SERMON
30 June 2002

The Pledge of Allegiance is under review. A panel of judges has ruled that it can not be used in its present form. The problem is that the Pledge contains the phrase “under God.” Until this phrase is removed, the entire Pledge can not be used or required.

It is only fair and accurate to say that the Pledge of Allegiance is rooted in controversy. The Pledge echoes hot debates of earlier times and it was written to deal with tension and confrontation. The Pledge is the child of l892 – it looks back to issues that produced the American Civil War. L892 was only thirty years from some of the goriest moments of American’s most brutal war, the greatest slaughter until World War I. The Pledge looks at the atrocity of America’s fight and takes a side, pushes for one clear understanding: "the Federal Union, it must be preserved.”

“One nation, indivisible.” These are the words that were controversial in the first place. These words say “Yes” to Washington and Hamilton, they say “No” to Jefferson and Madison. “One nation, indivisible” says that being American is more important than being Virginian, Bay Stater, or Californian. “One nation, indivisible” – this phrase condemns and pushes aside views that see America as a confederation rather than a complete and connected reality. As the Pledge insists, we are a union, not an association to be limited, reduced, divided or regionalized.

Another Civil War decision stands behind yet another powerful phrase: “with liberty and justice for all.” Here is welcome and assurance for former slaves – here is Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation in summary form. And, perhaps, there is more here than just Civil War memories and issues. “With liberty and justice for all: also comments on the struggling working class of the American Age of Industrialization. “With liberty and justice for all” also comments on the wave of immigrants coming to America as the l9th Century ended. Former slaves, factory workers, new arrivals – each and all receive welcome and assurance – “liberty and justice for all.”

l954 saw a change in the Pledge. President Dwight David Eisenhower required the addition of the words “under God.” The source of this additional text must be noted if significance is to be seen properly.

President Eisenhower was a military figure – Supreme Commander in Europe during World War II. He visited Nazi concentration camps; he saw what is possible when government is not limited by a sense of higher law. The Supreme Commander had awareness of not being supreme and he wanted this sense of proportion to be part of the American vision.

“Under God” is a phrase with a message well communicated by one who is not an American. Quite by chance, I found a clue to our Pledge in a passage from a Japanese book. The title is “In Search of Truth and Peace.” The author is Kotaro Tanaka. Kotaro Tanaka was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in post-War Japan. As Japanese Chief Justice Tanaka was as outspoken critic of Marxism from a Christian standpoint. I find Tanaka’s teaching quite relevant to the implications of “under God.”

Tanaka writes that “Both the state and culture lose their own reason for existence when they disregard morality . . . If this interpretation is correct, then while the Constitution is the supreme law in relation to other actual laws, still . . . as an actual law itself, there stands above it, behind it, and under it as a base, the natural law which represents truth and order in the universe. This natural law is what defines the limits of actual law.” Tanaka’s point could be summed up as “no sense of under God, no limit to what politics or politicians are allowed to do.”

Now, let us see more the specifically American heritage of “under God.” I limit myself to remarks made by George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

First, Washington. “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor” (October 3, l785; Proclamation). The word duty in an official document is noteworthy. This sense of being “under God” is not an option flourish or garnish in this context: it is an official idea taken as a basic of life and society.

Next, Abraham Lincoln – arguably America’s most mystic President. “It is fit and becoming in all people, at tall times, to acknowledge and revere the Supreme Government of God; to bow in humble submission to His chastisement; to confess and deplore their sins and transgressions in the full conviction that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; and to pray, with all their fervency and contrition, for the pardon of their past offenses and for a blessing upon their present and prospective action” (August l2, l86l; Proclamation).

Having turned to Washington and Lincoln, I now add some personal thoughts as one who tries to be a Christian teacher. Removing “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance has meaning that is quite large-scale. This removal gives total application to several ideas.

1. Religion is bad and all must be protected from it.
   
   
2. The bare mention of God must be prevented. This prohibition goes beyond what could be called “sectarian” since “God” is a very vague expression which can be used with a range of meanings as we learn from both Alcoholics Anonymous and Boy Scout practice. Saying “God” is not the same as referring to “the Lord of the Bible” or “the Father of Jesus Christ.” If God is a reality and not an opinion, God must be mentioned just as we acknowledge air or water or electricity or gravitational pull.
   
   
3. There can be no trust of those who believe. Any mention of God is a sign that oppression is in the wings. This way of thinking would forbid any mention of food – someone may overeat. It is true that anything can be abused – even belief in God – but American history shows a pattern of self-correction that should be remembered.
   
   
4. Without any debate or social agreement we are institutionalizing atheism in a way that is striking. Just as Mexico and Russia are giving freedom to religious expression, we are removing religion from our list of options. Just as we are being called “the Great Satan,” we are doing something that seems to justify the term through its hostility to any public affirmation of God as reality.

The “cleansing” of the Pledge is bad news. It does not protect us from extreme views – it hurls us into the middle of extreme view that give atheism a privileged status and a required edge above all other interpretations of religion. In refusing to see God as a fact or a force, we are being asked to accept an extreme view as a norm. We are being committed to atheism rather than freedom of religion or freedom of conscience.

Both foreign wisdom and American tradition warn against removing God from the moral basis of national life. Protest this effort – be articulate as to why “under God” has meaning and value. Find a way to balance our freedoms and our interpretations. Above all, learn how patriotism and faith can be related in a way that is plural, helpful, affirming, and appropriate to our country.

The Rev'd James E. Furman