Rationalamerican: Under God (The Pledge)

All available topics:

Under God

Last edited October 21, 2003, Last reviewed September 2007

When the American Founders pledged to each other "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" they did so with a full and rational understanding of the risks and rewards they faced. Today, when young school children pledge allegiance to our flag, they do so more out of forced habit than full understanding. Up until at least the upper elementary grades, they lack the intellectual development, life experience, and knowledge to truly make such a pledge in earnest. A strong argument could be made for waiting to introduce the Pledge of Allegiance until later years and for making it a true choice if we are indeed interested in producing strong and loyal American citizens. However, that is an argument for another essay. Here, we will assume the current state of affairs to be acceptable and instead examine one aspect of the Pledge of Allegiance: the phrase "under God". The issue of God in the Pledge, soon to be examined by our Supreme Court as of this writing, flows within a wonderful conflux of interesting issues, including the role of public institutions, the role of religion in government, the role of government in parenting, the nature of intellectual and emotional development in children, the psychology of groups, and a whole bunch more besides. The subject could be so wide and meaty, that we must, by necessity, limit ourselves to the narrowest explanations in order to confine this writing to the status of an essay! Should the language "under God" stand, or should, as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision of February 2003 suggests, the Pledge of Allegiance be cleansed of such a reference if it is used in public schools?

The 9th Court of Appeals decision was actually quite well researched and written, so it is recommended reading for those on either side of the issue. Here, though, we will concern ourselves with three broad themes: the perils of children in a public school system, the parental prerogative, and the meaning of religion in government.

The public school system, as it exists today, is a dominant societal influence. By law, American children must be schooled and that schooling must adhere to certain standards that do vary somewhat by geography and political boundary. It is possible to home school or to send your children to private or religious schools. The vast majority of children, however, attend public schools because of the added expense and difficulty involved with other avenues. One cannot refuse to pay the taxes that support our public schools, one cannot avoid the laws that require certain standards of schooling, so for most parents the only reasonable, affordable, and law-abiding choice is to send their children to public schools and hope for the best. Public schools have many stakeholders, but the one with the largest muscle is the State wherein each school is located. For a public school located in New Jersey or in California, for example, there is influence felt from parents, teachers, district administrators, other educators, towns, the Federal government, and others, but the lion's share of the influence goes to the State of New Jersey or the State of California. If that State should require through a law that all children in public schools recite a Pledge of Allegiance, then that is what shall happen. Unless overturned by another law or by a court, the will of the State coerces, in effect, children, parents, teachers, administrators and others into an action with which they may or may not agree. That is the nature of public schools: they exist by order of the State and they are populated by children who, under present circumstances, have little choice but to attend. Children are coerced into schooling of some sort by law; they are forced into public schools by monetary, geographic, parental and other circumstances. Rightly or wrongly, public school children sit at their school desks through a series of coercive laws and circumstances that bring them together as a captive audience under one roof.

Once in the classroom under that public school roof, this captive audience is under further demand to comply with the public school program. This is not necessarily a negative thing, but simply a fact. There are a series of reasons for this conformance. First, children are obliged to follow the direction of adults in the form of parents, teachers and administrators who all insist for their own reasons that the children obey. Second, children of all ages and of all developmental stages in the public school system possess some sense of self and an awareness of peer conformity. Failing to meet group expectations is tantamount to emotional suicide. Third, if other pressures fail to bring compliance, the State will be happy to intervene with child study teams, State agency caseworkers, courts, police, and other means to insure attendance, compliance, and settlement.

It is 9:00am and the children all stand. They place their hand over their heart and begin to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Mary, who is in a first grade classroom, recites the Pledge from memory without regard for the meaning. In fact, she is unable to grasp the full meaning of the event given her current developmental state. Her family may be Christian, atheist, Jewish, Muslim, agnostic, Hindu, Buddhist, or who knows what. She will mutter the words "under God" without thought. Johnny is in an eighth grade classroom. He and his family do not believe in one God. Every day he faces choices to stand or not to stand, to say the words or not to say the words, to stand out before his peers in protest or to act in compliance with the pressures placed on him by his classmates, or his familial circumstances, or his government. Dorothy stands in yet another classroom and she positively beams when she says the words "under God", because she and her family know that God blesses them and America in a special way. She glances around the room to see who else feels the same way.

Are any of these probable, if fictional, scenarios difficult to reconcile with American principles? These are the perils of children in our public school system. Coerced into attending, pressured into participating, and prevented from escaping there are three most likely outcomes. In one, a student like Mary is unconcerned about reciting a Pledge about which she understands little or could care less. Indoctrinated at a young age through processes like the Pledge of Allegiance, she will have no reason or incentive to examine her beliefs or reach her own conclusions later in life. In another outcome, a student like Johnny will learn some hard lessons too soon about ignorance, prejudice, bigotry and fear. Depending on his maturity and support of his family, he may skip the objectionable words in silent protest or he may mumble through the Pledge to appear to be part of his peer group. Either way he is forced into a hard yet pointless position. In a third outcome, a student like Dorothy may, with her growing knowledge of other points of view, come to feel superior to some of her peers. After all, it is her God that is represented in the Pledge. It is her America we pledge, not the others that also live here. To the rational American, these scenarios are all frightening and all counter to American principles. They are fictional, yes, but are they not representative of the truth?

