For many people, the Pledge of Allegiance is recited as an incantation, a rhythmic mood-setter invoking thoughts of sacrifice, honor and loyalty. As such, altering the Pledge to satisfy the heathens of the world seems blasphemous. As the “under God” clause works its way up the judicial ladder again, we are reminded that the original wording of the Pledge of Allegiance was:
“I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
That was a pretty nice Pledge. It made a statement of unity, albeit a bit redundantly, and left you feeling as though maybe there is something here worth dying for.
But, alas, in the 1920s, someone noticed that this allowed for individual symbols and so an attempt was made to remove that loophole by specifying the flag to be that of the United States of America.
Our founders knew that they could not expect to remain free to practice their religion if that freedom was not a fundamental right for all. They were wise enough to place this in the Constitution, making it difficult for popular rule and knee-jerk political reaction to mess with this important right. Throughout history, war has put pressure on civil liberties. And so it was that our leaders succumbed to the Cold War fervor of 1954 and turned their backs on our right to freedom of religion by adding the phrase “under God” to the Pledge.
With various states mandating recitation of the Pledge, it becomes the unpopular duty of the courts to finally fix the ’50s fad fault in our beloved Pledge. After all, freedom of religion does not mean freedom to practice my religion and to hell with the others. For those wishing to impart their particular religion into the political process, I suggest they look at Iraq and Iran and see how that’s working for them.
Perhaps supporters of the “under God” clause are attempting a chivalrous gesture to a struggling Russia, allowing them to keep one of their few Cold War victories. But I suggest that snubbing our fundamental right to freedom of religion is too high a price for such a gesture.
As long as we are fixing the Pledge, let’s take a look at what it says. It starts with the notion that we will pledge our allegiance to a symbol and then goes ahead and includes the country itself. I think that we can all agree that the phrase “to the Republic for which it stands” means the United States of America. Similarly, I’m pretty sure that the “one nation” being referred to is also the United States of America. Making these substitutions, the Pledge reads:
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the United States of America, the United States of America, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
We could spend considerable time debating the need for the term “indivisible,” but I think that comes with the name. So how about this:
“I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, with liberty and justice for all.”
This is a far better Pledge. It lets us get right to what we really want to be pledging allegiance to, our country. Of course, we could debate the inclusion of the phrase “liberty and justice for all.” The list is obviously truncated, so why get started? But with that kind of thinking, nothing would ever get done. As a sucker for tradition, I vote to leave that part alone.
Having cut 16 words from the Pledge, we might take the liberty to explicitly pay homage to the linchpin of our nation’s survival by adding the following 15:
“I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, and solemnly appreciate the sacrifices that have been and will be made in the pursuit of liberty and justice for all.”
Now that’s a Pledge I would be proud to recite and encourage my children to recite as well. And with one fewer word, think of the trees we’ll save.
Karl Reinig is a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center.
