The “under God” Pledge and the Law – 2004  

Part Three 

    The Morality Monopoly
    The Religious Heritage Monopoly
    The Vatican and the Pledge
    The Central Pillar of America
    How About the Teachers?

The Morality Monopoly

Adapting tactics similar to those of Justice Rehnquist's 1985 dissent on behalf of school prayer and Christianity, the EFELDF appeal claims a common if not universal belief in the deity God among the nation’s founding personages.  It goes still further in attempting to establish an immutable link between that belief and a common view among the same notables regarding morality.  The appeal cited a passage each from the writings of Washington and Adams to support its thesis (page 3).  What is notable about the two passages, however, is that the term "God" does not appear in either one, a rather remarkable omission indeed.  Evidently, the message that the EFELDF appeal desired to convey was that removal of "under God" from the pledge would damage the morality of the Nation.  If this were a tenable notion, then we might just as well conclude that prior to 1954 the Nation was without morality.  Hogwash.  With a little thought, an equally convincing case could be made that because of the "under God" pledge the Nation is now less moral then it was prior to 1954.   

What was the prevailing disposition during the early days of the nation concerning biblicalism and morality?  As discussed earlier, some of the nation's founding notables were deists or leastwise had that theistic view claimed of them.  Deism in the classic sense does posit some kind of higher power, but belief in biblical deity does not follow from this.   The exact nature of their religious beliefs is sometimes difficult to pin down.  Washington was known to have attended Anglican Church services, but he never took communion.   In turn there are differing opinions as to whether John Adams our second President, or any of the seventeen Presidents that followed after him, were ever members of any church (Reference 32).  

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses...." (John Adams, Reference 3)

Issues of specific religious beliefs set aside, most of the Nation's founders could with some greater certainty be described as being proponents of a Natural Law point of view.    The study of Natural law does concern itself with problems of morality (Reference 52). Although it does not preclude it, a natural law orientation is not dependent on a belief in a higher power or powers, and certainly not dependent on a belief in biblical deity.  In this, a fundamental conflict does exist between the tenants of natural law and the revealed law orientation of biblicalism. With this comes the equally as certain conflict with the notion that biblical doctrine is the immutable high standard for judging moral issues (Reference 25).    

Given their natural law orientation, any claim that the Nation's founders collectively believed that a moral nature was dependent on a belief in the biblical God, is simply not tenable.  Any associated pretext that the moral history and traditions of biblicalism should somehow justify the "under God" pledge, is equally as untenable.  If anything, the reliable evidence confirms that many if not most of the Nation’s founding notables held biblicalism to be morally and civilly defective (References 3).  As a virtual certainty, the evidence of history itself was the decisive reason behind their collective decision to make separation between government and religion integral to our nation's organic law standards (Reference 8). 

Judging by the divisive impact of right wing politics today, the Framers of the Constitution did indeed get it right.  Their historically justified position was that neither biblicalism nor any other religion is fit to be sovereign.   Today, the biblical politicos rant on about godless secularism, godless capitalism, godless humanism, godless atheism, godless government, and godless whatever else they deem obstructive to their evangelical agenda.  They go on ceaselessly about moral decay in society, but that's what they have done since the earliest days of the colonies.  

Contrary to what they suggest, it is not the moral bankruptcy of non-biblical America that is somehow exclusively at fault, but rather the moral and ideological bankruptcy of biblicalism itself.  In this, biblicalism and biblical theocracy are on the wrong side of some of the profoundest problems that civilization faces in the modern age (Reference 27).  

As discussed earlier, the American Civil War was very much a cultural struggle against the moral  defects of biblicalism with its inherent sanctioning of slavery.  In turn, the painful ongoing struggle against civil inequality between  the races and between the genders finds no friend in the deity and doctrine of ancient biblical religion (Reference 28).  

