One Nation, Indivisible

Abstract

            Since the words “under God” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, there has been a great debate raging about whether this act by Congress was constitutional. In this article, I examine a brief history of the Pledge, how it acts as a ceremony of civil religion and how state courts and the Supreme Court have recently handled cases dealing with the contested words. From there, I offer my reasoning behind supporting the removal of the contested words.

Introduction

Throughout the course of the contemporary history of religion in the United States, one issue has caused much controversy among the religious groups of the U.S. and the secularists who support the separation of church and state. The Pledge of Allegiance has been the source of much debate since the addition of the words “under God” in 1954 by Congress and President Eisenhower. There are a few theories as to why this phrase was added to the pledge and why it still remains. The addition of the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance has also spawned a national discourse about the role of religion in the political system. This discussion is not only being carried out in the public sphere by the media but by the legal system as well. The Pledge has been the basis for a number of cases handled by the Supreme Court since its rise in popularity as an affirmation of patriotism.

In order to gain a better understanding of the way in which the contested words in the Pledge of Allegiance have survived the challenges of multiple Supreme Court cases, it is important to have a working knowledge of the history of the Pledge, the public perceptions about this oath and the way Supreme Court Justices have argued their positions on the words “under God” being in this swearing of allegiance to the United States. The changes that have been made to the Pledge of Allegiance since the time it was written and adopted by the public of the U.S., although it has been made to be more religious than simply patriotic, show that maintaining a separation between religion and state is more difficult than anticipated.

The History of the Pledge

The Pledge of Allegiance has a relatively interesting history. In his article “Adding God,” Anthony Hatcher explores the evolution of the Pledge from when it was written in 1892 to the 1954 version still in use today.  The original work was penned by Reverend Francis Bellamy in 1892 for a children’s magazine (Hatcher 171).  The original work read “I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” (Hatcher 171). This oath was meant to be a way to unify the nation. Yet, it has been a source of contention for many people.

The various changes made to the Pledge of Allegiance

The push to unify people in the United States is not without its critics. Martha Nussbaum puts forth some harsh claims against the author of the Pledge as well as the underlying motivation for writing this work in her article “Toward a Globally Sensitive Patriotism.” She argues that the author of the Pledge was “a xenophobe, who feared that our national values were being undermined by the flood of new immigrants from southern Europe,” (Nussbaum 79). Because of this, the Pledge of Allegiance became both inclusionary and exclusionary. The divisionary quality of this work does not end with the motives for its creation; instead, it continues to be a way to highlight differences among people.

Nussbaum shines a light on the negative way Jehovah’s Witnesses were treated for not reciting this oath for religious reasons (79). After the Supreme Court case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943, it was declared that people had the right to refuse to recite the pledge—a victory for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, overturning the Minersville v. Gobits case from 1940 (PEW 2). This case shows a level of respect in regards to religious beliefs. However, after the words “under God” were added, the situation became even more complicated. After the addition of these words by Congress and President Eisenhower, one can see the dividing quality of the Pledge in a surprising way.

There was a political motivation behind the addition of the contested words. As Nina Weiler-Harwell explains in her book Discrimination against Atheists, the phrase “under God” was originally added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization, in order to show the differences between the god-fearing United States and the godless Soviet Union at the beginning of the Cold War (108). Although there was obviously going to be a division between the Knights of Columbus and the nonreligious over the addition of the term, what is truly shocking is the fact that the move to add the words “under God” did not receive very much support from other religious denominations. In fact, according to Hatcher in the article mentioned above, a few religious groups in the media spoke out against the addition of the words to the Pledge (179-181). The nondenominational Christian magazine Christian Century ran a brief article about the proposal to add the words claiming that the words “under God” should not be the focus in the Pledge. A publication from the Unitarian denomination decried the move to add the phrase as an exclusionary change which violates the separation of church and state (Hatcher 181). Of course, the argument from the Unitarians is derived from the separation of church and state interpretation of the Establishment Clause. Though there are other interpretations, it is clear that this was a popular one during the time period based on the Supreme Court cases like Barnette. Aside from the fraternity the Knights of Columbus, there was not much support or attention given to the movement by other religious groups or denominations. This contrarian stance taken by other religions speaks to the exclusionary nature of the addition of the words which Nussbaum was describing in her article. Although the addition of the words was meant to unite people against the godless Soviet Union, it further divided people.

The Pledge and Civil Religion

Using the Pledge in schools serves multiple purposes. Reciting the oath instills patriotism in the future generations. However, does the Pledge of Allegiance serve another purpose? Adam Gamoran delves into this issue in his article “Civil Religion in Public Schools.” There he claims that the recitation of the Pledge is an act of civil religion. The first aspect of this religious activity is the invocation of a deity with the words “under God,” (Gamoran 238). The second aspect is a bit more complex; it deals with the ritualized way in which children are chosen to lead the recitation of the Pledge as well as the symbolic nature of actions—for example, placing one’s hand over one’s heart (Gamoran 238). The third way in which the Pledge of Allegiance acts as a civil religion is the sense of community or belonging that is provided in a group activity (Gamoran 238). This sense of civil religion, especially in the third aspect, appears to be in opposition to Nussbaum’s claim that the Pledge of Allegiance is an exclusionary work.

