Pledge of Allegiance & God (Church/State Myths)
One may wonder, is the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance genuinely divisive? The answer is clearly “Yes.” Even before the current wording, many like the Jehovah’s Witnesses experienced vicious attacks for their refusal to recite in school. With the addition “under God,” another layer of exclusion and division is added.
The first who become separated from the polity are those who don’t believe in any gods and those who, even if they are theists, do not believe that God has anything to do with nations or politics.
There is a strong tradition in the United States of seeing this country as a new Zion and as being specially blessed by God for some Greater Purpose, an attitude reinforced by the current wording of the Pledge.
More people become excluded once we consider just what is meant by “God.” Supporters of the Pledge will generally argue that this can mean anything — it doesn’t matter what sort of “Higher Power” you believe in because anyone who does is automatically included. This, however, trivializes the mention of “God” and would be unacceptable to the theists who are certain that their particular God is Protector and Benefactor of this country.
Even today, the Pledge is used as a political tool to attack those who dissent or disagree in any fashion. In a mockery of the very idea of genuine patriotism, columnist Jennifer Kabbany has written that “Americans who refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance do not deserve their U.S. citizenship.” Even objecting the words “under God” are not a good reason for dissent, according to her: “As a nation, we believe that God is on our side, no matter how many leftist professors, writers, politicians and special interest groups try to change that fact.”
Thus, people who either do not believe in God, or who at least don’t believe that God is on any one nation’s “side,” are not authentic Americans and should not have American citizenship. For people like Kabbany, participation in American politics and American society is conditional not simply upon theism, but also upon particular theological beliefs — if that isn’t exclusionary, what is? The title of her column on this issue, “America: Love It or Leave It,” was entirely appropriate as an expression of the same jingoistic attitudes which caused the phrase “under God” to be added in the first place.
This attitude of conditioning patriotism on theism is sadly common. In November of 2001, in reaction to the September 11th terrorist attacks, Wisconsin passed a law requiring all schools to offer the Pledge or anthem daily in grades one to twelve. The Madison School Board voted to use only an instrumental version of the national anthem so that no students would feel compelled by peer pressure to participate in reciting the Pledge or singing the anthem. Wisconsin Governor Scott McCallum responded to this by stating in a press release:
Once again, “belief in God” is equated with patriotism, support of the armed forces, and support of one’s country. Those who don’t believe in God, who don’t believe that God is on any one nation’s side, or who don’t believe that children should be put in a position where they might feel forced to violate their consciences are simply “oddballs” who don’t support America.
In, 2001 Virginia state Senator Warren E. Barry fought to try to have school children forced to recite the Pledge despite the Supreme Court ruling prohibiting such compulsion. When other Senators objected to his proposal, Barry informed reporters that his colleagues were “spineless pinkos.”
So, the Pledge as it currently reads is divisive and it is use in a divisive manner. Recitation of it is not, however, unconstitutional. The courts have consistently ruled that schools may sponsor songs or pledge which are patriotic in nature, even if they also happen to contain religious references. According to the courts, such acts are performances of so-called “civil religion,” ceremonial references to some generic religious attitude which, somehow, manages to be constitutional.
No school officials, however, are permitted to force any students to participate if they do not wish. That is where the constitutional line is drawn.
« Politicization of the Pledge of Allegiance | Church & State Myths »
The first who become separated from the polity are those who don’t believe in any gods and those who, even if they are theists, do not believe that God has anything to do with nations or politics.
There is a strong tradition in the United States of seeing this country as a new Zion and as being specially blessed by God for some Greater Purpose, an attitude reinforced by the current wording of the Pledge.
More people become excluded once we consider just what is meant by “God.” Supporters of the Pledge will generally argue that this can mean anything — it doesn’t matter what sort of “Higher Power” you believe in because anyone who does is automatically included. This, however, trivializes the mention of “God” and would be unacceptable to the theists who are certain that their particular God is Protector and Benefactor of this country.
Even today, the Pledge is used as a political tool to attack those who dissent or disagree in any fashion. In a mockery of the very idea of genuine patriotism, columnist Jennifer Kabbany has written that “Americans who refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance do not deserve their U.S. citizenship.” Even objecting the words “under God” are not a good reason for dissent, according to her: “As a nation, we believe that God is on our side, no matter how many leftist professors, writers, politicians and special interest groups try to change that fact.”
Thus, people who either do not believe in God, or who at least don’t believe that God is on any one nation’s “side,” are not authentic Americans and should not have American citizenship. For people like Kabbany, participation in American politics and American society is conditional not simply upon theism, but also upon particular theological beliefs — if that isn’t exclusionary, what is? The title of her column on this issue, “America: Love It or Leave It,” was entirely appropriate as an expression of the same jingoistic attitudes which caused the phrase “under God” to be added in the first place.
This attitude of conditioning patriotism on theism is sadly common. In November of 2001, in reaction to the September 11th terrorist attacks, Wisconsin passed a law requiring all schools to offer the Pledge or anthem daily in grades one to twelve. The Madison School Board voted to use only an instrumental version of the national anthem so that no students would feel compelled by peer pressure to participate in reciting the Pledge or singing the anthem. Wisconsin Governor Scott McCallum responded to this by stating in a press release:
- Most Wisconsinites are looking for ways to enhance our armed forces and support our country; some people are looking for ways to diminish our belief in God and country. It is disheartening, but in a free country you have patriots and you have the freedom for a few oddballs who place politics above patriotism.
Once again, “belief in God” is equated with patriotism, support of the armed forces, and support of one’s country. Those who don’t believe in God, who don’t believe that God is on any one nation’s side, or who don’t believe that children should be put in a position where they might feel forced to violate their consciences are simply “oddballs” who don’t support America.
In, 2001 Virginia state Senator Warren E. Barry fought to try to have school children forced to recite the Pledge despite the Supreme Court ruling prohibiting such compulsion. When other Senators objected to his proposal, Barry informed reporters that his colleagues were “spineless pinkos.”
So, the Pledge as it currently reads is divisive and it is use in a divisive manner. Recitation of it is not, however, unconstitutional. The courts have consistently ruled that schools may sponsor songs or pledge which are patriotic in nature, even if they also happen to contain religious references. According to the courts, such acts are performances of so-called “civil religion,” ceremonial references to some generic religious attitude which, somehow, manages to be constitutional.
No school officials, however, are permitted to force any students to participate if they do not wish. That is where the constitutional line is drawn.
« Politicization of the Pledge of Allegiance | Church & State Myths »
Source...