The list goes on.  We have seventeen hundred years of evidence about how insufferable a tyrant biblical theocracy becomes when given the license.   Today, in spite of that history, diatribes about “godlessness” spew fourth from the biblically monopolized pulpits and podiums of Congress as if no other moral or ideological voice deserved any standing at all.  The term “godless” has become an obsessively  dangerous slogan used to perpetrate a brooding, pervasive agenda of anti-constitutionalism and bigotry toward all those of non-monotheistic, non-biblical, and of agnostic or atheistic persuasion.  The daily use of the "under God" pledge in the halls of Congress has been no deterrent against the right wing's incessant religion mongering.            

The Religious Heritage Monopoly

The “under God” pledge is the source of many ideological problems.  Take for example the lack of religious universality in what the “under God” ideology represents.  Even among supporting judicial opinions the popular argument was that “under God” is sufficiently neutral to provide a valid surrogate for all religious persuasions.  The problem is that the argument is flawed.  It assumes that all religious persuasions conform to the notion of a  singular omnipotent patriarchal deity. It is simply not so.  The pledge does no justice to those religions that posit more then one divine being.  It also assumes that all monotheistic religions consider “God” to be synonymous with the deity they exclusively worship.  If this were truly the case, then they would all be peddling the same religious liturgy, employing the same rituals, symbols, and names, and subscribing to the same doctrinal cannon and clergy, whereas they do not.  The activists who lobbied for the “under God” pledge were exclusively all from the biblical establishment.  That hardly supports the notion that the movement was intended to satisfy a multi-religion agenda.  

The usage of the modifier “under” is objectionable in of itself.  Many people of faith believe that their deity is resident within their hearts, while still others believe themselves to be part of a sacred universe rather then being under it (Reference 29).  The ideological notion of submission under a monotheistic overlord simply does not provide a universally valid surrogate for the Nation’s diversity of beliefs about religion and metaphysics.  Last but not least, the notion of a nation “under God” cannot possibly be fair to those of agnostic and atheistic persuasion.  In fact, it was explicitly intended not to be.  The whole “under God” movement was geared to suppress if not totally crush atheism because of its circumstantial association with communism.  The grassroots hype of the 1950’s McCarthy witch-hunts, was that communism is atheistic and therefore by implication all atheists are communists.  What sheep dip.  If such narrowness of insight is allowed to prevail, then we might as well condemn all people of faith as being Islamic terrorists because all Islamic terrorists are people of faith.  

Setting aside matters of specific religious persuasion, there is still the equally telling issue of why our core ceremony of allegiance is being used to extol "religious heritage" versus the Nation’s many other heritages, each being just as worthy of acknowledgment. The EFELDF appeal explains the matter thusly, “acknowledging the faith of the overwhelming majority of Americans is factual, not coercive.  Employing the fact to oppose communism falls well within the duty of our government to protect our constitutional republic” (page 13). 

Well hoard mob almighty, so much for minority rights.  Whatever the indoctrinated factualness of the notion  “overwhelming”, it still does not trump the vital matter of the non-majoritive rule of the law.  Wasn’t our system of legal checks and balances set up to protect minority rights against the tyrannies imposed by majority factions?  If such checks and balances are not enforced, then any pretext to a just rule of law is pretty much null and void.   

No doubt, the “under God” pledge was sold in the political arena as a weapon against communism.   Undoubtedly also, we are expected to believe that biblical theocracy with its bag of ecclesiastical tools was the single-handed reason why we won out over communism. To the contrary, other cultural influences were far more instrumental.  Take capitalism as a case in point.  Yes, capitalism, that godless, materialistic, atheistic, edifice of free enterprise, the very economic pillar that communism openly conspired to bring down (Reference 30).  Did we not beat communism to an economic pulp with it?  Considering this, the pledge might just as well have been written to read “under Capitalism” and effectively served the same anti-communist end. 