A table by Gamoran showing Civil Religion in Public Schools

 The notion of this oath acting as a ceremony of civil religion appears in multiple writings. Grace Kao and Jerome Copulsky explore this idea in their article “The Pledge of Allegiance and the Meanings and Limits of Civil Religion.” There, they explain that the Pledge is an act of civil religion, regardless of whether a deity is invoked (Kao and Copulsky 132-34). It acts as a ceremony of civil religion by preserving the national identity and serving to create patriotic sentiments (132-140). The authors argue that because the majority of United States citizens want to keep the words “under God” in the Pledge, the post-1954 version of the oath should be kept; however, even if the Pledge were altered by removing the contested words, the oath would still serve as an act of civil religion and, therefore, nothing much would ultimately be changed (141-42). Kao and Copulsky show that, as Nussbaum pointed out, there have always been in-groups and out-groups and that there always will be. However, it appears that from their points of view that the majority group is the one who represents the State while the other groups can be left by the wayside. Therefore, since the majority of people in the United States support having “under God” in the Pledge, they should be retained.. With this notion in mind, the authors show that civil religion is important and that whether the contested words are included, the religious aspect of the Pledge of Allegiance would still exist. Although the “majority rules” mentality tends to dominate, the minority position is still made known through activism both in cases heard by the Supreme Court and local courts.

 Courts and the Pledge

            The Supreme Court has had a long history with the Pledge of Allegiance. From cases such as Minersville v. Gobits 1940 to the most recent major case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004). In her article "Controversy Continues over the Pledge of Allegiance,” Martha McCarthy examines the Newdow case and how the outcome of the case was a missed opportunity for the Supreme Court Justices to clarify the interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. She explains that in 2002, the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Michael Newdow (on behalf of his daughter) and supported his claim that the words “under God” violate the Establishment Clause because of the way in which the public school required the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance; they determined that this showed support for monotheism (McCarthy 94). However, an appeal was made and the case went to the Supreme Court. There, it was ruled that Newdow did not have the right to make the case on the behalf of his daughter because he did not have custody of her. The Supreme Court overruled the Ninth Circuit’s ruling because of this issue without addressing the constitutionality of the contested words. McCarthy argues that this was an opportunity that should have been used to shed some light on how to interpret the Establishment Clause (95). Though the author appears to be in favor of removing the contested words, citing the fact that they were added with a religious motivation, she is doubtful that the current version of the Pledge will be changed any time soon (95-96). Although it appears that the post-1954 version of the Pledge of Allegiance will be upheld by the Supreme Court, groups which hold the a minority position on the issue are unwilling to let the issue go without exhausting all existing options.

A Gallup Poll showing the level of support for maintaining the contested words

            In a recent trend, it appears that groups who support the removal of the contested words are shifting toward bringing more cases to state courts. As Harry Bruinius points out in his article “Atheists’ New Plan of Attack against Pledge of Allegiance: State Courts,” certain groups are demanding equality from the states in which they live, namely Massachusetts and New Jersey. The author argues that this is a way of ensuring that their claims stand a better chance of being heard in more liberal states. The Massachusetts case in 2014 was examined more deeply by Kimberly Wilson in her article “In Massachusetts, Atheists Lose ‘under God’ Fight.” There, she, like Bruinius, notes that pursuing legal action at the state level appears as the emerging trend among secular groups (Winston 16). She explains that this case was brought to the state court because of the teacher-led recitation of the Pledge in public schools. The court determined that this action does not violate the Establishment Clause because participation in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is entirely voluntary. However, this legal action shows that the issue of the Pledge and religion is still alive today.

Conclusion

            The Pledge of Allegiance has had a long history of being contested in the United States, especially since the words “under God” were added by Congress in 1954. These words have been a source of great debate. In her article "The Pledge of Allegiance," Linda McKenzie argues that the words violate two of the three Establishment Clause tests created by the Supreme Court in order to determine the constitutionality of certain actions: the Lemon test and the endorsement test (McKenzie 414). Because of the religious motivation behind adding the words “under God” to the Pledge and the endorsement of religion over non-religion, the author shows that the words serve truly no legitimate secular purpose and, therefore, should be removed (414). I am in agreement with McKenzie and McCarthy. Although the majority of U.S. citizens support keeping the post-1954 version of the Pledge, I cannot see the merit in keeping the words in this oath. It is clear that the contested words were added in order to highlight the difference between the Soviet Union and the United States by showing that the U.S. believes in a deity. I can see why having the words may be important to some. However, I do not think that this move by the federal government can be supported today. Leading up to 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was altered several times. Although the Pledge may, as Gao, Copulsky and Gamoran suggest, be considered a ceremony of civil religion whether the words are recited, I find that returning to the pre-1954 version of the Pledge of Allegiance would unify more people than the current version of this oath does.