The Pledge of Allegiance and its Meaning

In June of 2002 two justices on the Ninth Circuit declared that it was unconstitutional for the words "under God" to be in the pledge of allegiance. This created considerable controversy with almost all senators and congressional representatives making every effort to show their opposition to this decision. Editors of newspapers around the nation were inundated with letters declaring support for "under God" being retained in the pledge.

The great irony attached to this flap is that for most Americans reciting the pledge of allegiance is a ritual with little, if any, meaning. This is painfully true for some of those most vociferous in their protests against the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Consider the words that make up the pledge and people's actions:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America...

The essence of this phrase is loyalty to the nation. Many, including the most ardent, reciters of the pledge, however, have done all they can to distance themselves from the flag when it was likely to be in harm’s way. And they will support their children and other members of their families and circles of friends to do the same. It would certainly be a good idea to question the loyalty of "patriots" who schemed or will scheme for draft deferments for themselves or their children. Allegiance to the flag surely implies doing one’s duty, but only a minority of people eligible to vote do their duty at election time. Many Americans endorse the shibboleth about greed being good, but greed and loyalty are incompatible.

... and to the republic for which it stands ...

A republic means that the people choose their leaders and these leaders govern. When he was asked at the end of the Constitutional Convention what kind of government the framers had given the new nation, Benjamin Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."

By the time of the Civil War, it had become apparent that the republic was at risk. In 1864 Abraham Lincoln said, "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country... Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Who can deny at the beginning of this 21^st Century that corporations are enthroned and we are well into an era of corruption in high places? Clearly the ruling plutocracies are endeavoring to prolong their reign. They are doing so not only by "working upon the prejudices of the people" but by the more effective purchase of politicians in the United States Capitol and in state capitols. Since the 1980s statistics have continued to show the rich are becoming richer and fewer in number while the poor are becoming poorer and more numerous. Elected leaders no longer govern. They pass legislation on behalf of and for the benefit of their campaign donors.

In the real world of American political life corporations and special interest groups will insist on their personal interests over what is best for the country, their state and community, and most so-called leaders will acquiesce to pay off campaign finance debts. The initiative process in many states is clearly anti-republic even if arguments may be made in favor of it being democratic. Who can blame citizens for supporting the initiative system when elected so-called leaders betray their pledges to the citizens and the national or state constitutions.

... one nation under God ...

There is always the question of which god, if any, does the person reciting the pledge have in mind. The general assumption is that "God" refers to the Christian God, but the American people happen to worship several gods with Mammon probably having the most followers. Proponents of retaining "under God" have recognized the traditional arguments against this practice and have modified their argument to say that "God" can mean anything we want it to mean. Some have suggested decapitalization to "god." If we can give whatever meaning we want to "God," can we also give whatever meaning we want to allegiance, liberty and justice? Can we equate liberty with license and justice with vengeance? If atheists reject God in the pledge, is their pledge of allegiance invalid making them disloyal citizens? Or can we all just disregard those or any other words we find personally inconvenient?

... indivisible ...

We are, despite occasional popular rallies, a nation divided in many ways - the haves and the have-nots, racism and religion, to name the probable top three. And we repeatedly adopt policies to ensure that the "haves" will have more and become fewer in number while the "have-nots" will be left with less but become more numerous. Some religious leaders continually pontificate about which people will make it to their heavenly estates and others that will be rejected. We haven’t reached the divisiveness found in the Balkans, the Middle East and other tribal regions, but given time we may see that problem emerge.

As these regions remind us of wars, we might also note how divided this nation can become in times of war with Vietnam and Iraq being among the more obvious examples.

Only wishful thinking could justify the phrase "liberty and justice for all." As a nation we have always elected leaders who wrote laws guaranteeing a large segment of our citizens would have their liberty severely curtailed and justice frequently denied: Slavery; subservient status for women; the Trail of Tears; segregation and its despicable treatment of black Americans; internment of citizens of Japanese, German and Italian ancestry during World War II; etc.. Many among us continue to elect politicians who will recite the pledge then support other travesties, especially when it comes to economic justice.

How can the millions of Americans living in poverty enjoy liberty? Exceptional individuals notwithstanding, how can the masses in poverty escape if they are denied a just and living wage for their labors? When people are denied economic justice they have little hope of liberty. It is difficult to conceive of a greater disregard for justice than people accused of capital crimes being defended in courts by counsel that are blatantly incompetent and, on occasion, asleep during the proceedings. How many wretches in the judicial system have tolerated such acts of injustice between incantations of "liberty and justice for all?"

If we are fortunate we will meet a few people who live according to the spirit of the pledge. As far as most people are concerned, however, they may as well recite "Baa Baa Black Sheep" or some other nursery rhyme for all the meaning the pledge has to them.

Back to Pledge of Allegiance Home Page

Top of Page