Why The Phrase "under God" Does Not Belong In The Pledge of Allegiance

*This essay was the second place winner of the 2009 Marion Craig essay contest. It was published in the periodical of The Humanists of Utah.


"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

These are the original words of the Pledge of Allegiance as written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. By reciting these lines, one swears their loyalty to a representation of the laws, rights, and freedoms of the United States of America. By adding the phrase “under God” into that pledge, the meaning of the words around it becomes sterile. That is because of the intrinsic conflict that comes when one violates liberty, law, and justice in the same breath used to claim support of these principles.

In America, each individual is born with the right to choose their own ideas and beliefs concerning life and existence. That is liberty from the arbitrary beliefs of others and is protected for us by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. When a public institution requires a declaration of belief in an almighty God, it attempts to overrule all other possibilities that a person has a natural right to believe. Religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" and, because of the first amendment, no government entity is constitutionally allowed to require individuals to conform to a belief.

The U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, the first amendment to that constitution "build[s] a wall of separation between church and state". Therefore, it is illegal for any entity to tear down that wall as President Eisenhower and his congress did by adding the phrase after being convinced to do so by a fallacious argument. It is equally appalling that no president since then has taken the initiative to right his wrong and correct this illegal injustice to our liberty.

It is unjust for any person, whether their views are theist or secular, to be persecuted by the government for their beliefs. Being a citizen of the United States comes with the promise of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", yet there are groups that would destroy these values under the guise of patriotism by using the influence of a majority. The words of the founding fathers are clear and outspoken on the matter, but the ideas of those words are still being deformed and used maliciously in order to manipulate the population.

The phrase “under God” should never have been added into the pledge of allegiance, and the fact that it persists is an embarrassment to the very core of this country’s purpose. The United States is not a theocracy, but its status as a melting pot with people of all beliefs, statuses, and backgrounds is being threatened.

The inclusion of religious propaganda into our oft-repeated pledge tears us apart as a nation. By ignoring the law in order to indoctrinate people into their own beliefs, many theists rob secular citizens of their own American rights. As long as "under God" remains in the Pledge of Allegiance, we will not be "one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".

Response to "This Should Keep Us All Thinking" Video

Here's the link to a video I recently received that makes some bad arguments for Christianity and even makes a claim that people who don't believe in God are causing the world to "[go] to hell": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piuoGb-Nhfw

I’m fine with receiving things like this, but I feel compelled to write a rebuttal as the video was filled with messages harmful to both Christianity and atheism. In its conclusion the video states (in alternate wording) that:

1. People dismissing and ridiculing God and Jesus Christ are the reasons for world problems.

2. People should believe less skeptical of the Bible than other info sources (i.e. newspapers).

3. People should believe, think, say, and do the things written in the Bible.

4. It is unfair that obscene material is allowed online, but religious matters are kept away from school and work environments.

5. Christians should make their religious preferences know every day of the week.

6. You probably won’t forward the video to people you know.

I’ll work through the flaws of each of these arguments in a moment, but first I’d like to comment on the story itself. As you can read by following this link (http://www.snopes.com/religion/chalk.asp), the story was actually a chain email that was sent around in the mid 1990’s. Because of its unidentified origin and the nature of its spread, the story would be classified as an urban legend.

As an Agnostic atheist and a believer in fundamental Agnosticism, I do find the description of the atheist professor in the story to be somewhat offensive. It reinforces the negative stereotype that all atheists hate Christians and will attempt to discredit them without a respect for theists’ personal beliefs. While that is true about some people, most nonbelievers that I know will only respond hostilely when their views are labeled as immoral or the root of mankind’s problems (as in this case).

The video seems to be hypocritical in that respect by implying that, while atheists who try to spread their viewpoints are disrespectful and selfish, Christians telling others about their viewpoints is virtuous.

I mean no disrespect in writing this, but I have been put in a position requiring me to either ignore or respond to an attack against my beliefs. I hope you’ll understand both that and the fact that I’m providing a counter-argument and have no intention of attacking the idea of Christianity in any way.

1. People dismissing and ridiculing God and Jesus Christ are the reasons for world problems.

It is difficult to refute such a broad statement given without an example, but for the argument’s sake we’ll associate it with the video distributed shortly after the Virginia Tech shootings entitled “The Day They Kicked God Out Of The Schools” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNjpddyn0HE). Although the U.S. Department of Justice doesn’t census the various religious affiliations of prisoners, it should be quite obvious that no faith has proven itself 100% impervious to having criminals in its ranks. I have not heard of a single credible sociologist who has found compelling evidence of the relationship between faith and crime in Christianity’s favor. Considering the proven accuracy of many other criminological theories in comparison, the argument of religious immunity to crime and other troubles seems moot.

2. People should believe less skeptical of the Bible than other info sources (i.e. newspapers).

The timing of this message could probably not have been worse. Stressing the lack of necessity of accreditation right after presenting an urban legend as fact to the viewer serves only to discredit itself to any who investigate the facts. Aside from that point, I hope that anybody who devotes a large part of their lives to the teachings of a book would conduct a thorough analysis of its veracity beforehand. All important information should ideally be fact-checked before being accepted as truth.

3. People should believe, think, say, and do the things written in the Bible.

If Matthew 5:17-18 in the New Testament validates the Old Testament laws, then the punishment for rape should be the man’s forced marriage to the victim and a monetary payment to her father (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), gays should be put to death (Leviticus 20:13), and you should murder people who preach another religion to you (Deuteronomy 13:7-12). Obviously, the world would not be a better place with these laws intact, so advising people to follow all of the Biblical laws is not in the best interest of those who wish to create peace and end violence.

4. It is unfair that obscene material is allowed online, but religious matters are kept away from school and work environments.

These examples are misleading. Both religious and obscene materials are allowed on the internet as it is a public forum. Both obscene and religious matters are forbidden at school and work because the former is unconstitutional while the latter is based on company rules that are in effect to prevent productivity-diminishing debate or discomfort. The internet and these public institutions are unrelated, making the argument irrelevant.

5. Christians should make their religious preferences know every day of the week.

This is another example of the hypocrisy of the video. If Christians always made themselves known and argued their beliefs to everybody, what would make them different from the professor in the story? Isn’t that exactly what he was doing with his beliefs? People should respect the fact that not everybody holds the same beliefs and that arguing faith-based matters with others is illogical and rude.

6. You probably won’t forward the video to people you know.

I just wanted to point out the basic reverse-psychology that this video employs. It tries to appeal to the audiences’ Marty McFly complex by accusing them of not being as brave as the writer is, essentially saying that the viewer is a coward if they do not forward the video to others. It’s a cheap trick to garner more attention.

If you’d like to talk about any of this, I would be open to conversation or debate. However, any ad hominem attacks or unfounded disclamation of my arguments will be ignored.