The Pledgeof Altegianceand the Meanirgr and Limits of Civil GraceY. Kao* and |erome E. Copulskyf

Recentcourt challengesto the constitutionality ofteacher-led recitations of the in public schools have centered on the question whether the Pledge is to be understood as a religious or secular ritual, given its post-1954 addition of the phrase "under God." After a brief dis- cussion of jurisprudence on this question, we argue that the category of civil religion usefully illuminates what is at stake in constitutional debatesabout the Pledge and in similar rituals. We develop four perspectivesthrough which the Pledge of Allegiance in particular, and civil religion in general,can be understood to function: preservationist, pluralist, priestly, and prophetic. Thus the ongoing controversy surround- ing the Pledge of Allegiance is best understood not as a dispute between "believers" and "atheists," but on the contested meaning, significance, and propriety of civil religion in America itself. In the end, we suggestthat even without the contested phrase, the Pledge would remain a potent ritual of civil religion, serving all four functions, and urge further serious study of the religious significance of the phenomenon of civil rehgron.

*Grace Y. Kao, Assistant Professor, Religious Studies Program, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Virginia Polltechnic Institute and State University, 2M Major Williams Hall (0227), Blacksburg VA 24O6i, gka@\tedu rlerome E C"p"lrLy, Assistant Professor and Director of Judaic Studies, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 215 l,ane Hall (A227), Blacksburg VA 2q&, copulsky@tedu

A version of &is paper was presented at the Iaw, Religion, and Culture Consultation of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) in Phiiadelphia, Pennsylvania on November 21, 2005. For their helpful feedback on earlier versions of this paper, we would like to thank Brian Britt, Michael Kessler, Martin E Marty, Erik Owens, Nelson Tebbe, Jonathan Tepper, Nathaniel Walker, Robert Yeile, and the two anonymous reviewers from the fAAR. loumal of the Ameian Acadany of Rekgion, Spring 2007, VoL 75, No. l, pp. 121-749 doi: 10. 1093ijaarelll-fl 065 o The Author 2007. Published by Orford University Press,on behalf of the American Academy of Religion. A11rights reserved-For permissions, please e-mail [email protected] Advance Access publication on February 14 2007 122 lournal of the American Academy of Religion

The Pledge of Allegiance is revered today by most . It is recited on a daily basis by millions of public school chiidren and their teachersin classroomsacross ull fiftr states.It concludesevery naturali- zation ceremony. The u.s. senate opens each legislative sessionwith a collective recital of the Pledge.t Many school boirds, city councils, and community organizations (e.9. American Legion, Elks, Masons, Boy scouts) incorporate recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance into their official meetings. The Pledge has become the most popular and recognizable of American civil ceremonies. It has also,- arguably, accruedreligious significancebecause of its theological referent. Things pledge .. were not alwaysso. From its birth in 1892 to l954,the of Allegiance made no mention of "God." Baptist minister and chriitian socialist Francis Bellamy had composed the original version for the september 8 issueof The Youth's companion's quadricentennial commem- oration of christopher c.olumbus's arrival in the Americas. The pledgewas then modified severaltimes during the National Flag conferen.er oi 1923 and. 1924, until Congresswrote fhis version into federal law on lane 22, I9M: "I pledge allegianceto the Flag of the United Statesof America and to the Republic for which it stands,one Nation indivisible, with tiberty and justice for all." On |une 14, 1954, after a successfi.rlcampaign by &e (Catholic) Knights of C,olumbus and an influential sermon by u *under Presbyterian ministeq C,ongressadded the phrase God," and in so doing embeddedbelief in God as well as the nation's subordinate relation- ship to that God within an expressionof fidelity to the state.z On |une 26, 2002, in responseto a legal challenge by Dr. Michael Newdow, a divided three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violate the Establishment clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.3 The public reaction to the

