Folks who are arguing that the words “Under God” should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance try to have it both ways:
- “It’s religion, and thus teaches our kids to be good, moral individuals.”
- “It’s not really religion. It’s just ceremonial. Doesn’t mean a thing.”
That these two seem to be in contradiction to each other doesn’t faze them. If it’s truly a religious assertion, then it’s certainly unconstitutional for the state to be promoting (let alone mandating) it. If it’s merely ceremonial and traditional (a long tradition dating back all of half a century), then why the hue and cry over its removal?
Les provides a fine essay in TNR over how the attempt to have it both ways — to slip religion past the Constitution by saying it’s meaningless verbiage — actually does a disservice to religion.
There is no greater insult to religion than to expel strictness of thought from it. Yet such an expulsion is one of the traits of contemporary American religion, as the discussion at the Supreme Court demonstrated. Religion in America is more and more relaxed and “customized,” a jolly affair of hallowed self-affirmation, a religion of a holy whatever. Speaking about God is prized over thinking about God. Say “under God” even if you don’t mean under God. And if you mean under God, don’t be tricked into giving an account of what you mean by it. Before too long you have arrived at a sacralized cynicism: In his intervention at the Court, Justice Stevens recalled a devastating point from the fascinating brief submitted in support of Newdow by 32 Christian and Jewish clergy, which asserted that “if the briefs of the school district and the United States are to be taken seriously,” that is, if the words in the Pledge do not allude to God, “then every day they ask schoolchildren to violate [the] commandment” that “Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord in vain.” Remember, those are not the Ten Suggestions. It is a very strange creed indeed that asks its votaries not to reflect too much about itself.
Good reading.