“…One Nation, Under God…”
When the text “under God” was inserted into the American Pledge of Allegiance, it introduced text that no good person could support. A person who stands and recites the Pledge of Allegiance, now, offers his pledge to a concept that is, itself, immoral. So I question whether, until the words are removed, whether even reciting the pledge can be considered a moral act.
The Pledge’s Message
What does the Pledge say that makes it immoral?
Let us look at the text, from back to front, to see the problem.
A person who recites the Pledge of Allegiance pledges himself or herself to a nation “with justice for all”. This means that the individual takes a pledge to allow no person to suffer injustice. It says that any person who would promote injustice is an enemy of the state, a person the speaker promises to thwart if possible, so that this nation can get increasingly closer to the ideal of a state in which there is justice for all.
A person who recites the Pledge of Allegiance pledges himself or herself to a nation “with liberty . . . for all”. This is to be a nation of free people. This means that the Pledge is an oath to regard those who would destroy liberty as enemies of the state. Tyrants are to be opposed, say those who take this oath. They cannot pledge any loyalty to those who would be tyrants because their oath has already been given to liberty for all.
A person who recites the Pledge of Allegiance pledges himself or herself to a nation, indivisible. This means that he or she will not support division or secession. If anybody should come to the person who utters the pledge with a plan to divide the union, that person is to be viewed as an enemy of the state and opposed. Just as the 13 original colonies could never have acquired their independence from England as separate nations, we weaken ourselves if we allow our differences to divide us. Therefore, those who would divide us are those who would weaken us.
Following this pattern, a person who recites the Pledge of Allegiance, in the form it has had since 1952, pledges to make or keep this nation a nation under God. That person is pledging to regard any person who does not worship the same God he or she believes in as an enemy of the state, no different than the secessionist, the tyrant and those who defend tyranny, or the perpetrators of injustice.
The person who takes this pledge states, “I hereby promise to treat those neighbors who do not believe as I do as enemies of the state. I am not to consider anything that they have said or done. I care nothing about whether they are kind or helpful. I care only that their beliefs in a God are not the same as mine. If they are not, then I will regard their interests as I would regard those of the secessionist, as those who would defend tyranny, and the perpetrators of injustice. ”
There is no interpretation possible other than the message that those who would defend tyranny and injustice are evil. For the most part, these are people who are to be rounded up and kept securely behind bars -- at best -- if the rest of society is to enjoy any type of security. Even dogs are useful, though they are to be kept on a leash. The defender of tyranny and injustice are to be regarded more like cockroaches than dogs.
Add “under God” to the Pledge, and the Pledge now says of those who do not share these religious beliefs are to be regarded just as tyrants and perpetrators of injustice are to be regarded.
This was not an accident. The words “under God” were added to the Pledge in 1954 as a part of the Red Scare. Certain political leaders wanted children across the country to take an oath against Communism. Communism was an atheist doctrine. Therefore, an oath that classified atheists as enemies of the republic, these legislatures created an oath against communism as well. “Atheists are evil, treaturous, un-American, tyrannical and injust monsters” is the very message that those who passed this law wanted to communicate.
Morality and Respect for Others
No moral person, in fact, would utter such a statement against his or her neighbor. A moral person says to his neighbor -- particularly in a nation with liberty and justice for all, “Hello, neighbor. I am not going to judge you by your beliefs. They may not be the same as mine. However, let us agree to live in peace. I will respect your beliefs and ask that you respect mine. Treat us with kindness and respect, and we will be proud to call you neighbor and, perhaps, friend, and we promise to do the same to you.”
The Pledge of Allegiance does not say that, and has not since 1954. On that date, immoral people approved a pledge that says, “Neighbor, I warn you that if you do not share my religious beliefs that I regard you as my country’s enemy, and my personal enemy. You are as the tyrant and the criminal in my eyes and I will look on all you say or do accordingly. By virtue of your beliefs, I regard you already as somebody who is a threat to me, my children, and my family. I pledge to oppose all that you are and all that you do -- regardless of how you may behave, in virtue of your religious beliefs alone.”
From this it follows that no moral person can say the Pledge in its current form. No decent person can even give it lip service. The person stand and pretend to say the Pledge gives those who are with him every reason to think that he supports the Pledge and the sentiments contained within. He is like the person who makes a promise with his fingers crossed, claiming that this means that the promise does not count, or even pretend to give homage to the immoral message contained within.
Except under duress.
One Nation, Under Duress
The ritual of saying the Pledge has also incorporated within it a second wickedness designed to put those who do not say it under duress. It equates pledging allegiance to God to pledging allegiance to the United States. In addition to saying that those who do not under God are as the defenders of tyranny and injustice, they are not loyal to the United States.
