The use of the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance

“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.”

The argument regarding the use of the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance is not a new one. In fact, this argument stems from the long standing principle of separation between the church and the state which is embodied in the First Amendment of the United States constitution. Under this principle, the government and the church are to be kept separate from each other. The government is prohibited from encouraging or advancing any of the interests of a single religion. This means that the government cannot promote a single religion or impose upon its people which religion to follow. It is a blanket prohibition that prevents the government from intervening in the religious beliefs of people.

The second aspect of this principle recognizes that the government will invariably have to deal with religious institutions one way or the other. The doctrine on the separation of church and state therefore also regulates the dealings between the church and state such that there should only be a minimal and incidental interference from the government. This is also known as the rule on excessive entanglement between the church and the state.



The problem with the use of the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance is considered as a violation of the doctrine on the separation of the church and state because many religious groups claim that the use of the term God favors the Christian religion which prominently uses the term God for the Supreme Being. Other groups on the other hand argue that the word God as used in the Pledge of Allegiance is not an advancement of the Christian religion but rather an acknowledgment of some higher being that is common to all religions.

This short discourse will seek to shed more light on the issue of the use of the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance. The first part will cover the historical background of the insertion of the word God in an attempt to understand the original meaning of the word God as used in the Pledge of Allegiance. The next segments will cover the points of view from the perspective of the state as contrasted to the perspective of the church on the issue.

The Secularist Perspective:

The secularist perspective is that the state should be kept distant from religion and that, in the same vein, the religious institutions should also be free from any governmental interferences. This follows the second aspect of the Doctrine of the Separation of Church and State that dictates that there should be no entanglement between the Church and the State.

In this perspective, the government is prohibited from citing the authority or influence of a specific religious institution for the justification of its authority. While there are some governments that claim religious justifications for their powers such as the Muslim states, the justification for such is based on the emphasis of the relationship for ceremonial and rhetorical purposes only.

The acts done by the government are not meant to further the cause of any single religion but are actually for the general welfare and the benefit of the state. The state therefore does not conform to any particular religious doctrine but in fact caters to its own doctrine as mandated by the will of the people and of the Constitution. Acts such as exemptions from taxation or providing funds for education and charities, though viewed as supporting religion, are in fact welfare based or “faith based” according to secularists. This reflects the view that temporal authority and spiritual authority should properly operate in complimentary spheres. The spheres where they overlap such as in moral values or property rights are areas where neither should take authority over the other but should instead offer a framework in which society can work these issues out without subjugating a religion to the state or vice versa.

The Religious Perspective:

From a religious perspective, there is no problem since the church has always maintained the there should be no influence from the government. The churches are answerable only to the will of the Supreme Being or deity that they worship and will never fall under the influence of man or his institutions. The problem however is that the church often under estimates its influence on the government and on the general public. While it may insist that it does strictly maintain the barrier between church and state, such is not always the case in reality as the church has, from time to time, been known to take sides on political issues that in one way or another tend to influence the conduct of politics be it on a local level or a national level. The problem from the standpoint of the church therefore lies in being able to delineate between what can be considered as acceptable interference or entanglement.

A case of entanglement between church and state that would be considered extreme by the standards set by the American doctrines would be the case of Turkey where the Preamble of the Constitution states that “There shall be no interference whatsoever of the sacred religious feelings in State affairs and politics”. The problem is that while it does state such the State pays imams' wages, and provides religious education in public schools. This is a situation quite similar to the theocracy, as mentioned in the previous section, wherein the courts or officials of the religion direct policies of the civil government.

Problem with the Use of the word God:

The problem is that while the church and state do maintain that there is indeed a necessity to abide by the doctrine of the separation of church and state there is no clear way of delineating the boundaries between the spheres of these two institutions. There are still certain acts that require entanglement between the church and the state because of the duty of the government to cater to the welfare of its people who invariably belong to some form of religion, in most cases. One of these instances is in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public school classrooms which has been argued as a violation of the establishment clause of the United States Constitution.

The problem with the insertion of the phrase “under God” is that it is supposed to present a conflict with the constitutional prohibition on the establishment clause. It is claimed by several detractors that by using the phrase “under God” and making it mandatory for the pledge to be recited in public school classrooms, the United States is signifying its preference for the Christian religion which is the only religion that uses the word God prominently. The historical antecedents for the insertion of such as phrase, which was inspired by the sermon given by the Rev. George M. Docherty, have also given the opposition more reason to believe that the phrase was indeed a violation of the establishment clause.



There have been recent court rulings such as the 2006 case Frazier v. Alexandre, No. 05-81142 (S.D. Fla. May 31, 2006) where it was ruled that " a 1942 state law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, even though the law allows students to opt out, because they can only do so with written parental permission and are still required to stand during the recitation. Cameron Frazier, a student at Boynton Beach High School, was removed from algebra class after he refused to follow his teacher's instructions to recite the Pledge or stand during recitation."



The essence of this issue is whether or not the insertion of the phrase “under God” constitutes a violation of the establishment clause. The problem is that the clause “under God” and its historical antecedent have a tendency to show that it may actually have been inspired by some religious denomination thus leading to all this controversy. It must be remembered however that the use of the word God is not limited to pledge of allegiance but is also prominently displayed on the one dollar bill and has been there for a very long time already.



It cannot therefore be argued that the recitation of the pledge of allegiance is a clear violation of the establishment clause when even the humble dollar bill has the sign “in God we trust” written on it. To sustain the argument that the phrase “under God” is a violation of the establishment clause must certainly then imply that the dollar bill be struck down as a violation of the establishment clause. Yet time and again the almighty dollar has prevailed.




The reason for this is because such a declaration is not an endorsement of a single religion, which is exactly what the establishment clause prohibits, but rather it is a declaration by the American people of their belief in a superior being. The God that is mentioned is not a God of a single religion but more of a symbolic God; a higher power who has kept America strong and given the forefathers the strength to move on and build the foundations for a great country.



The pledge of allegiance is exactly just that, a pledge of allegiance to the American flag and all that it stands for. A single word or phrase isolated and taken out of context does much to remove the original intent from it. As one of the America’s most honored secular symbols, the pledge of allegiance is viewed by many in the same light as the National Anthem. This historical and cultural significance is what makes America the great nation that it is. The continued declaration of this pledge has done little to prevent the influx of immigrants into America. In fact, the immigrants themselves, regardless of creed, race or religion, proudly remember the day when they are able to proudly recite that pledge because it is a symbol of everything that America stands for. It is not a prayer to God but rather it is an oath to America and to the forefathers.



The use of the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance does not further the cause of any single religion. Instead, it serves to show the rest of the world the pride that Americans have for their great nation. It shows unity. It shows strength. It shows the American way.



References:
Busher, Leonard (1614). Religious Peace: or, a Plea for Liberty of Conscience.
Clark, James R. (1965). Messages of the First Presidency. Brigham Young University, Department of Educational Leadership & Foundations. Retrieved on 2007-1-30.
Fighting the Establishment (Clause). Bradley, Jennifer, The American Prospect, September 1, 1996. Available at: http://www.prospect.org/print/V7/28/bradley-j.html
Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law. The American Civil Liberties Union, 1996. Available at: http://aclu.org/issues/religion/relig7.html
West Encyclopedia of American Law. West Group, 1998.
Whitsitt, Dr. William (1896). A Question in Baptist History: Whether the Anabaptists in England Practiced Immersion Before the Year 1641?. C. T. Dearing, pp. 69-70.