' On |une 23, 1999, the Senate unanimousiy agreed that one Senator wou.ld lead the entire Senate in reciting the Pledge of Aliegiance at the start of each iegislative session (S. Res. 113, 145 cong. Rec. s 745i). In 1989, both the House and the senate designatedseptember g, 1989 as our National Pledge of Allegiance Day, so as to commemorate the piedge of Allegiance's first appearancein print on September8, 1892 (P.L. 101-90, H.J. fus. 253). ' The Reverend George Macpherson Docherty delivered a Sunday sermGn on this matter on 8, i954 at washington's Ieb.ru|ry New York Avenue Presblterian church, to a congregation that inciuded President Eisenhower and the First Lady (Ellis 2005: 103-105). The irit tert of this setmon can be found at http://www.nyapc.org/congregation/sermon_Archives/?month=1954-02. ' lVe will use the same abbreviations that the Supreme C,ourt used when it elected to review tiis case. Newdow I (Newdow v. u.s. c,ongress,292 F.3d 597 (cA 9 z00z)) refers to the orsinal Ninth Circuit Court decision. Newdow II (Newdow v. tLS. Congress,3ij F.3d 500 (CA S Z"0OZ))i, * order by, the Superior c,ourt enjohing Newdow from inciuding his daughter as an unnamed party or suing as her "next ftiend." Newdow III (Newdow v. rJ.s. c,ongress,32g F.3d 466 Kao Copukky: The Pledge of Allegiance 123

ruling was immediate and overwhelmingly negative. The following day, the U-S. Senatevoted unanimously io affirm the exact - wordin! of the Pledge and the House of Representativespassed a similar resl olution, 416-3. On the day that the Supreme Court actually heard oral argumentsin Elk Grove unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdaw,542 U.S. 1 (2004) (hereinafter "Elk Grove v. Newdow"), an poll F*d that nearly nine in ten American (87o/o)wanted the phiase "under God" to remain in the Pledge. The Supreme Court, however, has yet to affirm or deny the permissibility of teacher-led recitations of the current text of the Pledge, since they ultimately ruled on pro- cedural grounds of Dr. Newdods as a noncustodial parent and not on more substantiveissues concerning the First Amendment. Thus the legal controversy surrounding the Pledge of Allegiance is far from over, especiallyin the light of Newdow's iontinued litigation on this same issue, now with co-plaintiffs whose legal standing is not in dispute.a This essayexamines, the meaning and significance of the ongoing cg1lroversy about the Pledge of Allegiance through the analpical leni ;'civil of "civil religion." In Part I, we discussthe phenomenon of reli- gion" and identi{' the Pledge of Allegiance as one of its key rituals in American life. In Part II, we examine the way the religious content of the Pledge has been construed by the courts and other parties. We contend, in Part III, that the ongoing controversy surrounding the Pledge of Allegiance is best understood not as a dispute between "believers" and "atheists," but as a struggle over the melning, signifi- cance, and propriety of civil religion in America. To that end, we for- mulate and evaluate four distinct, but not necessarily mutuallv exclusive,modes of civil religion-preservationist, pluralist, priestly, ani prophetic-and consider the meaning and desirability of the pledge of

(CA 9 2003)) is the amended vercion of Newdor'r I plus the Ninth Circuit's deniai of rehearing err banc.Unless otherwise stated,ali subsequentreferences to the Ninth Circuit decision wiil be to this amended opnion (Newdow II4. (A1l casecitations designate(t) the pa*ies, (2) tbe volume number of the reporter in which tre case appears, (3) the name of the reporter, (4) t},e page on which the case beg.ins,and (5) the year the decision was rendered.)AIso, please note here 'f.3d" stands for FederalReponer. 3'd seriesand "CA 9" for the llnited StetesCoui of Appeals the Ninth a for Circuit. After the 2004 Supreme C,ourt ruiing, Michael Newdow filed a simliar suit on behalf of several unnamed parents and their children (Newdow v. C,ongress(No. Civ. 5-05-17) (E.D. Cal)). On September 14,2005, U.S. District Judge lawrence Karlton in Sacramento concluded that he was bound by the Ninth Circuit's previous decision in2O03 ("Nevrdowlll"),which could put this issue on track for another round at the Supreme court. However, on August 10. 2005, a three-judge panel on the 4th circuit court of Appeals ruled in Myers v. Loudoi c,ounty pub. sch. tN6. ol- 11q4) that a Virginia statute providing for daily recitation ofthe Pledge ofthe Allegiance does not violate the Establishment clause, becausethe addition of the "under God," though religiously significant, does not alter the nature ofthe Pledge as a patriotic activity. 124 lournal of theAmerican Academy of Religion Allegiance from each of these angles. The Pledge of Allegiance will most likely continue to serveas a ritual of civii religion regardlessof the inclusion-or removal-of the phrase "one Nation under God." Nevertheless,in Part IV we explain the shortcomings of the priestly and preservationistinterpretations, show how the current version's religious language compromises its ability to serve both pluralist and prophetic functions, and submit that these problems could be alleviated by a reversionto its pre-1954text.

