You don’t know "Richard Stands"?
Back in the 1960s everybody knew "Richard Stands," at least they did
if they watched The Art Linkletter Show. Remember how he used to interview
children? One day he asked them to recite "The Pledge of Allegiance."
A little boy was doing just fine until he said: "…and to the republic
for Richard Stands…" [Burrell, 68; adapted for style here and below
by the replacement of "boy" and "girl" where only "children"
are mentioned.]
There has always been a lot of confusion in the
minds of children about America’s "Pledge of Allegiance." In
my own case, it was not until I was in the second grade that I realized that
the "Pledge" did not end with the word, "Amen"! That was
because my first grade teacher had us immediately follow the "Pledge"
with "The Lord’s Prayer"! (If you think I was confused, just
imagine the mental mayhem done to the mind of David--the only Jew in the class!)
Many adults are also confused about "The
Pledge." I was reminded of that by what another child said. She was doing
just fine until she got to the part that is now the focus of attention throughout
the country because of a recent court ruling. [Kravets] Her version came out
like this: "…one nation, under guard…"! [Burrell, 68]
Her mistake takes my breath away! For ever since
September 11th, that is precisely what we have been: one nation, under guard!
In 1961, a Unitarian named Rod Serling wrote an
episode for his television series, The Twilight Zone. It was entitled,
"The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street." [Foss, 55; Burrell, 57 paraphrased
below] It was an allegory about the potential depth of human depravity. The
story went like this: On a beautiful afternoon in America, a bright light flashed
across the sky. Suddenly, everything stopped: cars wouldn’t start, electricity
wouldn’t flow, and radios wouldn’t work. People gathered in the streets
to figure out what was going on. A little boy, who had been reading a sci-fi
comic book, said: "That’s what happens when the aliens come."
That set off a chain reaction: suspicions grew, fingers were pointed, tempers
flared, and finally, a mob formed to find the aliens in their midst! By the
next morning there was no sign of life. Houses had been burned down and bodies
lay strewn about. On a nearby hillside, an alien instructor said to his alien
student: "See how it works? Just stop their machines and they do the rest.
They pick the most dangerous enemy they can find and it’s themselves. All
we need to do is sit back and watch."
In the aftermath of September 11th—with Americans
still hurt, fearful, and suffering—that’s where we are: on "Maple
Street" waiting for the monsters who, if we are not very careful, will
turn out to be ourselves.
One thing which could turn us into mobs might
just be the recent court decision on "The Pledge of Allegiance." If
that is to be prevented, Americans must increase their understanding of that
document.
"The Pledge of Allegiance" is an oath.
Oaths are made up of words. We say them for a purpose which is both worthy and
necessary if we are to trust one another enough to live together. That purpose
is to establish our integrity by explicitly and formally declaring which values
we believe in. "A person is only as good as his or her word," the
saying goes, and so it is that people of integrity take oaths very seriously.
[Burrell, 52; paraphrased] We Unitarian Universalists shy away from creeds and
yet even we recognize that value-laden words define who we really are. Our U.U.
"Principles" testify to that! [Singing, x]
Oaths can serve us well not only when they help
establish our integrity, but also when they inspire us emotionally through their
use in rituals that reinforce the most noble aspects of our existence. "The
Hippocratic Oath" taken by physicians is a good example. [Burrell, 53]
But, sometimes, oaths can be harmful. This is
especially true if, as time passes, their use undermines the principles they
were created to defend. That can happen in different ways because there are
different kinds of oaths. In relation to "The Pledge," the two most
important types are "loyalty oaths" (which state what we promise to
do) and "test oaths" (which state what we believe). [Burrell, 53,
51]
The death of Sir Thomas More is a classic example.
Called The Man For All Seasons in Robert Bolt’s 1961 play, More
was Lord Chancellor under Britain’s King Henry VIII. Henry wanted to divorce
Catherine of Aragon in order to marry Anne Bolyn, but the pope objected. To
free himself of papal control, Henry promulgated an "Act of Succession"
which would make him the head of the Church of England. For it to take effect,
officials like More had to swear an oath. It was not merely a loyalty oath swearing
not to interfere with the king’s actions. It was a "test oath"
declaring that one believed that Henry had spiritual superiority to the pope.
