First, an unlikely link to an article by Dahlia Lithwick, a senior editor at Salon.com, covering today's Supreme Court arguments about the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Cutting through the snide subvocalizations of the article, Dahlia Lithwick (I love the name . . . almost New Orleans-esque) paints a disturbing picture of a court befuddled . . . knowing the ruling it is expected to deliver, flailing about for a bit of solid reasoning to deliver it.
I'm curious to know what Christians really think of this debate. Not the knee-jerk urge to counter the ruthless anti-Christian tide sweeping society . . . but what thoughtful Christians REALLY think.
In fact, I think we should put the Pledge of Allegiance itself on the wtness stand.
First, I fail to see how any honest person could see the "under God" wording as anything but a public prayer. If it's not . . . if those words aren't invoking The Lord God Jehovah, God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob . . . then it's some other god. And, fellow believers, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." But that's a specious argument. The wording was pushed for inclusion by a Christian religious organization, and no honest person has ever thought it meant anything else. So it's out on the table - a public prayer. And the same politicians who rail about the separation of church and state have rushed to vote to protect our "under God." We've discussed cynical political religiosity before. And schizophrenic public discourse.
Don't get me wrong. I love prayer. I strongly believe in frequent communication with God. And I believe he is in constant communication with me. Sometimes I even get the message.
But I have a problem with this say-it-in-your-sleep rote prayer. CS Lewis, in his essay "The Dangers of National Repentance," discussed the folly of substituting generic off-the-shelf mass-produced religious jabber for personal faith. Proclamations of "national repentance" - a concept in itself alien to modern society - is meaningless . . . personal repentance (if one believes in sin) is what's called for.
As a Christian, I can't see any up side to the recitation of "under God" by an unbelieving, unwilling or non-understanding audience. Chanting that we are "One nation under God" doesn't make it so. Whether or not we are even one nation is quite open to debate . . . but we certainly are not a nation "under God," except in the cosmic sense. In the intended sense of the pledge - and this was openly taught in school in the prehistoric days of my youth - the clear claim was that the United States is somehow operating under godly principles or submission. If you think that's true, you're in denial. We are well and truly a nation struggling with all its might to cast off historic ties to Christian principles.
Similar questions might be (and in fact, have been) raised about the Pledge of Allegiance. Does a call to stand and pledge allegiance enhance patriotism? For me it does. But I'm old enough to have had a draft card, and that was a different world. For me, pledging allegiance was standing in solidarity with a long line of ancestors who died for that flag. For me, pledging allegiance was a vow to honor my elder classmates fighting and dying on the other side of the world. And then I pledged allegiance with the prime four years of my life in uniform. I pledge allegiance by keeping faith with the brothers and sisters fighting and dying on the other side of the world today . . . in the voting booth, with my VFW dues, in the gourd circle.
I don't advocate abolishing the Pledge of Allegiance . . . or the words "Under God" . . . but if they arent personal, then they're meaningless. And that cheapens everything the pledge stands for.
Comments