An Open and Shut Case
  by Dr. David Eller

There could not be a clearer or more certain decision: including a reference to God in our national Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional merging of religion and government. "God" is a religious concept, and the Pledge is a governmental instrument. Some might argue, and have argued, that the Pledge is not compulsory, therefore there is no constitutional violation.

That is beside the point. The Pledge is official, whether or not it is compulsory, and therefore it is an official endorsement of a religious concept. Whether or not people agree to say it, the current Pledge asks citizens to "pledge allegiance to one nation under God."

As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided, the government never had any business adding these words to the Pledge in 1954. It was, even then, an explicit attempt to inject religion into schools and civic life. The legislative record of the Act that added "under God" states unequivocally that the intention was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator [while at] the same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts" associated with communism during that scary time. Furthermore, when Eisenhower authorized the change, he stated: "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."

It should have been an open and shut case, the first intelligent and fair review of this policy in almost 50 years. Instead, the President calls it "ridiculous," and the Senate Majority Leader calls it "just nuts." Do they justify their opinions on legal and rational grounds? No, like most enemies of the decision, they merely proclaim their personal feelings and faith.

The decision is highly unpopular in America, that is for sure. Theists like their religion, and they like to make everyone pray and pledge to it. But what of those people who do not share their beliefs? And not just atheists, but Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and the many others who do not hold Judeo-Christian monotheistic beliefs? The point of the First Amendment is to protect the rights of the minority from the smug and self-righteous attitudes of the majority. It ensures civic neutrality even in the midst of popular religiosity.

There have been a few attempts to justify "under God" on legal grounds, including that it is merely historical or that it is a form of "ceremonial deism." If only it were true that it was merely historical! But it is an unapologetic effort to influence the beliefs of the next generation (as Eisenhower made clear), and while it may be ceremonial, it is certainly not deism. Few Christians probably do know what deism is (the belief in a mechanistic creator-god who takes no part in the workings of his universe), and fewer still would accept that as a characterization of their beliefs. But either way, deism or theism, it is religion, and it has no place in official documents.

The Court got it right, but it is a criminal shame that public opinion and religious fervor will trump legal and moral right. That is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to prevent.

Send us an Email

Or write to us at:
Freethinkers of Colorado Springs
P.O. Box 62946
Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2946
Phone: 719-594-4506