Slate's Bizbox
history lesson: The history behind current events.

The Pledge of AllegianceWhy we're not one nation "under God."

By David Greenberg
Updated Friday, June 28, 2002, at 4:39 PM ET

Poor Alfred Goodwin! So torrential was the flood of condemnation that followed his opinion—which held that it's unconstitutional for public schools to require students to recite "under God" as part of the Pledge of Allegiance—that the beleaguered appellate-court judge suspended his own ruling until the whole 9th Circuit Court has a chance to review the case.

Not one major political figure summoned the courage to rebut the spurious claims that America's founders wished to make God a part of public life. It's an old shibboleth of those who want to inject religion into public life that they're honoring the spirit of the nation's founders. In fact, the founders opposed the institutionalization of religion. They kept the Constitution free of references to God. The document mentions religion only to guarantee that godly belief would never be used as a qualification for holding office—a departure from many existing state constitutions. That the founders made erecting a church-state wall their first priority when they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution reveals the importance they placed on maintaining what Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore have called a "godless Constitution." When Benjamin Franklin proposed during the Constitutional Convention that the founders begin each day of their labors with a prayer to God for guidance, his suggestion was defeated.

Given this tradition, it's not surprising that the original Pledge of Allegiance—meant as an expression of patriotism, not religious faith—also made no mention of God. The pledge was written in 1892 by the socialist Francis Bellamy, a cousin of the famous radical writer Edward Bellamy. He devised it for the popular magazine Youth's Companion on the occasion of the nation's first celebration of Columbus Day. Its wording omitted reference not only to God but also, interestingly, to the United States:

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

The key words for Bellamy were "indivisible," which recalled the Civil War and the triumph of federal union over states' rights, and "liberty and justice for all," which was supposed to strike a balance between equality and individual freedom. By the 1920s, reciting the pledge had become a ritual in many public schools.

Since the founding, critics of America's secularism have repeatedly sought to break down the church-state wall. After the Civil War, for example, some clergymen argued that the war's carnage was divine retribution for the founders' refusal to declare the United States a Christian nation, and tried to amend the Constitution to do so.

The efforts to bring God into the state reached their peak during the so-called "religious revival" of the 1950s. It was a time when Norman Vincent Peale grafted religion onto the era's feel-good consumerism in his best-selling The Power of Positive Thinking; when Billy Graham rose to fame as a Red-baiter who warned that Americans would perish in a nuclear holocaust unless they embraced Jesus Christ; when Secretary of State John Foster Dulles believed that the United States should oppose communism not because the Soviet Union was a totalitarian regime but because its leaders were atheists.

Hand in hand with the Red Scare, to which it was inextricably linked, the new religiosity overran Washington. Politicians outbid one another to prove their piety. President Eisenhower inaugurated that Washington staple: the prayer breakfast. Congress created a prayer room in the Capitol. In 1955, with Ike's support, Congress added the words "In God We Trust" on all paper money. In 1956 it made the same four words the nation's official motto, replacing "E Pluribus Unum." Legislators introduced Constitutional amendments to state that Americans obeyed "the authority and law of Jesus Christ."

The campaign to add "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was part of this movement. It's unclear precisely where the idea originated, but one driving force was the Catholic fraternal society the Knights of Columbus. In the early '50s the Knights themselves adopted the God-infused pledge for use in their own meetings, and members bombarded Congress with calls for the United States to do the same. Other fraternal, religious, and veterans clubs backed the idea. In April 1953, Rep. Louis Rabaut, D-Mich., formally proposed the alteration of the pledge in a bill he introduced to Congress.

The "under God" movement didn't take off, however, until the next year, when it was endorsed by the Rev. George M. Docherty, the pastor of the Presbyterian church in Washington that Eisenhower attended. In February 1954, Docherty gave a sermon—with the president in the pew before him—arguing that apart from "the United States of America," the pledge "could be the pledge of any country." He added, "I could hear little Moscovites [sic] repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag with equal solemnity." Perhaps forgetting that "liberty and justice for all" was not the norm in Moscow, Docherty urged the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge to denote what he felt was special about the United States.

The ensuing congressional speechifying—debate would be a misnomer, given the near-unanimity of opinion—offered more proof that the point of the bill was to promote religion. The legislative history of the 1954 act stated that the hope was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon … the Creator … [and] deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism." In signing the bill on June 14, 1954, Flag Day, Eisenhower delighted in the fact that from then on, "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town … the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." That the nation, constitutionally speaking, was in fact dedicated to the opposite proposition seemed to escape the president.

In recent times, controversies over the pledge have centered on the wisdom of enforcing patriotism more than on its corruption from a secular oath into a religious one. In the 1988 presidential race, as many readers will recall, George Bush bludgeoned Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis for vetoing a mandatory-pledge bill when he was governor of Massachusetts, even though the state Supreme Court had ruled the bill unconstitutional. Surely one reason for the current cravenness of Democratic leaders is a fear of undergoing Dukakis' fate in 2002 or 2004 at the hands of another Bush.

