Guest Editorial: Pledge controversy serves as reminder that civil religion pales next to authentic faith

By J. Brent Walker

The United States Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

The Court should rule that it does not. Here’s why.

First, the Pledge of Allegiance is not a religious exercise. Clearly, any attempt by the government to demand or even urge participation in a prayer or act of worship would violate the Establishment Clause – particularly in the public schools. But, ours is a secular pledge, which, when taken as a whole, is intended to inspire patriotism. It does not have the purpose or primary effect of advancing religion. At most, it is an acknowledgement of this nation’s religious roots and the fact that we continue to be a “very religious people,” to use Justice William O. Douglas’ phrase.

Second, this reference to America’s religious character is nonsectarian. A pledge to “One nation, under Jesus,” or “under Buddha” would be difficult to defend. True, the word “God” implies a certain monotheism, and the phrase “under God” is not a perfectly nuanced reflection of this nation’s religious pluralism. But, as my former colleague, Buzz Thomas, has said, this is a Pledge – not an essay. It’s hard to come up with a more inclusive phrase than this one.

Third, students cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge – with or without the words “under God.” The Supreme Court ruled eleven years before “under God” was added in 1954 that students have the right to forgo pledging allegiance to the flag. West Virginia vs. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). Students who object to reciting the Pledge cannot be compelled to say it or disciplined for not participating.

Finally, a practical reason. If the Court strikes the words “under God” from the Pledge, there would be an immediate groundswell to amend the Constitution. Although constitutional amendments are difficult to adopt, this one would most likely pass and, in the process, open the door to more far-reaching Establishment Clause mischief.

Having said all this, what is legal and constitutional is not always helpful or wise. For theological and policy reasons, I would be happier if the words “under God” were not included.

Civil religion in its various forms has long been a pervasive part of American political culture. According to sociologist Robert Bellah, “civil religion is about those public rituals that express the nexus of the political order to divine reality.” In its most benign forms, civil religion serves as a unifying, cultural balm that reminds us of our religious roots as a nation. But it can easily and often morph into an idolatry of nationalism, or, at the very least, result in the trivialization of religion.

Simply stated, civil religion is not the same as heartfelt, vital religion. Ceremonial religion is not life-altering, world-changing religion. “Ceremonial deism,” as it is sometimes called, is a pale substitute for authentic faith in a personal God whom we call “Abba Father.”

Indeed, one of the traditional arguments in favor of the constitutionality of this and other forms of ceremonial deism (such as “In God We Trust” on coins) is that, through long use and rote repetition, the words have lost any religious import they might have had. In short, what is commonplace, becomes mundane.

As my friend, Derek Davis, of the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, has written:

The God of American civil religion is a God stripped of his real essence and instead becomes a God used to advance national interests, be it anti-communism in the 1950s when the phrase “under God” was added to the pledge, or in the 2000s, as the God of the bumper sticker “God Bless America” whom America calls upon to fight the war on terrorism. God becomes a watered down deity, a supreme power called upon only to bolster patriotic sentiment and advance national goals.

The vitality of religion in America is thus diminished – not enhanced – when we conflate our penultimate allegiance to Caesar with our ultimate allegiance to God.

This explains why the Baptist Joint Committee – along with many other religious organizations – declined to file a friend-of-the-court brief in this case. The Court can only rule on the legal issue, and our concerns are more theological, political and practical. However, we will continue to speak out publicly about how this issue is something of a tempest in a teapot and about the dangers that attend a pervasive civil religion.

J. Brent Walker is executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs.