Sermons
One Nation, Under Law!
By Robert P. Tucker, Ph.D., Minister
The Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Lakeland, Florida - June
30, 2002
(see also What Did 9/11 Teach Us?)
Let me see a show of hands. How many of you recognize these names?
Richard Burton? Richard Nixon? Richard Stands?
You don't know "Richard Stands"? Back in the 1960s everybody
knew "Richard Stands," at least they did if they watched The
Art Linkletter Show. Remember how he used to interview children?
One day he asked them to recite "The Pledge of Allegiance."
A little boy was doing just fine until he said: "…and to the
republic for Richard Stands…" [Burrell, 68; adapted for style
here and below by the replacement of "boy" and "girl"
where only "children" are mentioned.]
There has always been a lot of confusion in the minds of children about
America's "Pledge of Allegiance." In my own case, it was not
until I was in the second grade that I realized that the "Pledge"
did not end with the word, "Amen"! That was because my first
grade teacher had us immediately follow the "Pledge" with
"The Lord's Prayer"! (If you think I was confused, just imagine
the mental mayhem done to the mind of David--the only Jew in the class!)
Many adults are also confused about "The Pledge." I was reminded
of that by what another child said. She was doing just fine until she
got to the part that is now the focus of attention throughout the country
because of a recent court ruling. [Kravets] Her version came out like
this: "…one nation, under guard…"! [Burrell, 68]
Her mistake takes my breath away! For ever since September 11th, that
is precisely what we have been: one nation, under guard!
In 1961, a Unitarian named Rod Serling wrote an episode for his television
series, The Twilight Zone. It was entitled, "The Monsters Are Due
on Maple Street." [Foss, 55; Burrell, 57 paraphrased below] It
was an allegory about the potential depth of human depravity. The story
went like this: On a beautiful afternoon in America, a bright light
flashed across the sky. Suddenly, everything stopped: cars wouldn't
start, electricity wouldn't flow, and radios wouldn't work. People gathered
in the streets to figure out what was going on. A little boy, who had
been reading a sci-fi comic book, said: "That's what happens when
the aliens come." That set off a chain reaction: suspicions grew,
fingers were pointed, tempers flared, and finally, a mob formed to find
the aliens in their midst! By the next morning there was no sign of
life. Houses had been burned down and bodies lay strewn about. On a
nearby hillside, an alien instructor said to his alien student: "See
how it works? Just stop their machines and they do the rest. They pick
the most dangerous enemy they can find and it's themselves. All we need
to do is sit back and watch."
In the aftermath of September 11th-with Americans still hurt, fearful,
and suffering-that's where we are: on "Maple Street" waiting
for the monsters who, if we are not very careful, will turn out to be
ourselves.
One thing which could turn us into mobs might just be the recent court
decision on "The Pledge of Allegiance." If that is to be prevented,
Americans must increase their understanding of that document.
"The Pledge of Allegiance" is an oath. Oaths are made up
of words. We say them for a purpose which is both worthy and necessary
if we are to trust one another enough to live together. That purpose
is to establish our integrity by explicitly and formally declaring which
values we believe in. "A person is only as good as his or her word,"
the saying goes, and so it is that people of integrity take oaths very
seriously. [Burrell, 52; paraphrased] We Unitarian Universalists shy
away from creeds and yet even we recognize that value-laden words define
who we really are. Our U.U. "Principles" testify to that!
