily recited in public schools, but one should question if the Pledge its self belies everything that the freedoms of the constitution was founded on.

Sure, the Pledge could once again be re-written, but then how many religions and beliefs would have to be added in to ensure that each party and belief is satisfied? The words that would have better been introduced so many years ago would be 'religious beliefs not withstanding'. That would have been an oath that people of every religion could take without questioning it's conflict to their beliefs.