"Under God" in Our Pledge of Allegiance

In 2002 Michael Newdow brought an issue before the court system to have the phrase "under God" in America's Pledge of Allegiance labeled unconstitutional. He claims he did this for his daughter, whom at the time he didn't even have custody of, and because he found the phrase offensive. The resulting court case ignited a fiery backlash of arguments, rulings, and overall mayhem that even now hasn't fizzled out. Just one in a series of controversies regarding the boundaries of religious freedom, the question went unanswered: when did tolerance turn into the Constitutional right not to be offended?

In 1892, Francis Bellamy had his class observe the 400th anniversary of Columbus's arrival on American soil, and wrote a short bit of prose pledging allegiance to the flag. The Youth Companion in 1892 quoted it as saying,

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

At the time, God wasn't mentioned; a socialist at heart, Bellamy was concentrating more on bringing a united feeling to a nation still recovering from the wounds of the Civil War inflicted only a few decades before. The last piece of the pledge was actually recalling the attitudes of the Founding Fathers' regarding the French slogan "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity". This feeling of unity quickly grew in popularity and the pledge soon became a standard recitation in schools and other public areas. (The pledge at one time included the "Bellamy Salute" with the arm outstretched and the palm facing upwards; this salute was dropped when Hitler's troops adopted the gesture.)

The controversy over the pledge isn't new. Even before it contained the phrase "under God" there were groups offended by it - many of them religious. Jehovah's Witnesses felt it was nothing more than blasphemous idolatry to pledge your allegiance to anything or anyone but God alone. This resulted in a 1940 court case, Minersville School District v. Gobitis, in which two Jehovah's Witness children were suspended from school (sound familiar?) for not reciting the pledge. The court at that time ruled the pledge was not unconstitutional because the nation needed unity - a unity enforced by reciting the pledge. Justice Jackson in the 1943 case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette overturned the decision, citing that the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment was more important than a nebulous definition of "national unity".

The mention of God didn't come until 1954, when President Eisenhower listened to a sermon preached by Rev. George MacPherson Docherty and influenced by the Knights of Columbus (who had already adopted the phrase "under God" when reciting the pledge.) The reverend's sermon referenced Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Adress many times, drawing parallels to then-modern times. Eisenhower, impressed with the sermon, was approached by Rev. Docherty when it was over, and the next day he began the process to include "under God" in the pledge. In a time where the nation had just finished battling Fascism and Nazi ideals, an affirmation of being one nation under God was one Americans were willing to accept.

The phrase itself is left open to interpretation, and no one is suggesting that it means everyone in America believes in the same God, or even believes in any type of god. No one has declared that acknowledging a higher power means the deity is in control of the nation as a whole. In fact, Barnette ensured that children don't even have to say the pledge if they feel it's not right. So why do people like Newdow claim the language is exclusive in nature when every student is allowed to insert whichever deity (or no deity) they feel like when reciting the pledge? Why label it "offensive in nature" and demand that everyone else's child refrain from reciting a phrase they have no problem with so as not to offend one's own delicate, sensitive nature?

This leaves other foundations of our society in jeopardy as well: what if someone finds the color blue offensive? Should schools ban all articles of blue clothing, change the colors of their blue-bound textbooks and repaint everyone's lockers a more friendly, neutral beige? The idea certainly sounds ridiculous, but if we allow people the right to not ever be offended, free speech goes out the window almost immediately. Politics and religion would be almost banned topics, since there's hardly anything within those realms that doesn't offend at least someone. How far should we allow these "crimes of mental offense" to go?

The freedom to recite or ignore the Pledge of Allegiance has already been established, as well as the right to say "under God" or whichever deity you choose (if any). If you take issue with the phrase "under God", make sure the crime you find isn't simply that it's offensive to you; once court rulings are based on such subjective issues, it's a slippery slope down to our freedom of speech being wrenched from our grasp by our own, offended hands.