As another case in point, consider the institution of science.  Yes, science, that godless, sacrilegious, atheistic delver into the forbidden fruits of knowledge.  The very same institution that has contributed so much to the nation’s elevated living standards relative to most other countries. Along with its engineering counterpart, science provides an unsurpassed level of technical capability that played a hugely significant role in defending against communism. Considering this, the pledge might just as well be written to read “under Science” in acknowledgement of its vital role in our nation’s greatness. I would wager that a considerable number of people would feel more comfortable with this alternative wording versus what the  pledge currently carries.  

A little thought will identify still other national heritages worthy of acknowledgment.  Still, imagine the ideological difference that would ensue if either one of the above mentioned alternatives were to replace God in the pledge.  The theocrats would certainly be crying foul to the high cosmos if such a counter monopoly were to take the thrown.  In realizing this, however, they might finally also achieve a glimmer of insight as to the profound nationalistic fallacy that the “under God” phrase represents.  As a matter of conjecture, there just might be more people in the nation that believe in the legitimacy of science then believe in the deity God. Likewise the same may also be true of capitalism. Therefore, acknowledging the belief of the “overwhelming majority of Americans” by changing the words to “under Science” or “under Capitalism” would be just as "factual" and just as "non-coercive" although just as equally unjust.  The fallacy runs deeper still.  Using "under God" to acknowledge religion in general, is about as universal in meaning as it would be to use "under Chemistry" to acknowledge science, or "under NASDAQ" to acknowledge capitalism.    

Adapting tactics similar to those of Justice Rehnquist's 1985 dissent on behalf of school prayer and Christianity, the EFELDF appeal claimed a common if not universal belief in the deity God among the nation’s founding personages.  It goes still further in attempting to establish an immutable link between that belief and a common view among the same notables regarding morality.  The appeal cited a passage each from the writings of Washington and Adams to support its thesis (page 3).  What is notable about the two passages, however, is that the term "God" does not appear in either one of them, a rather remarkable omission indeed.  Evidently, the message that the EFELDF appeal desired to convey was that removal of "under God" from the pledge would damage the morality of the Nation.  If this were a tenable thesis, then we might just as well conclude that prior to 1954 the Nation was without morality.  Hogwash!  With a little thought, an equally as convincing case could be made that the "under God" pledge has caused the Nation to become less moral then it was prior to 1954.  

What was the prevailing disposition during the early days of the nation concerning biblicalism and morality?  As discussed earlier, some of the nation's founding notables were deists or leastwise had that view claimed of them.  Deism in the classic sense does posit some kind of higher power, but belief in biblical deity does not inherently follow from this.   The exact nature of their religious beliefs is sometimes difficult to pin down.  Washington was known to have attended Anglican Church services, but he never took communion.   In turn there are differing opinions as to whether John Adams our second President, or any of the seventeen Presidents that followed after him, were ever members of any church (Reference 32). 

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses...." (John Adams, Reference 3)

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." (Thomas Jefferson, 1787)

Issues of specific religious beliefs set aside, most of the Nation's founders could with some greater certainty be described as being proponents of a Natural Law point of view.    The study of Natural law does concern itself with problems of morality (Reference 52).  Still, although it does not preclude it, a natural law orientation is not dependent on a belief in a higher power or powers, and certainly not dependent on a belief in biblical deity.  In this, a fundamental conflict does exist between the tenants of natural law and the revealed law orientation of biblicalism. With this comes the equally as certain conflict with the notion that biblical doctrine is the immutable high standard for judging moral issues (Reference 25).   

Given their natural law orientation, any claim that the Nation's founders collectively believed that a moral nature was dependent on a belief in the biblical God, is simply not tenable.  Any associated pretext that the moral history and traditions of biblicalism should somehow justify the "under God" pledge is equally as untenable.  If anything, the reliable evidence confirms that many if not most of the Nation’s founding notables held biblicalism to be morally and civilly defective (References 3).  As a virtual certainty, the evidence of history itself was the decisive reason behind their collective decision to make separation between government and religion integral to our nation's organic law standards (Reference 8). 