They are not patriots.
“They care nothing about this country or the principles for which it stands, such as liberty and justice for all. Here they sit, showing us by their silence that this country is not important enough to them that they would not swear loyalty to it.”
Whether the courts acknowledge it or not, there is a message that those who do not stand and recite the Pledge are to be looked down on. They are not as good “as they rest of us”. They are contemptuous and, perhaps, dangerous. People are coerced into saying the Pledge because it is the only way of avoiding being branded something very near to traitor by their fellow countrymen.
These two facts also represent situations that the moral person could not endorse. No decent person can support a ritual that equates requires a person to pledge allegiance to a particular God before he can be considered patriotic. No decent person can support a ritual of coercing individuals into pledging allegiance to a particular God.
As soon as the words “under God” were written into the pledge, they made it something that no decent person could support.
Falsehoods in Defense of Injustice
Before I close this, I wish to speak of one additional evil that I expect some opponents would attach to the first three already mentioned. This is the evil of claiming that I have written an essay saying that no decent person would be under God. This is a type of deceit too often found in the writings of those who do not recognize the evil of forcing their religion on others.
In this essay, I have said nothing against following a particular God. This essay is against coercing one’s neighbor into following that same God. It is one thing to walk into a particular church and pray -- and nothing can be said or written against doing this. It is another thing to grab pedestrians on the street and force them into that same church against their will.
Adding the words “under God” into the Pledge falls into the second category. It is an attempt on the part of some to force citizens who do not share their religion to attend their church and to pledge allegiance to their God or to suffer consequences for not doing so. These are the consequences of being made a conspicuous part of the community while the government itself tells its citizens “Those of you who do not pledge allegiance to this God are like the defenders of tyranny and injustice. You are not welcome here.”
To make the message even more complete, yet another element is added to the ritual. “Those who do not wish to say the Pledge can remain seated. This further reinforces the message that the Pledge now contains. Those of you who will not pledge allegiance to our God are not welcome here. We who are willing to pledge are the included group. Those of you who do not are outsiders. You are not welcome. Your status as outsiders is symbolized by your exclusion from our nation’s rituals and practices.”
Visiting this part of the ritual, we can see how much sense it makes to say that there is nothing wrong with adding “under God” to the Pledge, because those who do not wish to say it do not have to. Let us imagine, instead, that the Pledge was written to say “under White Rule” -- based on the fact that all of the founding fathers were white and many of them had written that blacks were not qualified to hold political office.
Here, we can see the absurdity of saying that this is not discriminatory against blacks, because blacks can simply sit out the pledge and not say it. The message, “Niggers don’t belong here” does not become racially neutral simply by adding, “Oh, and niggers don’t have to say it if they don’t want to.”
It is, indeed, quite surprising that the human mind can perform such gymnastics to make the injustices a person seeks appear noble. When Michael Newdow challenged the Pledge law that coerced his daughter into making these statements against atheists, some criticized him on the grounds that his daughter wanted to say the pledge. They spoke as if this spoke against the legitimacy of Mr. Newdow’s complaint.
However, if we were to assume that Mr. Newdow was a Jew, and a school was coercing children into participating in an anti-Jewish proclamation, the fact that Mr. Newdow’s daughter was a willing and even eager participant on those rituals would speak in favor of, not against, the legitimacy of Mr. Newdow’s complaint.
It takes a particularly narrow mind to argue that successfully causing a child to renounce her father’s beliefs and repeat daily the slogan that her father is like those who defend tyranny and injustice, so that the child eagerly and happily repeats this phrase each day, proves that it is legitimate to coerce children into adopting such a position.
Summary
All of these elements contained within the message of the Pledge ritual since the words ‘under God’ were added.
Those who not pledge allegiance to our God are the same as the defenders of tyranny and injustice.
Those who do not pledge allegiance to our God are not patriots — they have no loyalty to this country.
Those who do not pledge allegiance to our God do not belong here, and are symbolically excluded from the body politic by being excluded from its social rituals.
Backed by the deception that the person who condemns this message is condemning belief in God, when what I am condemning in fact is the practice of coercing other citizens to pledge allegiance to the speaker’s God.
And backed by the falsehood that this is not a bigot’s message because those condemned by it are not being forced to say it.
And backed by the falsehood that there is no coercion involved in spite of countless stories of people who feel compelled to stand and give lip service to a Pledge they do not wish to take, to avoid the contempt that their fellow citizens would cast on them, and the private revenge that a person may be forced to suffer by their co-workers, employers, customers, and neighbors.
All of these elements make the current Pledge with the words “under God” a pledge that no morally decent person can support.