THE CONCEPT OF CIWL RELIGION AND THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AS A KEY RITUAL According to Robert Bellah's influential 1967 essay"Civil Religion in America," there is a "religious dimension" of American life that has emerged alongside of denominational religion while remaining dis- tinguishable from it. This religiosity provides a "genuine apprehension of universal and transcendent religious reality as seen in or, one could almost say,as revealedthrough the experienceof the American people" (1991: 168, I79).' Civil religion in America utilizes key biblical tropes (e.g. chosen people, covenant, promised land, the Exodus, sacrificial death, and rebirth) to interpret the nation's history central institutions, present circumstances,and destiny. In short, America-envisioned as the "new Israel"-is to "be a society as perfectly in accord with the will of God as men can make it, and a light to all the nations" (1991: 186; cf. Cherry 1998:8-21). If Bellah is correct, crucial historical moments and civic rituals do not merely exist to underwrite a senseof patriotism or national solidar- itp they also affirm the theological claim that the nation and the state are not absolute unto themselves,but subject to divine authority. As Bellah writes in reference to President |ohn F. Kennedy's inaugural address,"in American political theory, sovereigntyrests, of course, with the people, but implicitly, and often explicitly, the ultimate sovereignty has been attributed to God" (1991: I7L). The scholarly literature on civil religion in general,and in America in particular, is quite extensive and cannot be adequately surveyed

t S* y BelJah1974, 1976a 7976b, 1976c, 1980, 1986, 1987, lggl (cIg67), r9g2 (c1g75), and 2000"qp".t"lf for more on his understanding of civil religion. To be sure, our focus on Bellah is not meant to suggest that he is the originator of the idea. Earlier and alternative conceptions of either civic or civil religion can be found in the work of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Spinoza, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and Durkheim, among others (see,e.g. Beiner 1993 for a comparison of some of these thinkers). The modern locus classicusof the term is Rousseau'sdiscussion in "Of the Social Contract," Book IV. Kao Copulsky: The Pledge of Allegiance 125

here.6In this essay,we use the term "civil religion" to refer to a q,rnbolic system that binds members of a political community to one another through shared historical narratives,m1.ths, rituals, and some notion of transcendence(e,g. the people, the nation, its overarchingvalues, andlor God). Regardedfunctionally, civil religion can "provide sacredlegitimati [on] of the social order" by integrating society's members, mobilizing them and their resources,and endorsing important sociai and political institutions and authorities (Liebman and Eliezer 1983: 5). While we can detect the existenceof civil religion in the political sphere (e.g. in the speechesof political leaders) as well as in popular culture (e.g. the bumper sticker "God BlessAmerica"), the presenceand activity of civil religion in some instancesis either expresslymandated by law, or other- wise-endorsedby federal, state, and local governmentsthrough official holiday celebrations,parades, inaugurations, and other rituals. To be clear, civil religion is not the same as a state (or established) religion. Nor. is it identical to what others have called "public religion," by which individual or communal religious actors or groups comment on matters of public concern in the public sphere (Dean 1994; Weintraub and Kumar 1997; MarW and Blumhofer 2005). The sphere of civil religion is narrower, concerning itself with the polis ot political community. There is, of course, a semipermeablemembrane between and among "private" religious commitments, public religion, and civil religion in America. Indeed, "public religion" can either cbmplement or challengecivil religion. Stiil, while the boundaries here are often ambig- uous, it is possible and desirable to distinguish between "public reli- gion" and a "civil religion" that operatesindependently of traditional religious communities or institutions-especially when civil religion receivesstate sponsorship or support by its agents. In the case of the Pledge of Allegiance, we are considering a very visible, indeed, perhaps the most ubiquitous, instance of Ameriian civil religion-a practice expressly endorsed by the state and ritually re-enactednearly every day when public schoolsare in session.

THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN LIGHT OF ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE IURISPRUDENCE

, To grasp the nature of the debate requires abrief prdcis of the field of contestation. The "religion clauses"of the First Amendment to the

6 For a small but diversesample see Bellah and Hammond1980, Gehrig 1981,Demerath and Williams 1985,Hammond 1994, Potterfield,Moselry, and Sama 1994,lngrosino 2A02,pevt Forum on Religionand Public Life (2002)and Stackhouse2004. 126 Iournal of the American Academy of Religion U.S. Constitution provide: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishmentof religion, or prohibiting the free exercisethereof." The first portion, or what is generally referred to as the "establishment clause," was made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Michael Newdow, the atheist father behind Elk Grove v. Naudaw, has contended that teacher-led recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools amount to a governmental stamp of approval of monotheism and accordingly conflict with that clause. To understand that the meaning of the EstablishmentClause, or the well-known principle of "separation between church and state," is not self-evident, it would be helpfirl to review the various tests that the Supreme Court has historically relied upon to determine the extent of permissible state conduct: the Lemon, endorsement,and coercion tests (McConnell et al. 2A06). Under the three-pronged test first articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (197I), a case involving aid to church-related schools,the Court determined that government conduct (1) must have a legitimate secularpulpose, (2) must have a principal or primary effect that does not advanceor inhibit religion, and (3) cannot foster an encessivegoyernment entanglementwith religion. In the well- known crdche case Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (i984), |ustice Sandra Day O'Connor introduced the "endorsement" test-a test that prohibits government from creating "insiders" and "outsiders" to the political community by showing either endorsement or disapproval of religion. In two subsequentcases involving religious displays on public property, Allegheny v. the ACLU, 465 U.S. 573 (1989) and Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 5i5 U.S. 753 {1995), O'Connor further clarified that "endorsement" would be determined by the 'reasonableobserver" standard. Finally, the 'coercion" test, the idea that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion, was advanced by |ustice Anthony Kennedy in the graduation day school prayer at issue in Lee v. Weisman,505 U.S- 577 (1992). Tt is worth underscoring that these tests are constantly being scrutinized, modified, defended,and even rejected(in whole or in part) by Supreme Court |ustices themselves.Admittedly, in a prior case regarding the constitutionality of a Pledge of Allegiance school policy-Sherman v. Community ConsolidatedSchool District 21, 980 F.zd 437, 446-48 (7th Cir. 1992)-the judges did not utilize the various tests established by the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, but relied upon on dicta within previous Supreme Court decisions to conclude that no part of the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Kao Copulsky: The Pledge of Allegiance 127

with an eye toward determining whether an Establishment clause violation has in fact occurred, the courts, filers of the amicus curiae briefs, the executive branch of the Federal Government, and some legislators have offered 1 wide range of opinions concerning the religious significance (or lack thereof) of the contested phrase in th" Pledge.