[Singing, x]
Oaths can serve us well not only when they help establish our integrity,
but also when they inspire us emotionally through their use in rituals
that reinforce the most noble aspects of our existence. "The Hippocratic
Oath" taken by physicians is a good example. [Burrell, 53]
But, sometimes, oaths can be harmful. This is especially true if, as
time passes, their use undermines the principles they were created to
defend. That can happen in different ways because there are different
kinds of oaths. In relation to "The Pledge," the two most
important types are "loyalty oaths" (which state what we promise
to do) and "test oaths" (which state what we believe). [Burrell,
53, 51]
The death of Sir Thomas More is a classic example. Called The Man
For All Seasons in Robert Bolt's 1961 play, More was Lord Chancellor
under Britain's King Henry VIII. Henry wanted to divorce Catherine of
Aragon in order to marry Anne Bolyn, but the pope objected. To free
himself of papal control, Henry promulgated an "Act of Succession"
which would make him the head of the Church of England. For it to take
effect, officials like More had to swear an oath. It was not merely
a loyalty oath swearing not to interfere with the king's actions. It
was a "test oath" declaring that one believed that Henry had
spiritual superiority to the pope. Thomas More "would have had
no objection" to a loyalty oath, but his Roman Catholic faith did
not permit him to swear to such a test oath. For his refusal, he was
beheaded on July 6, 1535. [Burrell, 51, 55]
Test oaths have a sordid history. Recent examples include Hitler's
use of them to purge Germany of alleged "undesirables," and
Joseph McCarthy's witch-hunt for American Communists. Such use of test
oaths is very costly, not only to the individuals whose lives they ruin
or end, but also to their societies at large. Hitler's oaths drove out
of Germany or to their graves some of the most brilliant minds in the
world. McCarthy's oaths stifled the creative contribution of a whole
generation of America's most talented citizens. [Burrell, 54]
Test oaths arise out of fear. They are created as defenses against
real or imagined threats to valued principles. But problems arise when
test oaths outlive the fears that gave them birth and when they become
instruments for violating the very freedoms and principles they were
designed to protect. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
declared: "Test oaths are notorious tools of tyranny." [Burrell,
56]
A good example of this fear factor occurred in 1958 when President
Eisenhower set up the National Defense Education Act-America's first
student loan program. It was in response to the paranoia that gripped
the U.S. when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik. The program's purpose
was to insure America's technological superiority. But students had
to sign a test oath stating that they had no intention of overthrowing
the U.S. government. However, other than intimidation, nothing was achieved
by that oath, for no effort was made to prove the students' truthfulness!
[Burrell, 58ff.]
There is an irony here that Brian Burrell points out in his book, The
Words We Live By. "What [American] proponents of test oaths
usually overlook…is that [this] nation was founded by subversives,
and that the Founding Fathers made a point…in the Declaration of
Independence that when a regime becomes oppressive, the people have
a legitimate right to overthrow it. In a sense, then, the test…oath…is
as un-American as the beliefs it supposedly targets. It is an insult
to people of conscience, and it denies freedom of thought, of association,
and of expression." Nevertheless, Burrell points out: "When
faced with a crisis, a majority of Americans have unhesitatingly supported"
test oaths. [Burrell, 59]
The original intent of the Founding Fathers was "to keep the nation
as oath-free as possible." Their experience under British rule
and with traitors during the American Revolution had taught them that
oaths are not reliable. Benjamin Franklin, for example, declared that
oaths are "the last recourse of liars." In the Constitution,
the Founders "saw fit to include [only] a succinct presidential
oath, and although they suggested an oath for government service, they
did not…write one. They [also] saw no need for a loyalty test oath
for citizens, nor for a pledge of allegiance." It was not from
the nation's Founders, but from the individual states that loyalty and
test oaths appeared for civil servants, and pledges of allegiance for
schoolchildren. [Burrell, 61f.]
Before 1892 the United States did not have a pledge of allegiance.
The first version of our current "Pledge" was created by Francis
M. Bellamy, a staff writer for The Youth's Companion magazine.
He and his boss, James Upham, successfully campaigned to have the "Pledge"
recited by school children across the U.S. on the opening day of the
World's Columbian Exposition. Blessed by a proclamation from President
McKinley, here are the original words of our "Pledge of Allegiance"
as they were uttered on October 19, 1892: "I pledge allegiance
to my flag and the republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all." [Burrell, 66]
Bellamy's "Pledge" was an instant hit! By 1898 New York became
the first state to legally mandate its use in public schools. Other
states soon followed. [Burrell, 66]
In 1923 a National Flag Code Committee was set up to outline proper
flag etiquette. It recommended replacing the words, "my flag"
with the phrase, "the flag of the United States"; and later
it called for adding the words, "of America," to distinguish
these united states from those of Brazil or Mexico. [Burrell,
66f.]
