Saturday, July 6, 2013

The Pledge of Allegiance

There has been an ongoing controversy about the Pledge of Allegiance. Some want to omit the phrase "under God" on 'separation of church and state' grounds. A favorite move is to pint out that the Pledge didn't include "under God" until the 50s, as a way to contrast with atheistic communism.

Here is my two cents on all of this: 

I for one could not pledge allegiance to a country without the caveat "under God" in it. For my obedience to my nation is second to my obedience to God, and my nation forfeits its right to command my obedience if it violates higher moral principles. This is broadly the argument underlying the Declaration of Independence: a nation loses it's claim to sovereignty if it violates the Will of God blatantly, willfully and without recourse. 

The Great Seal of the US, established in the 1780s, by many of those involved in the very founding of the nation, comports well with the 1950s addition to the Pledge. The All-Seeing Eye of Providence, with the rays of glory behind it, represents "The Perfect", an ideal and transcendent moral authority. This Force, represented by a complete and perfect triangle, stands *over and above* the nation, which is represented by the incomplete but growing pyramid below it. The gap between the two is a statement: "the nation, forever imperfect, is not the Transcendent perfection to which it reaches." The nation grows towards God (defined here in as non-confessional a way as possible), but is not God. God blessed the founding of the nation (the meaning of "annuit coeptis") and it's power sustains it (the light of Glory) but THE STATE IS NOT GOD. It is eternally "less than" and literally "under" God. The addition to the Pledge of "under God" and the addition of "In God We Trust" to the seal, is just the spelling out in English what is already officially the stance of the US government, symbolically represented on the seal, established over 150 years prior.

Belief in God is not irreducibly religious. It is a metaphysical belief, a philosophical posit that is not necessarily tied to it's traditional connection with religion. Deists are usually irreligious, but they hold theistic beliefs. Many of the Founding Fathers were Deists. Governments are not metaphysically neutral. Philosophy underlies politics, necessarily. Legal systems presuppose objective truth and objective morality. These controversial, philosophical beliefs are inescapably part of good governance. Imagine a relativist refusing to promise to tell the truth on the grounds that there is no such thing as truth...it just doesn't work. Governments simply can't be relativistic about these issues. 

But this doesn't mean it is illegal to be a relativist or to promote relativist philosophy...it isn't. The rights of the relativist are not infringed upon. Indeed most relativists are probably happy that their governments negative their viewpoint. There are good reasons for government NOT to be neutral on the God question. Indeed, I know of no government ever that has been. The few atheistic governments (Stalinist and Maoist) reveal great dangers when such philosophies underly government.  Indeed, given the dangers of political deification, the atheist might be thankful that the government is theistic. 

But a governmental theistic philosophy does not infringe on the atheists right to be atheist or promote their ideology. Nor does it establish one particular form of worship or limit the right of the individual to worship God as they see fit, or not to worship at all. Relativists are not some persecuted class in this country, and neither should be atheists. 


No comments:

Post a Comment