Thomas More "would have had no objection" to a loyalty oath, but his
Roman Catholic faith did not permit him to swear to such a test oath. For his
refusal, he was beheaded on July 6, 1535. [Burrell, 51, 55]
Test oaths have a sordid history. Recent examples
include Hitler’s use of them to purge Germany of alleged "undesirables,"
and Joseph McCarthy’s witch-hunt for American Communists. Such use of test
oaths is very costly, not only to the individuals whose lives they ruin or end,
but also to their societies at large. Hitler’s oaths drove out of Germany
or to their graves some of the most brilliant minds in the world. McCarthy’s
oaths stifled the creative contribution of a whole generation of America’s
most talented citizens. [Burrell, 54]
Test oaths arise out of fear. They are created
as defenses against real or imagined threats to valued principles. But problems
arise when test oaths outlive the fears that gave them birth and when they become
instruments for violating the very freedoms and principles they were designed
to protect. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas declared: "Test
oaths are notorious tools of tyranny." [Burrell, 56]
A good example of this fear factor occurred in
1958 when President Eisenhower set up the National Defense Education Act—America’s
first student loan program. It was in response to the paranoia that gripped
the U.S. when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik. The program’s purpose
was to insure America’s technological superiority. But students had to
sign a test oath stating that they had no intention of overthrowing the U.S.
government. However, other than intimidation, nothing was achieved by that oath,
for no effort was made to prove the students’ truthfulness! [Burrell, 58ff.]
There is an irony here that Brian Burrell points
out in his book, The Words We Live By. "What [American] proponents
of test oaths usually overlook…is that [this] nation was founded by subversives,
and that the Founding Fathers made a point…in the Declaration of Independence
that when a regime becomes oppressive, the people have a legitimate right to
overthrow it. In a sense, then, the test…oath…is as un-American as
the beliefs it supposedly targets. It is an insult to people of conscience,
and it denies freedom of thought, of association, and of expression." Nevertheless,
Burrell points out: "When faced with a crisis, a majority of Americans
have unhesitatingly supported" test oaths. [Burrell, 59]
The original intent of the Founding Fathers was
"to keep the nation as oath-free as possible." Their experience under
British rule and with traitors during the American Revolution had taught them
that oaths are not reliable. Benjamin Franklin, for example, declared that oaths
are "the last recourse of liars." In the Constitution, the Founders
"saw fit to include [only] a succinct presidential oath, and although they
suggested an oath for government service, they did not…write one. They
[also] saw no need for a loyalty test oath for citizens, nor for a pledge of
allegiance." It was not from the nation’s Founders, but from the individual
states that loyalty and test oaths appeared for civil servants, and pledges
of allegiance for schoolchildren. [Burrell, 61f.]
Before 1892 the United States did not have a pledge
of allegiance. The first version of our current "Pledge" was created
by Francis M. Bellamy, a staff writer for The Youth’s Companion
magazine. He and his boss, James Upham, successfully campaigned to have the
"Pledge" recited by school children across the U.S. on the opening
day of the World’s Columbian Exposition. Blessed by a proclamation from
President McKinley, here are the original words of our "Pledge of Allegiance"
as they were uttered on October 19, 1892: "I pledge allegiance to my flag
and the republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty
and justice for all." [Burrell, 66]
Bellamy’s "Pledge" was an instant
hit! By 1898 New York became the first state to legally mandate its use in public
schools. Other states soon followed. [Burrell, 66]
In 1923 a National Flag Code Committee was set
up to outline proper flag etiquette. It recommended replacing the words, "my
flag" with the phrase, "the flag of the United States"; and later
it called for adding the words, "of America," to distinguish these
united states from those of Brazil or Mexico. [Burrell, 66f.]