As Cold War paranoia intensified, waves of patriotism and pietism rolled
across the land. In 1953, a congressman proposed adding the words "under
God" to the "Pledge". [Burrell, 67] The Roman Catholic
Knights of Columbus led a campaign in support. ["Leave"] President
Eisenhower's own minister blessed the proposal as necessary to distinguish
God-fearing Americans from their God-less enemies. Without such a change,
he said, he could imagine hearing "little Muscovites repeat[ing]
a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow." [Burrell,
67]
On June 14, 1954, Eisenhower signed into law a bill that established
the first "Flag Day" and made official the modified version
of the "Pledge." His ambivalence showed, however, in his statement
that "our form of government has no sense unless it is founded
on a deeply felt religious belief-and I don't care what it is!"
[Burrell, 67; emphasis added]
The addition of "under God" soon resulted in court challenges.
But, before that, the compulsory use of the "Pledge" and flag
salute as test oaths had already been challenged. In 1940, two Jehovah's
Witness children went to court over being expelled from school for refusing
to salute the flag and recite the "Pledge." According to their
religion, doing so was forbidden as a form of worshipping a graven image.
The Supreme Court, however, ruled against their religious challenge.
[Burrell, 68]
In contrast, in 1943 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of other Jehovah's
Witness children. The Court declared that remaining silent during the
"Pledge" is a form of expression protected by the Constitution.
Justice Robert Jackson wrote: "Compulsory unification of opinion
achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard." Thus were school
children freed from having to say the "Pledge." [Burrell,
68] It took yet another Supreme Court decision, in 1972, to establish
the same freedom for teachers. [Burrell, 64f., 69]
In the 30 years since then, the Supreme Court has gone "out of
its way to interpret" the words "under God" in the "Pledge"
as a "nonreligious statement." [Burrell, 69f.] Indeed, "in
the 1980s several Supreme Court justices…said the pledge and the
'In God We Trust' phrase on currency and coins were immune from church-state
separation doctrines because their significance had been lost through
rote repetition." ["Leave"]
I believe such a position amounts to judicial waffling in the face
of overwhelming public opposition to "tampering" with the
"under God" phrase in the "Pledge." Nothing short
of a Supreme Court case will prove that, of course. As it happens, we
may soon get such a case because last week the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals declared the "Pledge" to be an unconstitutional
governmental endorsement of monotheistic religion in violation of the
American doctrine of separation of church and state due to the presence
in it of the words "under God" which it argued have blatantly
"religious" meaning. That case arose on behalf of Dr. Michael
A. Newdow who objected to his daughter being compelled to listen to
her second grade class recite the "Pledge." Not surprisingly,
politicians seeking re-election have vigorously opposed the court's
decision and both the Newdows and the court justices have received hate
messages and death threats. [Kravets (both articles); "Leave"];
T.V./radio newscasts]
What the Supreme Court will do is anyone's guess, especially given
its recent ruling on school vouchers. [Gearman] What ought to be done,
however, is clear. The public, the politicians, and the justices ought
to bow to truth, not to pressure; and ought to admit what is obvious:
"God" is a religious term, and its use in a government document
stands in violation of the separation of church and state and is thereby
unconstitutional.
In order to make this case, it must be shown that the popular claim
that "under God" is a meaningless, nonreligious phrase is
false. The way to do that is to show what the word "God" really
means in the "Pledge" as it is currently used.
No deity in any religion is named "God." Every religion's
deity has a particular name which distinguishes him or her or them from
the deities of other religions. [cf. Jordon] Only someone ignorant of
the history of world religions or intentionally deceitful would claim
that all people worship the same deity under different names. It is
not so. It never has been so.
This means the word "God" is being used as a "stealth
term" to conceal which deity the supporters of "under God"
have in mind. To expose their deception we must show which deity they
really mean. Here's how: If the words in the "Pledge" were
changed to say "under Zeus," no American would recite it.
If they said, "under Shiva" no non-Hindu American would say
it. If they said, "under Allah" no Jewish or Christian American
would say it. If they said "under Jehovah," no Muslim American
would say it. If they said "under Yahweh" many Fundamentalist
Christians (who falsely believe that the Bible's deity's name is "Jehovah")
would not say it. [On Jehovah/Yahweh, cf. Anderson, 60-66. The court
also argued thusly, Kravets (both).]
