I Pledge Allegiance...

Regarding the emotionally charged issue of the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States flag, some study of the history of our nation and the history of the Pledge would seem to be in order.

The founders of our first colonies were often motivated by escape from religious persecution. Pennsylvania was founded by William Penn and the Quakers encouraged to leave Britain. Maryland under Lord Baltimore was a haven for British Catholics. Massachusetts was colonized by Puritans fleeing the Church of England. In turn the intolerance of the Pilgrims led to the founding of New Hampshire by John Mason, Connecticut by Thomas Hooker and Rhode Island by Roger Williams who was banished from Massachusetts for advocating the separation of church and state.

History is replete with stories of religious intolerance, but one should not indict all religion on the basis of its historic atrocities. Indeed, the private right to worship or think as one chooses is arguably inviolate. And in America we have secured the individual right to speak as freely as we wish on any topic. This is a direct result of our heritage, bequeathed to us in perpetuity by the authors of our country's charter. America was blessed to find many great philosophers and scholars engaged in the quest to establish our new nation free of the stifling restrictions of the Old World. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are documents carefully crafted by the diligent consideration of many great minds, and the concept of religious freedom, even freedom from religion is embodied in their writings. Thomas Paine's treatise, The Age of Reason, is particularly cogent and worth a study.

Today the concept of secular government as a hedge against the fighting of holy wars has been blurred by oil men and neo-conservatives using the specter of "Muslim Terrorists" to hijack the democratic process. They lied to Congress about the weapons of mass destruction supposedly hidden in Iraq to mount the United States' first open war of aggression, very nearly invoking a new Crusade. And the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about in his famous "Cross of Iron" speech subverts both patriotism and love of God into justification for global bullying, destruction and collateral killing of innocents. These actions certainly do not endear our nation to those we affect so senselessly and profoundly. And the irony is that this carnage is done in the name of God and the establishment of democracy. We would all do well to reacquaint ourselves with the true meaning of both God and democracy!

For one, democracy does not mean rule of the many vanquishes the concerns of any group or community just because they are few in number. The halls of Congress are divided into two houses: one representing the citizenry apportioned by number, the House of Representatives, and then the Senate with two Senators per state regardless of population. And the court system is dedicated to insuring a fair and equal application of the laws in consonance with the wisdom embodied in the Constitution by our founders. Thinking people around the planet take cause for rejoice from the American Revolution and the documents it produced to guide our ship of state. In our country, one can have a minority point of view and live free of  fear of reprisal from the state. The exceptions are few and quite logical: one cannot seek to overthrow the Constitution, the Government or espouse harm to our elected officials.

By the same token, a citizen is to be protected from harm by fellow citizens. We have no right to cause harm to another because we disagree with their point of view, be it political, religious, or personal. And we have no right to harm another by imposing our will on them, forcing them to activity they would otherwise choose not to perform. Various forms of slavery are reprehensible, illegal, punishable by law. The McCarthy era taught us that loyalty oaths are demeaning, destructive and illegal. Eventually we come to the conundrum that the nation that nurtures liberty, the nation that we respect and love, offers the opportunity to share our love of country in group situations through the singing of the national anthem and the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, but the latter activity has been altered to include a religious "litmus test."

There should be no problem with a public display of love for country. Every nation has an anthem, where all rise and sing. We commemorate the defense of Fort McHenry in the War of 1812 in our Star Spangled Banner. We only sing the first of four stanzas. The reference to God doesn't appear until the 4th:

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Since we never get that far, the issue of proclaiming one's belief and praise for God in a public forum doesn't come into play when singing the anthem. But the Pledge of Allegiance is a different matter. The courts consistently find the phrase "under God" as contained in the flag pledge to be in violation of the letter and spirit of the United States Constitution. If 86% of the population has no problem with the pledge, it still means we are discomforting and scrutinizing the 14% who would prefer to simply pledge allegiance without having to claim a belief in a deity. And in a democracy of well-thought laws and a structure designed to encourage reason rather than mob rule, the majority should respect the wisdom of the court and the founding fathers.

The United States is a secular nation. It may be comprised of a majority of Christians, but one's worship should be confined to one's home and Church. There is no place in a public school, shared workplace or sporting event for a forced profession of belief in an implied Christian God. You may say that the respondents can stay silent when the "under God" phrase comes up, but what of those who will glance about to check on the participation of others, and seek retribution against those who were silent? No, it's too much like a loyalty oath. Those who are old enough to remember 1954, when the Pledge of Allegiance was changed, will tell you that it became a test. If you didn't say "under God" you were suspected of atheism or Communism or both. The pledge had a very nice rhythm and included everyone before it was changed!

The principle of separation of church and state is important, but the process of standing in a public place and either falsely proclaiming a belief or being exposed to scrutiny for not professing such a belief is not a gross violation of human rights. Not performing the full Pledge of Allegiance will not result in arrest or spark an investigation. But the pledge flowed nicely in it's 1942 incarnation, and without the "under God" phrase it would become totally acceptable for 100% of the Americans who would choose to recite it. As a matter of courtesy, grace and common sense, we should restore the pledge to its pre-1954 reading. We are all free to pray for the continued success of our country in private, in our own way. Although many people are just fine with publicly vocalizing the "under God" phrase, there are millions who are not, and we need all Americans pulling together to be truly indivisible. The McCarthy era is over, loyalty oaths are not required, the Pledge of Allegiance should be secular and all-inclusive.

