"One nation, under God"–whether we like it or not

"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

No, that’s not the latest attempt by the liberal secular elite to drag God out of the public square–it’s actually the Pledge of Allegiance as it was originally penned. In 1892, Francis Bellamy wrote it for a children’s magazine in celebration of the first Columbus Day–and he didn’t mention God, or even country.

A century later, the mere suggestion of removing “under God” from the Pledge is politically and culturally explosive. In 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals caused an uproar when it ruled in favor of Michael Newdow, a California atheist who charged reciting the Pledge with “under God” in his daughter’s public school was an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. President Bush and a nearly unanimous Congress formally denounced the decision, calling it a ridiculous attempt to “strip our nation of our proud heritage,” in the words of Rep. Tom Delay, R-Texas.

On appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed the case on procedural grounds, stating Newdow did not have legal custody of his daughter and therefore lacked standing to sue on her behalf.

Now, Newdow is back, and his argument against “under God”–this time on behalf of three other California parents and their children–has persuaded another federal district judge, ruling in Sacramento, to follow the Ninth Circuit’s precedent. Newdow and many others hope the case will reach the Supreme Court and, with technical snags mended, at last force the high court to address, if not settle, the constitutional matter.

Questions over the Pledge’s constitutionality center on whether it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which states the government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

In a 1992 Supreme Court decision declaring prayer at a high school graduation ceremony unconstitutional, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority that the Establishment Clause “guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.”

Later cases involving religious invocations in public schools have used this standard of coercion in determining Establishment Clause violations. In 2000, for instance, the Court ruled prayer at high school sporting events coercive because it forced non-Christians to either proclaim religious beliefs they did not hold, or perform an act of public protest.

Supreme Court rulings going back more than 40 years on prayer in public schools overwhelmingly find it unconstitutional–even when the prayer is optional, implied, student-led or held outside the classroom on school grounds or during school-sponsored events.

The squabbling, then, comes down to whether the Pledge’s invocation of God constitutes “prayer.”

One of the “under God” supporters’ favorite arguments is that the phrase is a symbolic acknowledgment of the nation’s so-called “Christian heritage”–basically, that it serves as an expression of patriotism and national unity, not religion.

Setting aside the fact that the Framers never mentioned God in the Constitution (they even shot down Ben Franklin’s suggestion of opening each day of the Constitutional Convention with a prayer), to evaluate whether the Pledge is indeed a state establishment of religion, it is illuminating to look at the genesis of “under God.”

By the 1920s, the Pledge had become a schoolroom staple nationwide. In 1923, “the flag of the United States of America” replaced “my flag” out of concern over immigrants using it as a loophole to remain loyal to their home countries.

“Under God” came into the Pledge during the 1950s. The Cold War communist Red Scare had kicked patriotism into overdrive in Washington, and nationalism increasingly fused with religion. Following a lobbying campaign by the Catholic Knights of Columbus organization in 1953, Rep. Louis Rabaut, a Michigan Democrat, introduced a bill to Congress proposing to add “under God” to the Pledge.

The movement took off in 1954 when a Presbyterian pastor at the church President Eisenhower attended delivered a sermon that argued naming the United States in the Pledge wasn’t enough to distinguish Americans from the godless communists over in the Soviet Union. “In fact, I could hear little Moscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag with equal solemnity,” Rev. George Docherty reportedly said, before urging the addition of “under God” to rectify matters.

Ike liked what he heard, and enunciated his support for the “under God” bill. The bill’s legislative history reveals it aimed to “acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government” upon a Creator, and “deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism.”

The bill passed overwhelmingly, and Eisenhower signed it into law on June 14, 1954 (appropriately enough, Flag Day). “From this day forward,” he declared, “the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.”

How’s that for a government endorsement of religion? Congress even took up constitutional amendments several times throughout the decade to affirm that America obeyed “the authority and law of Jesus Christ,” but obviously none got off the floor.

In 1955, Congress ordered “In God We Trust” printed on the backs of all paper currency. In 1956, “In God We Trust” replaced “E Pluribus Unum”–“out of many, one”–as the national motto, throwing a decidedly large wrench into the argument that lawmakers of the time had purely nationalistic motives for inserting references to God into public life.

Whether any of this will matter if and when the modern Supreme Court takes up the constitutional question of whether “under God” signifies patriotism or prayer, however, remains doubtful.

Given “under God’s” history, Newdow’s argument seems reasonable enough. “All [the Supreme Court] has to do is put the pledge as it was before, and say that we are one nation, indivisible, instead of dividing us on religious basis,” he told the Associated Press.

But with contemporary opinions augmented by 50 years of tradition, a resurgence of overt patriotism post-Sept. 11, 2001, another protracted “crusade” against ideological “evildoers” and a much-touted religious revival in political and social life, “under God” seems unlikely to be cast out any time soon.

Though the changing composition of the Supreme Court makes for some measure of uncertainty, public opinion solidly favors the status quo. Polls conducted from the 2002 Ninth Circuit decision to the present have consistently found nearly 90 percent of Americans favor keeping “under God” in the Pledge. Any ruling to remove it, however well reasoned legally, would surely be met with cries of judicial tyranny.

Should “under God” be struck down by the high court, legislators with more than a passing interest in re-election would likely revert to their 2002 pattern of adopting resolutions denouncing the ruling and calling for constitutional amendments to effectively overrule it. Debate on such measures would not be worth the moniker, as candidates have been “swift-boated” for far less than supporting something so unpatriotic as defacing the Pledge.

Though the arguments for its exorcism are persuasive, sharp political thorns will likely discourage leaders in any branch of government from attempting to drive “under God” from the Pledge. For be it religious or patriotic rite, at this point “under God” is undeniably more than a couple of words.