Loading …Historical Context of ‘Under God’ in the Pledge and National Anthem
The Pledge of Allegiance, written by Francis Bellamy in 1892, initially did not contain the words “under God.” This phrase was added during the Cold War in 1954, when President Eisenhower and Congress saw it as a way to differentiate the United States from the atheist Soviet Union. The addition was intended to emphasize the religious foundation they believed was crucial to American identity.
The National Anthem, “The Star-Spangled Banner,” composed by Francis Scott Key in 1814, doesn’t explicitly mention “God” in its commonly sung first verse. However, the fourth verse includes the line “And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.’” The religious undertones became more pronounced in later interpretations and cultural practices surrounding the anthem.
These inclusions were responses to the political and social contexts of their times. The Cold War era, marked by strong anti-communist sentiments, saw the addition of “under God” as a means to:
- Emphasize a collective national identity
- Root American values in theistic beliefs
- Create a clear ideological division from communist ideologies
The history behind these phrases demonstrates how they were strategically adopted to foster unity and underscore ideological differences, aligning with the prevailing attitudes of specific historical periods. As societal values have evolved, these inclusions have sparked debate about their place in a modern, increasingly diverse society.
Constitutional Debate: Establishment Clause
The inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and references to God in the National Anthem presents a case for examining the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This clause states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” and has been the foundation for debates on the constitutionality of religious expressions in governmental practices.
In Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004), the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the addition of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause. The Court avoided addressing the constitutional question directly by ruling that Newdow lacked standing to sue on behalf of his daughter, leaving the substantive issue unresolved1.
Legal Arguments:
- Against inclusion: It constitutes a government endorsement of monotheism, potentially marginalizing citizens of different faiths.
- For inclusion: The phrase is an example of ceremonial deism—a practice that has become largely ritualistic due to longstanding historical use.
Proponents often compare “under God” with other instances of ceremonial deism, such as “In God We Trust” on currency and opening prayer sessions in Congress. In Marsh v. Chambers (1983), the Supreme Court upheld the tradition of opening legislative sessions with a prayer, recognizing its historical significance2.
However, the Court has also been vigilant in ensuring that governmental actions do not cross the line into overt religious endorsement. The 1962 decision in Engel v. Vitale struck down the recitation of a state-sponsored prayer in public schools, emphasizing that even non-denominational prayers imposed by the state could violate the Establishment Clause3.
The debate over “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and references to God in the National Anthem reflects a broader tension in American constitutional law. The dilemma lies in balancing the nation’s historical religious heritage with the principle of religious freedom and non-establishment encapsulated in the First Amendment.
"As societal values continue to evolve, how might the judicial interpretations of such phrases change to address the complex issues of an increasingly pluralistic society?"
Impact on Religious and Non-Religious Communities
The inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance has significant implications for various religious and non-religious communities:
| Community | Perspective |
|---|---|
| Christians | Often see it as reinforcing national identity aligned with religious views |
| Atheists and Non-theists | May feel excluded; raises concerns about religious freedom |
| Polytheistic Communities | May find the monotheistic implication misaligned with their beliefs |
The blending of religious expressions within patriotic rituals can blur the boundaries between state and religion, potentially marginalizing dissenting views on religion. This situation challenges the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which aims to maintain a clear separation between church and state.
For proponents, the phrase serves as a reinforcement of traditional values in a changing society. Critics argue that it perpetuates a static notion of American identity that fails to reflect the dynamic and diverse makeup of modern society.
The dialogue around “under God” in the Pledge underscores the ongoing tension between tradition and progress, between unity and diversity. It invites continuous reassessment of how to address complex cultural and religious dynamics within the framework of constitutional principles.
How can we balance respect for historical traditions with the need to honor the constitutional commitment to religious liberty and inclusivity in an increasingly diverse America?
The ongoing debate over the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and references to God in the National Anthem highlights the challenge of balancing respect for historical traditions with a commitment to religious liberty and inclusivity. As we continue to address these complex dynamics, it is essential to remember that our constitutional principles were designed to protect both individual freedoms and collective heritage.
- Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004)
- Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)
- Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)