UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE

Recently--you've all heard about it by now--somebody at NBC edited out the words "under God, indivisible," from the Pledge of Allegiance, as recited by a group of kids and broadcasted before a golf tournament. It unleashed a firestorm of complaints. I watched--briefly, I can't take it for long--a right-wing talk show, during which the Godless left were accused of attempting to undermine our country's hallowed traditions. They were hysterical. Remove these three words, they seemed to say, and the republic is doomed. They depicted those who were responsible as dangerous subversives, and demanded that they be fired.

There are many examples of the current poisonous political climate; this is only one of them. I am sometimes amused by the nonsense, but am also saddened--after all, though some of the right-wing contumely is so far-out as to be weirdly funny, one mustn't forget that the joke is on all of us.

I would like to discuss the incident and the reaction to it in a rational way. First a little background.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by a man named Bellamy, who considered himself a socialist. (He toyed with the idea of adding the word "equality," but this was shot down by lawmakers since they strongly believed, well, that some races were a lot more equal than others. Incidentally, Bellamy had the children--the Pledge first appeared in a youth magazine--give a salute almost identical to the Nazi salute, which of course came into existence much later. President Roosevelt put an end to that.) There were three later changes to the Pledge. One changed "my flag" to "the flag of the United States." The second change was the addition of "of America" The now controversial phrase--it didn't result in any significant opposition at the time of its adoption-- "under God," was only added in 1954, to contrast a God-fearing America with godless communism. So for the first half of its life, the Pledge had no mention of God. (Was God discovred in 1954?)

It is interesting that the Protestant minister who lobbied Eisenhower to include this phrase reasoned that "America's greatness lies not in its arms, but in its spirit."

Now it's time to state my opinion. You might have guessed by now, if you don't know me already, that I am, for want of a better word, a liberal. You might also assume that I am just as adamant and even irrational about the Establishment Clause as liberals are wont. I would like to make it clear, I am for the strict separation of church and state. But does "under God" violate this? I think not.

I am a poet. We are known to apostrophize the moon, etc--why can't we--and everyone else--apostrophize what's best in all of us? There is no better word than "God" for this, as Martin Buber pointed out long ago. It does not necessarily mean a separate, interventionist, even a sometimes angry being called God--this deity Blake referred to as Nobodaddy, a term of which I am very fond. (To me, as a believer, if a rather heterodox one, the term goes much deeper than mere apostrophe and cannot be put into words--but can and should be put into deeds.)

My argument boils down to this: "Under God" means that there is something higher than the nation. "Under God" means that if people worship greed and power and abuse justice, they stand under judgement and risk their own true happiness, not to mention the happiness of those less powerful and "succesful" as they. It is interesting that the minister who advocated the addition of the word God thought that one nation, indivisible, under God was a fait accompli, while it is actually only a promise; something to live up to, not possess.

Mentioning God in the Pledge puts much-needed brakes on nationalism. It indicates that nationalism is good provided that one goes beyond nationalism; mere nationalism, as we know, can cause great harm. Without God, which can be viewed at the very least as the thirst for justice within us, nationalism can become demonic.

I am not passionate about this issue; I know that, whether the word is there or not, there will be little or no effect on behavior. A good example of this is the demand of some who consider themselves God's defenders that the hapless editor or editors be fired. Is this compassion? Is this love? An even sadder example: the mention of God in the Pledge hasn't stopped bombs from being dropped on people since 1954.

One might object that many use the Pledge in an idolatrous way, even with, or even more so with, the mention of God. American exceptionalism often entails viewing God as a sort of cosmic Uncle Sam, which borders on blasphemy. The world and all countries thereof, mine included, is in a fallen state; things of the spirit are very often interpreted in an idolatrous way. (A good example: Islamic terrorists often shout "God is great" before a heinous act. But that doesn't mean that God isn't great, nor does it signify that the phrase is unable to encourage the good to do better.) I hope this makes clear that statements that reflect the best within us are admittedly readily misused but are not idolatrous per se. To those who know that the love of God must be realized through wisdom and deeds of love for all beings, the Pledge can be an inspiration for just action. I therefore don't believe it should be tampered with.

For God's sake, leave it in! But if most want to remove it, remove it. But please, stop yaking and fighting about it. If you're not religious--or poetic--eschew that word, if you believe you must. The important thing is to act; to work together to bring about a world in accord with, arguably, the greatest commandment attributed to God. And we all know which one that is.