If that is the summary of the perils of children in our public schools, what of the next theme: the parental prerogative? Parents have the ultimate responsibility for their children. They made the choice to conceive and to give birth; they have the obligation to raise their children to self-sufficiency. It is also their privilege to raise their children with the value system they see as most fit. In America, the principal of individual choice applies to parents as it applies to all citizens. Only in the case of physical harm to children do we, as a society, reserve the right to intervene in the parental prerogative. Yet, as we have shown earlier, the issue of public schools does find hooks into this prerogative. Parents do not all have inestimable wealth and, since schooling of a certain nature is required by law, all parents do not have absolute freedom to discharge their children from the clutch of the State schools in favor of some private, religious or home school. The reality is, most parents are forced by law and circumstance to send their children to public school. For this reason, many educators err on the side of promoting concord when designing and teaching lessons. If there is no need to bring up a controversial subject in order to educate, then why do it? Especially for younger children who lack maturity and perspective, why push ideas or values that will only confuse them and rile parents if no other value is gained? These same educators will also take special pains to present all sides of an issue to older children so as to maintain some essence of neutrality. There is, certainly, a danger in this regard of veering toward moral and other forms of relativism, but the effort is aimed toward a respect for the parental prerogative. The schools will teach facts and processes, science and rational deliberation, while the parents teach their own value system at home. Other than a respect for the school rules and the rights of their peers, these educators prefer to stay out of the value system and religious arenas. Given the circumstances, what more could a parent ask?

Yet, in public schools across the nation, there are other educators who seem strangely blind to such concerns. In their eyes, the words "under God" are harmless enough. As, too, are school decorations for religious events, or a choral concert with songs about "Jesus, our Brother", or a plaque with the Ten Commandments hanging in their office, or a short moment of silent prayer in the morning. Perhaps they will feel particularly "inclusive" one day and even add a few different religious holiday decorations into the mix. Look closely at the reflection in these blind eyes and you will see parents with their mouths dropped open and a Constitution missing a page or two. For these educators, or, more precisely, advocates within the public education system, the parental prerogative isn't even on the radar screen. It's only two harmless words, right? Let us imagine these very same people with the tables turned. Suppose one day their own children were asked to recite the new Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under Lucifer" instead of 'under God". Would the words still be harmless? Would the parental prerogative suddenly find a place on their radar screen?

That brings us to our third theme: the meaning of religion in government. The advocates for the phrase "under God" in the pledge of Allegiance used in public schools have no rational defense for their position. They have no logical reason to insist that their religious point of view be inserted into a hollow form of "citizen-building" on public time. They don't need one. In their consciously held or their scripted view, America is based on religious principles, not on an understanding of the nature of man. In their world, the advocacy of a particular religious viewpoint trumps the founding documents. Indeed, the founding documents and principles contained therein are in need of some revamped interpretation by their score. While their views may be quite sincerely held, that does not make them correct. The separation of church and state is a much more controversial issue today than it was at our founding because our society and our government have grown new parts and pieces and because our views are more diverse and more public. Still, the issue is clear-cut. Advocacy of any religious viewpoint, including the advocacy of religion at all, has no place in our government or our public places. It has no place in public schools where children are a captive audience and where parents have little if any recourse but to grit their teeth and bear it. Such a principle does not prevent parents from teaching religious values at home or in houses of worship, nor does it prevent individual children from participating in religious activities as they see fit outside or sometimes even inside their public school. What it does prevent is the advocacy of a particular religious viewpoint to a captive audience.

There is a glaring irony in this dim-witted position of religious advocacy, too. Should these advocates actually get their way, they will eventually find themselves losing their religion. Let us suppose that the words "under God" not only stand, but that they lead to new inroads for religion in our government. Let us suppose, even, that prayer in public schools is allowed and that in a generation or two it leads to a colossal reassessment of our American way. Perhaps we will find a Christian God to be the center of our collective existence, permeating every aspect of our government, our laws and our society. The advocates will have found heaven on earth and our founding documents will be constitutionally amended to reflect this newfound reality. Will it end there? History tells us that, soon, the powerful religious figures will become powerful political figures. When religion and politics combine in such a way, the result is something like the Middle Ages where religious figures change the rules to suit their own corrupted power and vices. The advocates will have lost control of the very religion they set out to promote. In further irony, it was from the Enlightenment, the Lockean ideals, and other classical Liberal ideas that American principles were born. It was in large part the reaction to the religious power and excesses of the Middle Ages that set in motion our founding. Today, we have the absurdity of religious advocates exercising their natural rights in a free society in order to lead us back to the very sort of corrupt power from which we once rebelled.

Are we a nation "under God"? No. We are a nation founded on an understanding of the nature of humans and the kind of government that supports the natural rights of man. Such a nation is not incompatible with religious observance, in fact, such a nation is the only way that government and religion can coexist together in a society without corrupting each other. The words "under God" do not belong in a Pledge forced upon the children of American citizens. We must resist at every turn the advocates of religious thought who would insert their will into our government policy. To do anything less will allow entropy to kill the last great hope of man.

To cite this article:

Painter, John. Under God. (October 2003). Retrieved month x, 2xxx, from

<http://rationalamerican.com/defined>