The Problem of the Pledge

In America we all know the "Pledge of Allegiance". No problem. We got that. Did you know that the pledge was actually relatively new in this country?

The pledge was written in 1892 by a socialist minister, Francis Bellamy. The original version was a pledge of allegiance "to my Flag", not including "of the United States of America", which stood for "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." In 1923 they altered "to my Flag" to read "to the Flag of the United States of America". In the 1950's we had the threat of the godless communists. President Eisenhower asked Congress to add "under God" to the pledge, and that is what we have today.

In 2002 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delcared the pledge unconstitutional. You can guess why. It's that pesky "under God" which, of course, is a reference to a religion. What religion? Well, decidedly not the atheist religion. That's about all we can be sure of. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the ruling soon after that, not because they didn't think that it violated the First Amendment, but because the guy who brought the suit in defense of his daughter didn't have custody, so he didn't have the standing to bring the suit. A technicality. So it stands as it did from 1954 on.

There are problems, then, with this pledge. Not everyone is happy with it. Some don't like pledging at all. Senator McCain is opposed to nationalism, so this should be right out, right? Others obviously don't like that "under God" clause. Some are the anti-theists who say the government is forcing God on them, but others are Christians who say that every time an unbelieving child recites the pledge, he or she is taking God's name in vain. There are some today that want it changed to include women and LGBTQ concerns while some in the pro-life camp want it to read "and justice for all, born or unborn." I'm sure there are more.

I have my own list. First, what does it mean to have allegiance to a flag? I understand allegiance to a republic for which it stands, but where does allegiance to a flag take you? Is that concept why some are so worked up over football players kneeling? Then there's the concept of "one nation". Does this include, or does it not, the native-American nations? And is this nation really indivisible? I mean, the South tried it in the 19th century, and that might have looked like the answer, but more recently both Texas and California have made noises about seceding from the union. Then there's the whole "with liberty and justice for all." Seriously. Who believes this? Is this really what we think? Our liberties are often infringed. Without much disagreement I think I can safely say, for instance, that the Patriot Act infringes our liberty. Then there is the whole question of the free exercise of religion in a country that fines people who exercise it in the "wrong situations" ... like selling flowers or making cakes and the like. "No, no, you can certainly exercise your religious convictions ... as long as they don't interfere with our religious convictions that homosexuals have rights over yours." And is there anyone at all these days that believes that you can find "justice for all" in this country? I think "sometimes" is the best honest answer you can get.

That leaves just that one real stickler -- "under God". My problem, obviously, isn't the same as the anti-theists. My problem is in trying to grasp just what it means. If I say I'm "under a tree", what does that mean? It means that above my head there is a tree. And what does that tell you? Not much, except, perhaps, the spatial location of said tree. Is that what is meant by "under God"? He's "all around us"? Kind of pointless. On the other hand, if you said, "The Soviets were 'under Stalin'", that would have had a radically different meaning. In that case it would mean "under his thumb", "under his authority", "under his rule". But that can't be what the original framers of that phrase intended. America is not a theocracy. The Establishment clause of the First Amendment guaranteed that our country would not be ruled by a religion or its God. So they couldn't have been suggesting it is "under His rule." What then? I don't think they or we have a clear idea.

Truth is, of all that is said in that pledge, the part I know best to be true is that last part. Since God is Sovereign, then we are "under God" in the very sense that we are under God's rule, under God's eye, under God's final authority. But, look, who of the "many" (Matt 7:13-14) is going to want that hanging over them? I suppose that part has to go, even though, from my perspective, very little of it should truthfully remain. It won't matter to me if they acknowledge that we are "under God" or not.