Michael Newdow has returned to court, demanding that
“under God” be expunged from the text of the Pledge of Allegiance. He has once
again won the initial round, and it seems certain the case will again make its
way to the Supreme Court. And this time the Court will not be able to slither
out of it. Or at least they won’t have the same trap door through which they
slunk last time. If they want to sidestep the issue this time, they will have
to find some new expedient. Personally, I am pretty darn sure the justices
will rule against Newdow on some pretext or another. Perhaps they will appeal
to that earlier ruling that prayers opening sessions of Congress are okay
because they represent mere “ceremonial deism,” not any living faith. Now
there’s a proud thing: insincere religious formalism. Institutionalized “vain
repetition.” How robust! What courage!
If, by some miracle, the Court rules for Newdow (sorry for the “miracle”
reference, Mike!), there will be hell to pay. In the ensuing hysteria,
patriotism will again become confused with religious zeal. And it is the
prospect of such furor, such divisiveness and outrage, that will make the
Court want to rule in favor of the conservative majority. On many issues, I
happen to belong to the conservative majority. I only believe what I see on
FOX News. I’m not kidding. But on this one, I have to side with my atheist
buddies. I think Newdow is right, and “under God” ought to drift softly to the
cutting room floor. Why?
If the operative word is “divisiveness,” it would be well to remember that the
text of the Pledge (written by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister!)
originally lacked it, and that the phrase was interpolated in 1954, precisely
in order to stick it to atheists! The advocates of the filioque in question
wanted to paint American atheists with the tarry brush of “godless Communism.”
So Newdow’s foes have it exactly backwards when they allege that he is trying
to secularize an originally sacred oath. It is time to reinstate atheists as
good Americans.
You might object that it doesn’t much matter what the text of the Pledge once
meant. It doesn’t matter what the intention of the “under God” interpolator
was. As a good postmodernist, shouldn’t I admit the text means what it means
to readers today? The “under God” phrase is a beloved part of the Pledge for a
whole generation, and to them the proposed omission of it signals an attack on
the American religious identity.
To tell you the truth, I almost sympathize with that approach. I do not think
my atheist allies have any business trying to eradicate all public tokens of
Christian faith. Nor would they have the right to show up in Italy, with its
secular government, and demand the elimination of all vestiges of Popery. Try
showing up in Thailand and organizing a campaign to eradicate public Buddhism.
Get real: it’s part of the culture. And so are Christmas trees and manger
scenes here in the USA. Even if Christianity died out completely, Americans
would still celebrate Christmas and display the accoutrements, just as we have
garden statues of Hercules and pictures of Hermes delivering flowers.
But textual criticism of the Pledge is not such a case. In this one, we are
dealing with the same principle as posting the Ten Commandments in public
school classrooms. What was wrong with that? Simply that it would amount to
the government commanding kids to worship the Hebrew God. Tough luck, Johnny
Muslim, Amy Buddhist, Betty Atheist, Andy Hindu! This is not some kind of
far-fetched technicality! What do you think it means when it says: “I am the
LORD [i.e., Jehovah, Yahve] your God. You shall have no other gods but me.” I
wonder if advocates of posting the Decalogue have ever taken the time to read
the commandments they so piously espouse!
This is not like singing Christmas carols and Hanukah songs in public schools,
where admittedly Hindu or atheist or Jehovah’s Witness kids might feel like
wallflowers, but it does them no harm. I hated every minute of those
Nuremburg-style pep rallies in high school, but I didn’t expect to be excused
from going. The difference is that, if you post the Ten Commandments, the non-Yahvists
in the classroom are being commanded by the US government to worship another
deity and not theirs. That’s an “establishment of religion” if there ever was
one. I realize the government flunkies who want to post the Commandments do
not intend this; they’re just too thick-headed to see what they’re doing. But
that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to be.
And it’s the same damn thing with the Pledge of Allegiance. If I have to take
this oath in its present form, I am being told that in order to be a patriotic
American I must also be a pious Christian, Jew, or Muslim. Look, Buddhists
don’t worship “God,” and it’s a pretty big stretch to say that Hindus do
either. And don’t forget atheists, who are not some marginal klatch like flat-earthers
who needn’t be taken into account. To require the Pledge of Allegiance with
“under God” attached is saying, “C’mon kids, it’s time to pledge our loyalty
to Church and State.”
Some Christian bullies like to split hairs and contend that the Constitution’s
promise not to “establish a religion” means no more than that the government
cannot give official status (financial support) to the Presbyterians but not
the Methodists. But it hardly stops there. What is the principle at stake?
Surely it is just as unconstitutional to endorse Western religions over
Eastern ones.
What will happen if the Supreme Court does eventually bite the bullet and rule
in Newdow’s favor? I believe it will spell the death of the Pledge. Continuing
to use it, only without the offending line, is going to create furor in
schools across the country. Angry parents will tell their kids to say “under
God” anyway, and teachers will have to tell them not to. It will be a shouting
match. Some schools will insist on keeping the Pledge as it is, and the
government will start firing teachers. And in order to end the strife, schools
will simply retire the Pledge. Writing a new, politically correct one would
only exacerbate the problem.
It will be a shame to lose the Pledge, because it is healthy for the Republic
to inculcate patriotism among the rising generations. But then there are other
ways to do that, including the singing of anthems and the observance of
national holidays. But I am willing to let the chips fall where they may.
Newdow is right, and the nonsectarian purity of the Pledge of Allegiance ought
to be restored, even if theists lose interest in saying it.
So says Zarathustra
Robert M. Price
October 2005