Judging by the divisive impact of right wing politics today, the Framers of the Constitution did indeed get it right.  Their historically justified position was that neither biblicalism nor any other religion is fit to be sovereign.   Today, the biblical politicos rant on about godless secularism, godless capitalism, godless humanism, godless atheism, godless government, and godless whatever else they deem obstructive to their evangelical agenda.  They rant on ceaselessly about moral decay in society, but that's what they have done since the earliest days of the colonies.  Contrary to what they suggest, it is not the moral bankruptcy of non-biblical America that is somehow exclusively at fault, but rather the moral and ideological bankruptcy of biblicalism itself.  In this, biblicalism and biblical theocracy are on the wrong side of some of the profoundest problems that civilization faces in the modern age (Reference 27).  

As discussed earlier, the American Civil War was very much a cultural struggle against the moral defects of biblicalism with its inherent sanctioning of slavery.  In turn, the painful ongoing struggle against civil inequality between the races and between the genders finds no friend in the deity and doctrine of ancient biblical religion (Reference 28).  The list goes on.  We have seventeen hundred years of evidence about how insufferable a tyrant biblical theocracy becomes when given the license.   Today, in spite of that history, diatribes about “godlessness” spew fourth from the biblically monopolized pulpits and podiums of Congress as if no other moral or ideological voice deserved any standing at all.  The term “godless” has become an obsessively dangerous slogan used to perpetrate a brooding, pervasive agenda of anti-constitutionalism and bigotry toward all those of non-monotheistic, non-biblical, and of agnostic or atheistic persuasion.  The daily use of the "under God" pledge in the halls of Congress certainly has not been a deterrent against incessant religion mongering.           

The Vatican and the Pledge

In different perspective, consider some of the uglier historical events leading up to and surrounding the 1954 alteration to the pledge.  The argument used then and now, is that the “under God” pledge distinguishes America from Communism and its anti-religious ideology.  In the aftermath of the Second World War, as the “free” western world squared off in a cold war with the communist nations, the champions of biblicalism moved with focused intent to take maximum advantage of the situation.  The trouble is, they have always used every crisis, real or imagined, as one more excuse to launch a crusade to seize the authority of state.  

Sympathizers like the American Legion and Hearst Newspapers provided the final push with a high profile campaign to include "under God" in the pledge.  However, it was the Nights of Columbus, a Catholic lay organization who jumpstarted the movement.  The age-old agenda of Catholicism is no secret.  As centerpiece of the “holy roman empire”, the Vatican had centuries earlier declared itself supreme authority over all matters religious and secular.  In their infernally totalitarian scheme of things, government and civil authority exist only to be tools to enforce the will of the church (Reference 47).  

It is historically notable that the Vatican was no innocent bystander during the raise of the Third Reich and certainly could not have been displeased that Hitler eventually turned his sights on Communist Russia in the Nazi war of conquest that ensued.  Leading up to those events, agreements like the 1933 Concordat were brokered between Hitler and the Vatican.  Hitler claimed that the Third Reich would rule Europe for a thousand years.  With their status and authority on the wane in the old world, the Vatican wanted on board the Nazi bandwagon (Reference 48).  The Concordat sealed the church's right to propagate Catholicism throughout the Nazi empire and evidently also gave church clergy special status under Nazi law (Reference 43).  If the Nazis succeeded in conquering Russia then the Vatican would have a vast new territory to spread its mantel of ecclesiastical influence. That would be particularly sweet considering that Russia was the age old turf of the Vatican’s arch rival, the Eastern Church.  To this day, the available record is murky as to when the Vatican crossed the threshold from opportunistic collusion to pusillanimity in the face of the Nazi monster (Reference 44).  Throughout it all, however, the Vatican never did excommunicate Hitler.  How does the old saying go?  ‘‘Two wrongs do not make a right”?  Well, it follows with logical necessity that three wrongs don’t make a right either (Reference 45).  In any case, at the end of the war with the Third Reich crushed, Hitler dead, and the Soviets holding all of eastern Europe and half of Germany, the Vatican no longer had army or warlord and therefore had to go shopping.  With no love lost between the Vatican and Russia and with the US the only other super power, the choice was obvious. 