As Cold War paranoia intensified, waves of patriotism
and pietism rolled across the land. In 1953, a congressman proposed adding the
words "under God" to the "Pledge". [Burrell, 67] The Roman
Catholic Knights of Columbus led a campaign in support. ["Leave"]
President Eisenhower’s own minister blessed the proposal as necessary to
distinguish God-fearing Americans from their God-less enemies. Without such
a change, he said, he could imagine hearing "little Muscovites repeat[ing]
a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow." [Burrell,
67]
On June 14, 1954, Eisenhower signed into law a
bill that established the first "Flag Day" and made official the modified
version of the "Pledge." His ambivalence showed, however, in his statement
that "our form of government has no sense unless it is founded on a deeply
felt religious belief—and I don’t care what it is!" [Burrell,
67; emphasis added]
The addition of "under God" soon resulted
in court challenges. But, before that, the compulsory use of the "Pledge"
and flag salute as test oaths had already been challenged. In 1940, two Jehovah’s
Witness children went to court over being expelled from school for refusing
to salute the flag and recite the "Pledge." According to their religion,
doing so was forbidden as a form of worshipping a graven image. The Supreme
Court, however, ruled against their religious challenge. [Burrell, 68]
In contrast, in 1943 the Supreme Court ruled in
favor of other Jehovah’s Witness children. The Court declared that remaining
silent during the "Pledge" is a form of expression protected by the
Constitution. Justice Robert Jackson wrote: "Compulsory unification of
opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard." Thus were school
children freed from having to say the "Pledge." [Burrell, 68] It took
yet another Supreme Court decision, in 1972, to establish the same freedom for
teachers. [Burrell, 64f., 69]
In the 30 years since then, the Supreme Court
has gone "out of its way to interpret" the words "under God"
in the "Pledge" as a "nonreligious statement." [Burrell,
69f.] Indeed, "in the 1980s several Supreme Court justices…said the
pledge and the ‘In God We Trust’ phrase on currency and coins were
immune from church-state separation doctrines because their significance had
been lost through rote repetition." ["Leave"]
I believe such a position amounts to judicial
waffling in the face of overwhelming public opposition to "tampering"
with the "under God" phrase in the "Pledge." Nothing short
of a Supreme Court case will prove that, of course. As it happens, we may soon
get such a case because last week the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared
the "Pledge" to be an unconstitutional governmental endorsement of
monotheistic religion in violation of the American doctrine of separation of
church and state due to the presence in it of the words "under God"
which it argued have blatantly "religious" meaning. That case arose
on behalf of Dr. Michael A. Newdow who objected to his daughter being compelled
to listen to her second grade class recite the "Pledge." Not surprisingly,
politicians seeking re-election have vigorously opposed the court’s decision
and both the Newdows and the court justices have received hate messages and
death threats. [Kravets (both articles); "Leave"; T.V./radio newscasts]
What the Supreme Court will do is anyone’s
guess, especially given its recent ruling on school vouchers. [Gearman] What
ought to be done, however, is clear. The public, the politicians, and the justices
ought to bow to truth, not to pressure; and ought to admit what is obvious:
"God" is a religious term, and its use in a government document stands
in violation of the separation of church and state and is thereby unconstitutional.
In order to make this case, it must be shown that
the popular claim that "under God" is a meaningless, nonreligious
phrase is false. The way to do that is to show what the word "God"
really means in the "Pledge" as it is currently used.
No deity in any religion is named "God."
Every religion’s deity has a particular name which distinguishes him or
her or them from the deities of other religions. [cf. Jordon] Only someone ignorant
of the history of world religions or intentionally deceitful would claim that
all people worship the same deity under different names. It is not so. It never
has been so.
This means the word "God" is being used
as a "stealth term" to conceal which deity the supporters of "under
God" have in mind. To expose their deception we must show which deity they
really mean. Here’s how: If the words in the "Pledge" were changed
to say "under Zeus," no American would recite it. If they said, "under
Shiva" no non-Hindu American would say it. If they said, "under Allah"
no Jewish or Christian American would say it. If they said "under Jehovah,"
no Muslim American would say it. If they said "under Yahweh" many
Fundamentalist Christians (who falsely believe that the Bible’s deity’s
name is "Jehovah") would not say it. [On Jehovah/Yahweh, cf. Anderson,
60-66. The court also argued thusly, Kravets (both).]
