Every
morning around the country millions of school kid’s rise and pledge allegiance
to the United States of America. The pledge of allegiance has been a
longstanding tradition in many school districts, sporting events, and other
public events. The pledge seems simple, a ceremonial honor to the country in
which we reside. Many citizens find pride and joy in reciting the less than a
minute long pledge. In recent times however, as political attitudes have
shifted dramatically to the left, we find more and more people rising up
calling foul because of one three letter word placed in the middle of the
pledge, God. “….one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and
justice for all.” Liberals and civil rights activists claim the word God
needs to be removed because there is no place for religion in the pledge. They
claim it references a particular God and could offend members of other
religions. They also claim its offensive to atheists. In this reflection, I
will apply the legal concept of
Ceremonial Deism to the word God in the pledge of allegiance to show that
it in fact is constitutional and that there is no reason to remove it from the
pledge.
Navigating
through the difficult area of religion can be a tricky task for the Supreme
Court. It often calls on them to rely on past precedence or mere opinions to
make a ruling as constitutional wording is limited. Justice O’Connor created a
four prong test to determine if a something crosses the line into religious
trouble, he calls it “Ceremonial Deism”.
Ceremonial Deism applies to the things that have more of a historical value
than they do religious. It is often applied to things like holiday displays in
town centers, references to religion in school, and so on. Here, I will apply
his four prong test to the use of the word God
in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The first
prong of Ceremonial Deism is History or
Ubiquity. In order to pass the first test, there needs to be a historical
significance to use of the word. The word God
was introduced into the pledge in the 1950s while the US was battling the
communist threat. The intention was to show that the US was the good guy, and
Russia and other communists weren’t. It was meant more of a uniting term or a
rallying term as opposed to a religious term. The United States Court Division
in West Virginia interpreted the statement “under
god” to mean that we believe in a higher meaning or a higher being. The
higher meaning was the meaning of freedom, liberty, and prosperity. All three
of these rights that we take for granted were threatened by the prospects of
communism. For these reason I argue that the phrase under God in the pledge of allegiance has significant historical
context, thus passing the first test of Ceremonial Deism.
The
second test of ceremonial deism is the absence
of prayer or worship. In the context it is used within the pledge of
allegiance, there is no prayer or worship. Prayer is defined as a solemn
request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of
worship. Take the Catholic prayer we call the “Lord’s Prayer”. The prayer
starts out by addressing God, “Our Father Who Art in Heaven….” before going on
to worship him. We could call this a prayer because prayers are intended to be
a conversation between the worshiper, and the worshiped. In this case the conversation
is between the Catholic and God. In the case of the Pledge of Allegiance there
is no conversation. There is no one the pledge is addressed to. The pledge
doesn’t worship anyone or anything; it merely recites pride and allegiance to
the United States. I argue there is a clear absence of prayer or worship, and
as such this passes the second test of ceremonial deism.
The
third test of ceremonial deism is the absence
of reference to a particular religion. Within the pledge of allegiance, the
only religious reference is the word God.
Aside from that, there is no mention or reference to any particular religion.
Nowhere in the pledge does the word Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, or
any other religion appear. There is no reference to a Bible, or a Quran or a
Torah. As far as the pledge is concerned the word God could refer to any
particular being of higher power or worship. I argue that since there is an
absence of reference to a particular religion, the use of the word God in the
pledge of allegiance passes the third test of ceremonial deism. The fourth and
final test of ceremonial deism is similar to the third, minimal religious content. As I mentioned above there is only one
reference to a religious term in the pledge. The use of the word God in this case is
a meaningless case. It doesn’t specify which God, and as such has no religious
content. Therefore, it passes the fourth and final test of ceremonial deism.
Despite outrage about
the use of the word God in the
pledge, I would argue that it has a ceremonial purpose that outweighs the
potential religious content within the pledge. Since it passes Justice
O’Connor’s four tests for Ceremonial Deism, the use of the word God should in fact remain within the pledge
of allegiance.