As if it were a failing, America's evangelical Protestants had always viewed the Constitution as a godless document.  In their view, in spite of a profusion of houses of worship to the contrary, it tended also to encourage a “godless” nation.  Like the Vatican, the Protestant evangelical agenda had also always been to make government an instrument of biblicalism and particularly their rightwing vision of it. To them, the "under God" pledge had to be an ideological plumb too tempting to deny.  With communism providing the situational excuse, it would matter very little that Catholicism had been the initial torch barer for revision of the pledge.  The moment was ripe to steer public opinion against the sovereignty of the Constitution and remake the pledge into an act of supplication to the biblical overlord.   Anyone who stood apposed was of course guilty of being an atheist and by default guilty of communist leanings.  To that end, the decisive contravention created by the “under God” pledge became a jewel in the crown of the biblical obsession.  

This all occurred in era of inquisition led by Senator Joseph McCarthy and his gofers.  It was designed not only to root out the few communist operatives and sympathizers actually within our boarders, but also anyone apposed to “God” being the official deity of state. The numbers of loyal Americans who had their lives damaged if not completely destroyed by the ensuing witch-hunts and persecutions cannot be accurately counted.  In any case, the cold war McCarthy politics drove most opposition to the “under God” pledge into political impotency.  This was particularly so with the courts, under threat of censure themselves, showing a blind eye to the glaring contravention of constitutional law. 

The decisive turning point came when President Eisenhower heard a sermon from the pulpit of his Presbyterian church. "There was something missing in this pledge," the now famous sermon declared, "and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life. Indeed, apart from the phrase 'the United States of America,' this could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag with equal solemnity." (Reference 46) 

With all due regard for the good preacher's imagination, was there ever any such Soviet pledge?  If there was, I have never been able to unearth it.  In a changed world, however, one might just as easily imagine little Taliban or al Qaeda neophytes solemnly pledging allegiance to the nation of Islam under Allah and have just as much cause for concern.  From this countering perspective, the "under God" pledge might well be the template for any nation where a religiously motivated totalitarian ideology had embedded itself in the workings of state.  What does history predominantly tell us about the ultimate fate of just and fair civil law and consequently human rights under such circumstances?  In retrospect, we truly need to ask, "What are the failings of biblicalism then and now, be they Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or Judaic, that Communism was able to capture the minds and hearts of so many in the European world?"    

The Central Pillar of America 

Using the pledge to acknowledge either religion in general or biblical monotheism in particular, is to create an ideological monopoly that is totally incompatible with any legitimate standard of religious neutrality and liberty.  Monotheism is just as great an advisory to religious freedom as is communism, and biblicalism is monotheism.  In spite of biblical theocracy’s invidious assertions to the contrary, the true bedrock of our national heritage is not religion.  Thus also contrary to the claims of the EFELDF appeal, the Constitution itself is the authentic bedrock and central pillar of our national heritage.  It is the true mark of our identity as a nation, both symbolically and factually.  It is the high sovereign of organic law to which all people and institutions under the Nation’s territorial jurisdiction are accountable. That includes the various religious establishments and clergy as well as government's elected and appointed officials.  This should be a self-evident fact, but one that entirely too many clergy and their politicians seem to have great difficulty grasping. The theocrats might someday humbly acknowledge that the legacy of commitment to the ideals of liberty and free enterprise as embodied in the Constitution and its amendments is what deserves the lion’s share of credit for the nation’s successful defense against communism and other totalitarian movements.  Because of its central role in our nation’s history and traditions, if the wording of the pledge is to subjugate the Nation under anything, then it should be “under the Constitution” itself. 