Speaking pragmatically, the Pledge will stay unchanged. And if you're one of the approximately one in six Americans who find the phrase "under God" problematic, you'll just have to shrug it off and go with the consensus. Meanwhile, love your neighbors, help educate them, inform them about differences in culture and belief through casual conversation. Tolerance, empathy, understanding can be taught. Can bigotry be reversed? Perhaps through the experience of personal revelation. Peace, love and morality consistently practiced, patiently taught will prepare us to receive the divine message of equality. When we all come to live in harmony with Creation, every moment we live will be an affirmation of divinity, and the verbalization of our status "under God" will be superfluous and unnecessary.

-- Don Baraka

Some history, from Wikipedia:

Reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance is accompanied by a salute. An early version of the salute, adopted in 1892, was known as the Bellamy salute. It ended with the arm outstretched and the palm upwards. Because of the similarity between the Bellamy salute and the Nazi salute, President Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted the hand-over-the-heart gesture as the salute to be rendered by civilians during the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem in the United States, instead of the Bellamy salute. This was done when Congress officially adopted the Flag Code June 22, 1942.

The Knights of Columbus in New York City felt that the pledge was incomplete without any reference to a deity. Appealing to the authority of Abraham Lincoln, the Knights felt that the words "under God" which were from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address were most appropriate to add to the Pledge. The Knights of Columbus tried repeatedly, but they were unsuccessful in their attempts to persuade the United States government to amend the pledge. Bills were introduced as early as 1953, when Representative Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan sponsored a resolution at the suggestion of a correspondent.

It was a Presbyterian minister who made the difference in 1954 by preaching a sermon about Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. The minister was George MacPherson Docherty, a native of Scotland who was called to succeed Peter Marshall as pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church near the White House, where, in 1863, the same year as the address, Lincoln attended and even rented a pew. After Lincoln’s death, the pew that he rented became something of a national monument. It became customary for later United States presidents to attend services at the church and sit in the Lincoln pew on the Sunday closest to Lincoln’s birthday (February 12) each year.

As Lincoln Sunday (February 7, 1954) approached, Rev. Docherty knew not only that President Dwight Eisenhower was to be in attendance, but that it was more than just an annual ritual for him. While raised a Jehovah's Witness, Eisenhower had been baptized a Presbyterian just a year earlier. Docherty's sermon focused on the Gettysburg Address, drawing its title from the address, "A New Birth of Freedom."

Docherty’s message began with a comparison of the United States to ancient Sparta. Docherty noted that a traveler to ancient Sparta was amazed by the fact that the Spartans’ national might was not to be found in their walls, their shields, or their weapons, but in their spirit. Likewise, said Docherty, the might of the United States should not be thought of as emanating from their newly developed atomic weapons, but in their spirit, the "American way of life".

According to Docherty, what has made the United States both unique and strong was her sense of being the nation that Lincoln described: a nation "under God." Docherty took the opportunity to tell a story of a conversation with his children about the Pledge of Allegiance. Docherty was troubled by the fact that it did not include any reference to the deity. Without such reference, Docherty insisted that the Pledge could apply to just about any nation. He felt that the pledge should reflect the American spirit and way of life as defined by Lincoln.

After the service concluded, Docherty had opportunity to converse with Eisenhower about the substance of the sermon. The President expressed his enthusiastic concurrence with Docherty’s view, and the very next day, Eisenhower had the wheels turning in Congress to incorporate Docherty’s suggestion into law.

Senator Homer Ferguson, in a report to Congress on March 10, 1954, said, "The introduction of this joint resolution was suggested to me by a sermon given recently by the Rev. George M. Docherty, of Washington, D.C., who is pastor of the church at which Lincoln worshipped." Congress concurred with the Oakman-Ferguson resolution, and Eisenhower signed the bill into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954. The fact that Eisenhower clearly had Docherty’s rationale in mind as he initiated and consummated this measure is apparent in a letter he wrote in August, 1954. Paraphrasing Docherty’s sermon, Eisenhower said:

These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.

In the 1940s Jehovah's Witnesses, whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power lesser than God objected to policies in public schools requiring students to recite the Pledge. They objected on the grounds that their rights to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment were being violated by such requirements.

Since the addition of the phrase "under God" to the Pledge in 1954 many critics contend that a government requiring or promoting this phrase violates protections against establishment of religion guaranteed in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

In a 2002 case brought by atheist Michael Newdow, whose daughter was being taught the Pledge in school, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the phrase "under God" an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism when the Pledge was promoted in public school. In 2004, the Supreme Court heard Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, an appeal of the ruling, and rejected Newdow's claim on the grounds that he was not the custodial parent, and therefore lacked standing, thus avoiding ruling on the merits of whether the phrase was constitutional in a school-sponsored recitation.

On January 3, 2005, a new suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on behalf of three unnamed families. On September 14, 2005, District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled in their favor. Citing the precedent of the 2002 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Karlton issued an Order stating that, upon proper motion, he will enjoin the school district defendants from continuing their practices of leading children in pledging allegiance to "one Nation under God"

A bill was introduced in Congress in 2005 which would have stripped the Supreme Court and most federal courts of the power to consider any legal challenges to government's requiring or promoting the Pledge of Allegiance. H.R. 2389 was passed by the House of Representatives in July 2006, but failed due to the Senate's not taking it up. Proponents of the bill argued that it is a valid exercise of Congress's power to regulate the jurisdiction of the federal courts under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. Opponents question whether Congress has the authority to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing claims based on the Bill of Rights. (Amendments postdate the original text of the Constitution and may thus implicitly limit the scope of Article III, Section 2.)

In 2006, a federal district court in Florida 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.  (Frazier v. Alexandre, No. 05-81142, S.D. Fla. May 31, 2006)