The Pledge of Allegiance

[Originally published 4/19/2004]

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

The pledge is recited regularly by schoolchildren all over the United States, and in many other contexts as well. It has become one of the most recognizable symbols of patriotism in the country. Currently, the legality of one clause in the pledge--under God--is being considered by the Supreme Court of the United States. At issue is the constitutional restriction imposed on the government that it cannot establish a national religion or restrict freedom of religion ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). The 9th circuit court has ruled that the clause is unconstitutional because it establishes religion. Many conservatives have been outraged by the decision and are fighting it in the court, in the name of defending the pledge.

Now, it should be quite obvious that mentioning God and affirming the nation's status before this entity is, in fact, a religious statement. Having students make such a religious statement is therefore tantamount to having them recognize some religious point of view. It again should be obvious that this is contrary to the 1st ammendment. In reading commentary on the case, I have learned that there is a legal principle that could be invoked to defend the clause: ceremonial deism. This is a view that argues that the phrase is merely an acknowledgement of the religious heritage of the nation; the religious element of the statement is essentially meaningless. I am a born again believer in Jesus Christ. One would expect, therefore, that I would support keeping the "under God" clause like so many of my Christian brothers and sisters. But I cannot, for multiple reasons.

First, the ceremonial deism argument basically says that the acknowledgement of God is meaningless. Well, one of the commandments is that we will not take the name of the Lord in vain. Common understanding of that commandment is that it means we are not to use God's name as swear words. But what it really means is that we are not to invoke God's name in an empty, meaningless context. Saying "God damn", unless you are entreating God to condemn or damn something, is invoking God's name in a meaningless way. To say that we are a nation under God, and have that mention of God be meaningless is a violation of the 10 commandments! But if it is not meaningless but rather a true acknowledgement of God, then it is clearly a violation of the Constitution. Either way, I cannot support the legality of this clause.

Second, as a believer I cannot reconcile pledging my allegiance to either a flag (which smacks of idolatry) or to a nation. As Christians, we are to have one and only one allegiance: to God. Jesus said you cannot serve two masters. Inevitably, the two masters compete for your loyalty, and it is always easier in the moment to serve the other master rather than God. I am not saying I am not patriotic, nor am I speaking against loyalty to my country. Not at all. But my allegiance must only be to God, never to anything else.