It is the duty of our government to oppose communism as the EFELDF appeal correctly but incompletely asserted. More broadly still, it is government’s duty is to oppose all forms of totalitarianism and that must surely also include religion.  Undoubtedly also, religion is a perennial attribute of civilization and it would be foolish to believe that it will ever go away.   Issues of bad economic theory notwithstanding, the collapse of the Soviet Union and its anti-religious Marxist ideology is evidence enough of that.  Still, it would be equally as foolish to suppose that the peoples of the earth or of this nation will ever relinquish their unalienable will to heterorganic diversity in matters of religious belief, philosophy, culture, and lifestyle.  Not all of history's narrow minded and destructive monotheistic attempts at extinction have managed to stop any of that either.  Rather, they have served only to create generations of senseless conflict, injustice, poverty, suffering, and bloodshed. 

Among the world’s monolithic religions, biblicalism is by no means exclusively at fault.  The current rise of militant Islam in the old world is clear evidence of that.  Nevertheless, biblicalism is no guardian defender of either secular or religious liberty, no more then is communism, Islam, or any other totalitarian ideology.  Whereas, the Nation’s guardian standard is the Constitution with the Sixth Article, Bill of Rights, and subsequent Amendments pursuant thereof.   Above all else, the Constitution is the edifice which unites us as a nation of people under a common standard of civil liberty and civil obligation in spite of the myriad of differences that distinguish us as individuals or as groups. 

Because of the tragic mix of religious opportunism and reactionary politics in the 1950's, the “under God” pledge has stood in direct contravention of our sovereign law for 50 long years, and thus also in direct contravention of the government’s duty to the people.  The Pledge is the single most salient and assiduously invoked verbal expression of nationalism in public life, and thus centrally significant in its impact on our collectively embraced National identity.  With the phrase “under God” the pledge amounts to blatant ideological tampering with the “free exercise thereof”.  It conflicts with our fundamental right to personal choice about matters of deity and religion versus our religiously neutral obligation of allegiance to the Nation.  It amounts to government imposed theocracy in direct contravention of constitutional law as the supreme governing standard.   

How About the Teachers?

The focus of the case as presented to SCOTUS was on First Amendment violations.  Consistent with this, the present commentary has shown the "under God" pledge to be a severe violation of both the religious establishment and free exercise clauses. Not just the former or the latter, but both.  Further, as an integral matter it is impossible to functionally disengage the case from the equally critical issue of Sixth Article protections against religious test.  As an undeniable constitutional fact, belief in “God”, or any other deity is not a requirement of citizenship in this nation.  The political rationalization that no one is compelled to take the Pledge does not dispel the significance of the resultant breach of trust.  The presence of the phase “under God” makes the currently official pledge a religious loyalty test by definition.   

Even at that, it must be asked, are the teachers actually informing the children that they have a choice between taking the pledge and not taking it, and if so, how often?  Or, are they left to discover the truth of the matter for themselves?  Exactly why in many instances are the dissenters compelled to stand if they do not choose to leave the room?   In addition, what of the rights of the teachers who are conscripted to initiate the pledge on a daily basis? Can they refuse to initiate the ceremony or leave the room if they so chose?   What of their careers if they exercise their so called “right” to opt out by acting on these latter choices?  What does the government have to say to the teachers who are allegiant to the true intent of the Sixth Article and the First Amendment?  “Suck it up and conform or go find another profession”?   Well obviously, those who were willing to stand on their principles were either lost to retirement or pushed out before their time. Now, no one can replace them to teach the Constitution and true meaning of patriotism as it should be taught and still survive as public school teachers.  How can any teacher in this nation’s public school system really do justice to the Constitution under the travesty of this government-mandated exercise in idol worship?  The manifest impact of this blatant insurrection has damaged collective respect for the Constitution and consequently damaged the integrity and quality of civic education in America right down to its historical roots (Reference 31).

Part Four

References

Return to Front Page