JULY 2002

This is, after all, what a sizable portion of the American population is forced to say every time they must recite the Pledge of Allegiance. "…one nation, under God,…." Which God? (Yes, I will sing this song to my grave: Which God?) I personally think we should have outgrown, long ago, the jingoistic, belligerently patriotic idea of pledging to flags. Hasn't anyone noticed that the world, the political world, not the planet, has changed size in the last century? In the last decade? If you are reading this on a screen, you know what I'm talking about. But passing over that for the moment, here is the history of our Pledge of Allegiance:

1892: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

1924: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

1954: A campaign led by the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus caused Congress to add "under God" to the Pledge. Since then: "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."

So here we are in the year 2002, and on June 26 a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the Pledge was unconstitutional because it amounted to an endorsement of religion. The screams of outrage are echoing from coast to coast, but stop and think about this for one moment. What the court said, listen carefully, was that saying the words "under God" is sanctioning religion. How can anyone say anything else but, "Duh!" Let's all open our dictionaries and look up the word "God." Really, it's worth doing. Sometimes we forget what we're all screaming about. But if anyone can find a definition of "God" or "god" that does not connote religion, then I'll go to church next Sunday. God equals religion. No amount of sophistry can change that.

Legal scholars are voicing the opinion that any future review of this case will find that justices will consider the Pledge a "tradition" that is "primarily ceremonial" and therefore not religious in nature. Think about that. With your hand on your heart you are pledging fealty, homage not just to a nation, but to some God to which that nation is subservient. How is this not about religion? It may very well be a "tradition" and it may be "primarily ceremonial" but that doesn't make it constitutional.

NBC conducted a poll asking about this issue. But listen to how they worded the yes/no options: "Yes. The phrase 'under God' should not have been added. [or] No. The phrase does not endorse a specific religion or abridge freedom of worship." The word that should be shouting at you is specific. Who said anything about having to be specific in order to be promoting religion? I continually ask for specificity (and never receive anything that makes sense) but this issue is about promoting religion—not any specific religion. The concept of God cannot be considered, even remotely, to be universally understood—not on a planet with double-digit religions, all hawking themselves as the One True Religion. However, it is universally understood that the concept of God is inseparable from the concept of religion.

(This is why I do not trust Gallup polls or any others when it involves how many people believe in "God." The polls are completely skewed. The basic question, "Do you believe in God?" is fraught with bias. First, Which God? Second, who says there's only one? Third, if you don't know if there's some sort of Power out there or not, you cannot easily answer that question with a yes or no. And worse, if you answer, "I don't know if there's a God or not " you will often be pressed then to answer the follow-up question, "But do you think there might be?" If you answer vaguely, "Well, I don't know, I suppose so." Bingo! You are a True Believer, and your score goes in the Believes in God category. All bunk.)

The dissenting appeals court justice in the Pledge case, Judge Fernandez, said the phrase "under God" had no tendency to "suppress anyone's ability to exercise the religion of his or her choice." Well, I'm honored. So my citizenship hinges on choosing a religion, correct? I am free to choose a religion, but not free to refuse to choose any religion at all. If that preposterous observation by the learned Judge does not have separation violation written all over it then I do not understand English.

PLAYING TO THE BALCONY & SLINGING THE BALONEY

Our Congress made me want to upchuck when they pulled their Rally Round the Flag stunt the day after the court decision. The Senate did everything but tap dance. Actually I wish someone had done a time step or two because it would have exposed it for the show biz stunt that it was. Photo Op this, you phonies! The country is sliding down the tubes thanks to your rich cronies, people have lost their life savings, Wall Street is now nothing more than a real life game of Monopoly where the rich are guaranteed to get richer (if it was ever anything else) and there you are, prancing around screaming God Bless America! Tell you what: tell your God to bless us with a little honesty in government and the SEC, okay? Otherwise, take your God Bless Act somewhere else.

"America is a nation that values our relationship with an Almighty," said Bush. I guess I am not part of this nation then. (Then why must I pay taxes? Hmmm?) Daschle called the ruling "just nuts." Rep. Blunt asked the ominous question, "Will our courts, in their zeal to abolish all religious faith from public arenas, outlaw 'God Bless America,' too?" Let's hope so! Are these people as stupid as they appear or is it all an act? Of course we should not be singing God bless anything in tax-supported arenas. Why is that such a complicated issue?

Okay, you disingenuous Congress, how's this for a proposition. Let's pass an amendment to the Constitution requiring all citizens to take the Pledge at all public ceremonies, with this one change: "….one nation, under the Christian God,…." Why not? The Pledge already eliminates all Hindus, Buddhists, Confucianists and atheists; why not say what you really mean? Now you can eliminate the Jews as well. What's one more group? Of course that wouldn't eliminate the problem, would it? How's this: "….one nation, under the Christian God Who doesn't recognize saints or the pope or Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy,…." A bit awkward in the wording but more accurate, isn't it?

The 9th Circuit accurately pointed out that the "under God" phrase endorses mono-theism. There can be no arguing with that. God is singular. Every member of Congress knows that and anyone who says they don't view it that way is lying.

WHAT IS WITH YOU CHRISTIANS?

Here are snippets from an AOL post: "Christians around the country are preparing for war. Our churches are stockpiling the weapons, and we are going forth with the might of the Lord. We have been preparing while the sodomites and sinners have been focusing on themselves. They have tried taking over our country, but when we strike, we will strike hard. We are the ones with the guns. We are the ones with the power and might. We are the majority! The Constitution and courts have betrayed us, but we will take over and set the Bible as the law for our Christian land. The Bible states that America must be a Christian nation once again for the Lord to come in rapture. So hide now, but we know and the Lord knows your shadows. And remember—we have the backing of a Christian president who will lead us. Your liberal ways will end. The alarm is about to ring. Come to Christ now or perish!"

This is brotherly love? What is the matter with you people? You have more freedom to worship than anyone in history has ever had, but not only do you not appreciate that fact, you want more. You have this insatiable need to shove your beliefs into public arenas. Why? What the hell do you want? Go do your worshiping, attend church daily and pray all day if you want, and leave the rest of us alone! Why are you so insecure in your faith? Is it a bit of envy perhaps? Are you angry to see atheists who live good, productive, rewarding lives, are kind to others, and laugh a lot? And all without fear of hell and God's anger? (When I was a smug Christian [redundancy I think] I had those feelings.) Whatever your feelings, please keep them in your homes and churches where they belong.

ENOUGH ALREADY!

The Pledge never had the word God in it until 1954 in the middle of the Cold War as we were trying to show what wonderful True Believers we were. Same thing with currency. The God thing on those happened in 1955 for the same reasons. If you want to talk about tradition, then let's stick with either (a) the 103-year-old tradition (1789-1892) of having no Pledge at all; or (b) the 165-year-old tradition of having and not having a Pledge, but no "God" in sight anywhere.

There are so many important things happening in this world that the whole Pledge business should have been dispensed with long ago. Pledge belongs on furniture, not in our classrooms. Our classrooms are meant to teach our children how to spell allegiance, not how to pledge it. Gods belong in churches and temples and private homes. Our secular republic was established as such and it's time to accept that and move on.

"I pledge allegiance to the Earth and any humans of good will who inhabit it; and to their betterment, for which it should stand; one planet, under a benevolent stewardship, with liberty and justice for all."

© 2002 Judith Hayes

Back to Main Page                              Back to Previous Columns