America is not one nation under Zeus, under Shiva,
under Allah, or under any other particular deity, and if the "Pledge"
specified which deity it really meant, some of those Americans who do not worship
that deity would go to the Supreme Court and argue that the "Pledge"
is clearly a religious creed in constitutional violation of the separation of
church and state. It is only because the ambiguous word "God" is used
that the Court has been able to pretend that the "Pledge" is non-religious.
But in fact, it is religious and its use of "under God" is designed
to refer secretly to only one deity--the Bible’s deity. The Court ought
to admit that and stop pandering to the Jewish/Christian majority, since it
is thereby thumbing its nose at all Americans who belong to any other religion
or who practice no religion at all.
That is the negative side of things.
There is also a positive side.
America is a great nation! But its greatness is
not based upon its being religious. Many other nations are just as religious,
and some are far more religious and have made religion and government inseparable—remember
the theocracies of Iran and Afghanistan?! They could truly say of themselves,
"one nation, under Allah"! But are they great nations? Hardly.
What has made America great is not religion, but
law—a Constitution that applies equally to all of our citizens. That foundation
had cracks in it when it was laid. Blacks, women and others had to struggle
to fix those weaknesses that threatened to topple the whole structure of our
nation’s greatness. But over time amendments were added to fill in those
cracks, so that the Constitution could evenly and equally apply to all Americans.
As time goes on, more cracks may appear and more amendments may be needed. But
that is our real foundation—the Constitution, one of the most profound,
eloquent and sacred documents ever written.
When "Old Glory" waves in the sky, what
it symbolizes above all else is the freedom and equality that are the goals
and ideals of that Constitution.
America’s greatness arose, not because we
believed in some ambiguous anonymous deity whose name we refused to utter. It
came instead from the Constitution that Unitarian Thomas Jefferson and others
laid down as our legal foundation. [Foss, 36]
Therefore, when holidays such as the Fourth of
July come and patriotism fills the air, it is appropriate for Americans to salute
their flag, and it is proper for Americans to recite their "Pledge of Allegiance."
I believe in the "Pledge of Allegiance"!
But I also believe in the wisdom of a man named
Jesus who said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and
to God the things which are God’s." [Mark 12:17] It is my patriotic
duty as an American citizen to pledge my allegiance to this flag and to the
nation for which it stands. But we live in a secular, religiously pluralistic
democracy, and our government has no right to dictate what any citizen believes
religiously. It is not proper, therefore for a government pledge to compel me
to swear anything about any deity. That right does not belong to Caesar.
When it comes time to recite the "Pledge,"
I do so proudly and fervently, but--in the place of those two religious words--I
substitute two other words, two secular words, two constitutional words which
do, in fact, affirm what made this nation great. If you listen, you will hear
me say: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and
to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under law, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
That is what the "Pledge" would say
if it truly represented all Americans. As we have slowly but surely brought
the Constitution around to better reflecting all of our citizens, maybe someday
we will do the same to the "Pledge." If we do not, then we will have
arrived on "Maple Street" and the enemy that will have destroyed us
will have been ourselves. Amen.
Sources
Anderson, Bernhard W. Understanding the Old Testament, 4th ed. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1986.
Burrell, Brian. "So Help Me God: Words of Obedience: Loyalty Oaths and
Pledges of Allegiance."
The Words We Live By. New York: The Free
Press: 1997.
Foss, Gwen. A Who’s Who of U.U.s. Farmington, MI: Gwen Foss, 1998.
Gearman, Anne. "Justices OK School Vouchers." The Ledger. 28
June 2002. A-1, 16.
Jordon, Michael. Encyclopedia of Gods. New York: Facts on File, 1993.
Kravets, David. "Court: Pledge Not Allowed in Schools." The Ledger.
27 June 2002. A-1, 9.
Kravets, David. "Pledge of Allegiance Ruling On Hold; New Hearing Sought."
The Ledger.
28 June 2002. A4.
"Leave the Pledge Alone." Editorial. The Ledger. 28 June 2002.
A-18.
Singing the Living Tradition. Boston: Beacon Press, 1993.