The history of the pledge supports Goodwin's decision. The record of the 1954 act shows that, far from a "de minimis" reference or a mere "backdrop" devoid of meaning, the words "under God" were inserted in the pledge for the express purpose of endorsing religion—which the U.S. Supreme Court itself ruled in 1971 was unconstitutional. Also according to the Supreme Court's own rulings, it doesn't matter that students are allowed to refrain from saying the pledge; a 2000 high court opinion held that voluntary, student-led prayers at school football games are unconstitutionally "coercive," because they force students into an unacceptable position of either proclaiming religious beliefs they don't share or publicly protesting.

The appeals court decision came almost 40 years to the day after the Supreme Court decision in Engel v. Vitale. In that case, the court ruled it unconstitutional for public schools to allow prayer, even though the prayer was non-denominational and students were allowed abstain from the exercise. When asked about the unpopular decision, President John F. Kennedy replied coolly that he knew many people were angry, but that the decisions of the court had to be respected. He added that there was "a very easy remedy"—not a constitutional amendment but a renewed commitment by Americans to pray at home, in their churches, and with their families.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
David Greenberg, a professor of history and media studies at Rutgers, has two new books out: Presidential Doodles and Calvin Coolidge.
Photograph on the Slate home page of Florida state Sen. Charlie Bronson reciting the Pledge of Allegiance by Tim Sloan/AFP/Corbis.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Notes From the Fray Editor:

The History Lesson Fray has been busy, with people returning to the 9th Circuit ruling with renewed gusto. While many of the posts are firmly linked to one of the poles in the secularist/theist debate, some have ventured afield.

Notes From the Fray:

Now is the perfect historical moment to get out from "under God" in our daily affirmation of nationhood.

During the Cold War, when the enemy was godless atheistic communism, claiming allegiance under God differentiated us from our enemies. In the current war against terrorist mass murderers, we are defending our lives and our freedom, and its the enemy who claim to be acting under God's will. "Under God" was the justification for those who destroyed the World Trade Center, and would slaughter all of us if they had the chance.

The Bin Ladenites unquestionably would pledge to God, but they do not accept "liberty and justice for all." Removing "under God" from our pledge will emphasize that our nation is different from, and better than, the one they seek to create.

-- history guy

(To reply, click here.)


What's really humorous is that everyone is pointing out other instances where God and government mix, like "In God we Trust" on money and the prayers said before Congress, "so help me God" for legal testimony, etc. This is like a thief saying "Hey, I stole before and didn't get caught, don't punish me now." Just because you did it and no one called it before doesn't mean its right.
As for those who say "under God" doesn't promote religion, why is it that every christian group in America is protesting this decision. If it meant nothing, wouldn't you just let it slide?

-- Mike

(To reply, click here.)


First of all no one is required to say the pledge of allegiance. Secondly, no one is required to say the phrase 'under God' in the pledge if he or she chooses not to. Thirdly, the phrase 'under God' indicates a truth that contradicts the communist and humanist philosophies that the State is the supreme authority, even as supposedly empowered by majority.

It is unconstitutional to leave "under God" out of the pledge, because that truth protects me from the tyranny of the state and protects my right to answer to my conscience when my government violates my freedom. It is a fool's errand to compare this phrase with a violation of the separation of church and state. God is not a church, acknowledging God as a supreme power is not a church imposing itself on the state, it is a truth, a reality which when ignored endangers freedom rather than protecting it.

And as far as the intention of the founding fathers goes, how convenient it is for this reporter to forget the words in the Declaration of Independence-- "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." By their Creator, self-evident truths-- they must be rolling in their graves as we contest this issue on the anniversary of our independence.

-- Joneen C. Flemings

(To reply, click here.)


Frankly, I have always found the whole Pledge of Allegiance a bit creepy anyway. Why must schoolchildren be directed to pronounce this litany every single day? I don't believe in a God who requires constant flattery and proclamations of loyalty. I don't date women who require constant flattery and proclamations of loyalty, and I don't wish to live in a nation that requires the same either. Not that I do. I don't think America does require that, even though so many other Americans seem to think so. I was proud to wear the flag on my military uniform. Every 4th of July I bust out the flag. (but not on veterans', memorial, or flag day- that's overkill in my opinion), but I won't fellate myself for being an American or anyone else for that matter. Great. America is a good country. We're all lucky to be Americans. Do we constantly have to pat ourselves on the back or shout our presumed superiority from the rooftops?

-- Vinzago

(To reply, click here.)


What is the difference between the pre-54 pledge and the post-54 pledge? In the pre-54 pledge, the state was God.

-- Locdog

(To reply, click here.)

(7/1)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
A Grand Tour
David Broder | While the stars align for Obama, McCain is looking like the odd-man-out on foreign policy.
Annette Heuser: A Honeymoon