The Pledge has evolved in the past century. Text was added in the 1920s, and the final addition, in 1954, was two words inserted to fight, as Congress stated, "godless Communism." The government placed "under God" between "one nation" and "indivisible," and though Bellamy's son urged against it based on his father's beliefs, the addition remained.
Last year, a California atheist brought these two words to the Supreme Court. Dr. Michael Newdow, who won his case in the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2002, argued that his daughter shouldn't be forced to recite the words "under God" every morning. The case, which seemed to be leaning in his favor, was dismissed in June because Newdow doesn't have legal custody over his daughter.
A little over a month ago, Newdow returned to the courts with children and their legal guardians in tow. Eight individuals have filed a second appeal, assuring that both the case and the debate will return to the national stage in the coming months. The Bush administration has officially supported the current pledge, stating that it acknowledges the "undeniable historical fact that the nation was founded by individuals who believed in God." Those who defend these words assert that they are more ceremonial than spiritual, like "In God We Trust" on our money and the mention of the Creator in the Declaration of Independence.
There are less secular arguments than this one, many made by Christians and Jews who believe the Pledge actually acknowledges God. In a form letter sent to those who petitioned for a change in wording, President Bush said that reciting the Pledge was a way of "humbly seeking the wisdom and blessing of divine providence.'' These arguments, frustrating as they are to those who aren't crazy about theocracies, aren't relevant to this discussion. A secular argument must prove that "one nation, under God" does not violate the separation of church and state.
Religious men founded our nation. That fact is difficult to dispute. But our founders also feared state-sanctioned religion, and worked to make it perfectly clear that no one would be forced out of America based on religious beliefs or lack thereof. The lack of beliefs is key to this debate; even if the "God" in question refers to a larger spiritual power, encompassing all religions, one group is conspicuously excluded. Atheists, agnostics and non-believers make up a significant portion of the country, and though it's illegal for them to run for any office in eight states, their right to not worship a god is protected by the First Amendment.
In 1942, the Supreme Court ruled that no one could be forced to say the Pledge. Despite this ruling, children across America are required to say it daily, myself included. No elementary school teacher gave me the option of remaining silent. Once I was old enough to rationalize the situation, I stopped saying it entirely, a decision which became public when I stood silent during assemblies and graduation ceremonies. Children do not have this luxury. For children whose beliefs do not fall "under God," the current Pledge constitutes a violation of their right to religious freedom. No one is legally forced to say it, though most children are not told this, and if even if it was made clear, any child who chose not to say the Pledge would be left to defend his or her non Judeo-Christian beliefs. His argument is not pandering to political correctness; rather, it's the desire to truly separate church and state, even if we have done a poor job of it in the past.
Bellamy chose his words with care. He did not see the need to mention that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian ideas, just as he didn't mention that it was founded on slavery. "Under God" is just one of many historical acknowledgements that don't belong in the Pledge. Our country was also founded on religious tolerance. Perhaps "under God" is ceremonial and traditional, but haven't we moved beyond the fears of 1954? America may have once been unified under a Judeo-Christian God, but it isn't now. The Pledge of Allegiance should be an expression of what characterizes the country. Do we want to be defined by religious exclusion?
Minkel co-manages the Opinion section and can be reached at elminkel@amherst.edu