I Pledge My Allegiance to the Stateby
Bill Barnwell
The real problem with the Pledge of Allegiance is not the phrase "under God." It's the whole concept of the pledge itself. While religious conservatives are rightfully outraged by judicial attempts to purge God from the public square, they should be cautious in their overall support for the Pledge, which is a tool of politicians to make our supreme loyalty the government. Many people were rightfully taken aback a couple years ago when a western liberal appeals court struck down the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, saying it violated the "establishment clause" of the U.S. Constitution that "separates church and state." Only problem is the so-called "establishment clause" (When the framers wrote the constitution, they had no idea that what they were writing included all these "clauses") was never intended to block saying nice things about God in public, it was designed to prevent the "establishment" of a state religion as was the case in Mother Britain before the Revolutionary War, where subjects were forced to belong to the Church of England. That was the whole purpose of the "establishment clause," but now liberals have gone wild in the post FDR era with their blatant anti-Christian interpretations of law in their efforts to create a secular utopia. How saying "under God" in the Pledge establishes Christianity or anything else as a State Religion is beyond me, but our black-robed masters on the bench know better than the rest of us I suppose. The guy that brought the case was Michael Newdow, an obvious anti-Christian crank. He brought it on behalf of his daughter (who along with her mother has no problem with the pledge) saying that the pledge was indoctrinating. A federal appeals court overturned a previous ruling from a lower court and struck down "under God" from the pledge. It was challenged and went to the Supreme Court. Many of us watched with curiosity for months as the case went before the Court and we waited for their opinion. Then, last week, they wussed out just like many of us thought. The Supremes overturned the earlier ruling that struck down "under God." But not because they felt the appeals court used screwy constitutional reasoning, but because Newdow didn't have the right to bring the suit on his daughter's behalf since he did not have full legal custody. Basically, the case was dismissed on a technicality and as such there is nothing from preventing this whole thing from starting all over again. The Supremes sidestepped the larger constitutional issues, as they often do, and really no one should be totally happy about this, including Pledge enthusiasts. It's true that Newdow was acting like a dipstick by bringing this suit, using his daughter as a vehicle to push his anti-religious agenda. But if anything the reasoning of the Court helps to further solidify anti-father bias in judicial reasoning. If the Court's reasoning is taken to its logical conclusions then a father like Newdow has few if any rights over his daughter (even though he has visitation rights part of the month). The unfair bias towards mothers in custody cases and divorce proceedings is another topic for another time though. Now let me get back to my main reason for writing this. I have no problem with the words "under God" being included in the Pledge of Allegiance. I love God and spend most my time serving Him. My problem is with the whole concept of the Pledge itself. The Pledge was/is basically a device to brainwash children from a very young age that their lives should be totally devoted to the State. The daily ritual in public schools of making little boys and girls stand up, put their hands over their hearts and "pledge their allegiance" to Uncle Sam is something very fitting for our Post-Lincoln nation, which ceased to be a Republic a long time ago and is now a continually growing statist empire that seeks to train children as early as possible to understand that their lives are not their own, and not even primarily God's, but the government’s. The phrase "under God" wasn't even added until 1954, in an attempt to basically, as Lew Rockwell has said, "deify the State." It was added by Eisenhower and his Congress as a political tool during the Cold War to fight the "godless Communists" (as if the US has been the pristine example of being Godly). "Under God," therefore, was basically a political tool, used in a political war, by political people, to exert more political control over the masses. In a system which people face a mandatory confiscation of 1/3 or more of their earned income a year, where federal, state and local laws criminalize almost everything under the sun, where regulations hamper ones ability to run a business or live a free life in the economic realm, where practicing and living out ones faith makes them susceptible for persecution, and where the lives of young people can be drafted to fight at a whim in wars they do not want or support to die for some political cause, the message is loud and clear: Your life is not your own, and not even God's, it belongs to the State. The Pledge is a seemingly innocent tool to help get that point across under the guise of "patriotism." While we should of course punish those who engage in treason (by the way, treason is more than criticizing public officials or public policy, contrary to what authoritarians like Ann Coulter and even some religious conservatives think), and support love of country, the whole concept of a "Pledge of Allegiance" to the government is troublesome. The real scandal of the Pledge is not the phrase "under God" it's the whole Pledge itself and the concept behind it. The criticism of "under God" is a slap in the face to religious people, mainly Christians; but the real problem is not church-going people who worship the Lord, it is statists who worship the government. Yes, there is some indoctrinating going on with the Pledge, but the indoctrination is not religious, it is political and statist. June 19, 2004 Bill Barnwell [send him mail] is a pastor in Swartz Creek, Michigan and a Master’s of ministry student at Bethel College. Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com |
It’s
high time for Christians to tell our rulers and masters in Washington
D.C that our allegiance is to Christ, and not to them.