America is not one nation under Zeus, under Shiva, under Allah, or
under any other particular deity, and if the "Pledge" specified
which deity it really meant, some of those Americans who do not worship
that deity would go to the Supreme Court and argue that the "Pledge"
is clearly a religious creed in constitutional violation of the separation
of church and state. It is only because the ambiguous word "God"
is used that the Court has been able to pretend that the "Pledge"
is non-religious. But in fact, it is religious and its use of "under
God" is designed to refer secretly to only one deity--the Bible's
deity. The Court ought to admit that and stop pandering to the Jewish/Christian
majority, since it is thereby thumbing its nose at all Americans who
belong to any other religion or who practice no religion at all.
That is the negative side of things.
There is also a positive side.
America is a great nation! But its greatness is not based upon its
being religious. Many other nations are just as religious, and some
are far more religious and have made religion and government inseparable-remember
the theocracies of Iran and Afghanistan?! They could truly say of themselves,
"one nation, under Allah"! But are they great nations? Hardly.
What has made America great is not religion, but law-a Constitution
that applies equally to all of our citizens. That foundation had cracks
in it when it was laid. Blacks, women and others had to struggle to
fix those weaknesses that threatened to topple the whole structure of
our nation's greatness. But over time amendments were added to fill
in those cracks, so that the Constitution could evenly and equally apply
to all Americans. As time goes on, more cracks may appear and more amendments
may be needed. But that is our real foundation-the Constitution, one
of the most profound, eloquent and sacred documents ever written.
When "Old Glory" waves in the sky, what it symbolizes above
all else is the freedom and equality that are the goals and ideals of
that Constitution.
America's greatness arose, not because we believed in some ambiguous
anonymous deity whose name we refused to utter. It came instead from
the Constitution that Unitarian Thomas Jefferson and others laid down
as our legal foundation. [Foss, 36]
Therefore, when holidays such as the Fourth of July come and patriotism
fills the air, it is appropriate for Americans to salute their flag,
and it is proper for Americans to recite their "Pledge of Allegiance."
I believe in the "Pledge of Allegiance"!
But I also believe in the wisdom of a man named Jesus who said, "Render
to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things which are
God's." [Mark 12:17] It is my patriotic duty as an American citizen
to pledge my allegiance to this flag and to the nation for which it
stands. But we live in a secular, religiously pluralistic democracy,
and our government has no right to dictate what any citizen believes
religiously. It is not proper, therefore for a government pledge to
compel me to swear anything about any deity. That right does not belong
to Caesar.
When it comes time to recite the "Pledge," I do so proudly
and fervently, but--in the place of those two religious words--I substitute
two other words, two secular words, two constitutional words which do,
in fact, affirm what made this nation great. If you listen, you will
hear me say: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under
law, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
That is what the "Pledge" would say if it truly represented
all Americans. As we have slowly but surely brought the Constitution
around to better reflecting all of our citizens, maybe someday we will
do the same to the "Pledge." If we do not, then we will have
arrived on "Maple Street" and the enemy that will have destroyed
us will have been ourselves. Amen.
Sources
Anderson, Bernhard W. Understanding the Old Testament,
4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1986.
Burrell, Brian. "So Help Me God: Words of Obedience: Loyalty Oaths
and Pledges of Allegiance."
The Words We Live By. New York: The Free Press: 1997.
Foss, Gwen. A Who's Who of U.U.s. Farmington, MI: Gwen Foss,
1998.
Gearman, Anne. "Justices OK School Vouchers." The Ledger.
28 June 2002. A-1, 16.
Jordon, Michael. Encyclopedia of Gods. New York: Facts on File,
1993.
Kravets, David. "Court: Pledge Not Allowed in Schools."
The Ledger. 27 June 2002. A-1, 9.
Kravets, David. "Pledge of Allegiance Ruling On Hold; New Hearing
Sought." The Ledger.
28 June 2002. A4.
"Leave the Pledge Alone." Editorial. The Ledger. 28
June 2002. A-18.
Singing the Living Tradition. Boston: Beacon Press, 1993.