The Pledge of Allegiance as a Religious proclamation While some have dismissed the referenceto God in the pledge of Allegiance as too generic to be constitutionally problematic, the Ninth circuit sided with Newdow. They found the state-supported phrase, "one Nation under God," to be a religious profession thlt was identi- cal, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,'a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,"' becauseall those professions fail the test of religious neutrality (Newdow III at 487). Even though Elk Grove unified School District (EGUSD) did not compel its students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ninth circuit found that their Pledgerec-itation policy'impermissibly coerce[d] a religious act" (Id. at 487,490).' Supreme Court fustice Clarence Thomas not only agreed \{rith the Ninth circuit that the Pledge involves a religious profeision (through its affirmation of the existenceof God), but also that the practicesin question must be regarded as "coercive." In fact, for Thomls, teacher- led recitations of the Pledge in public schools pose even more serious difficuities than the "coercion" that was struck down as unconstitutional in Lee v. Weisman (1992). For "[p]rayer at graduation is a one-time event, the graduating students are almost (if not already) adults, and their parents are usually present,' while very young students who are 'lemoved from the protection of their parents" are exposedto recitals of the Pledge of Allegiance on a daily basis (EIk Groie v. Newdow at 75). But fustice Thomas did not use this shared assessmentto support the Ninth Circuit, but to argue that the precedentsin question were wrong-that the Supreme Court's ruling in Lee v. Weismqn "depended on a notion of 'coercion' that ... has no basis in law or reason."In short, Thomas interpreted the "text and history of the Establishment Clause" as a "federalist provision intended to prevent Congress from

' l" W**;rginia v. Bornette,3ig U.S. 624 (tg43),students finaliy won the right to abstain from either saluting or pledging allegiance to the flag over ten years beiore the 1954 insertion into the Pledge ofthe phrase "under God." 128 lournal of the American Academy of Religion

interfering with state establishments,'which is why he concluded that it ought to resist incorporation (Id. at 80*88).8 Others sought to defend the constitutionality of the pledge -_ of Allegiance in ways that do not deny its religiosity but are not premised on Thomas's radical account of constitutional law. In his dissent to the majority decision of the Ninth circuit, |udge Fernandezdenied that the current text of the Pledge would either lead to such balefirt effects as religious discrimination or "bring about a theocracy" (Newdow III at 49L-492). Moreover, should we lose our ability to recite the pledge of Allegianc_e-inpublic schoolsor to "us[e] our album of patriotic songsin many public settings,"we would forfeit

a vestigeof the awe all of us, including our children, mtst feel at the immensenessof the universeand our own smallplace within it, as well as the wonderwe must feel at the good fortune of our country.That will cool the febrilenerves of a few at the costof removingthe healthy glow conferredupon many citizens when the forbidden verses,or phrases,are uttered, read, or seen(Id. at 492-493,emphasis added).

!9ryandry e_ssentiallyadvocated for the use of religious languagein the Pledgeof Allegiance and in other ceremoniesfor the purposes of "civil religion"-to infuse ordinary patriotic activities with a sense of transcendence. Other approaches tried to articulate more concretely the civic importance of the phrase "under God" in ways that neither denied its religiousness,nor ran afoul of the Establishmentclause. some invoked the Deciaration of Independence's claim that God endows us with certain inalienable rights as part of a larger argument that a concept of divinity is indispensable for America's most cherished political doc- trines of individual liberty and limited government. still others claimed that the current wording of, and current practicesregarding, the pledge serve as an ongoing reminder that God has blessed the American nation and that this blessingis not unconditional.e As we have seen, the phrase "under God" in the context of the Pledge of Allegiance is so ambiguous as to permit all of these

\"...p".ti"n is the legal doctrine whereby provisions of t}re Bill of Rights are made applicable !o the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The fstabliihment Clause was first "incorporated" or made enforceable to the states in Everson v, Board of Education, 330 U.S. | (1947).)ustice Thomas's reading of the EstablishmentClause as a federalistprovision js shared by Steven D. Smith (1999), Geddicks (20M: 997-999), and McC-onnell et al. ea06\, among others. ' See Kao 2aa7 for a discussion of the relevant amicwbriefs. see 148 cong. Rec. 56100-6112 (daily ed., lune 26,2002) for o

interpretations and still others. or perhaps it is more accurate to say that all of these interpretations can be "riad into" the pledge. A[ arl clearly attempts to give the phrase "one Nation under God" some real theological and political import. Notwithstanding the various reasons why the phrase might be consideredto be of greai theological,politicar, and_social consequence,the question of its permissibility under the Establishment clause still remains. we will also return, in part III, to the limitations of some of these religious defensesof the pledge of Allegiance fiom the perspectiveof religious traditions.

The Pledge of Allegiance as a Secular Rituai The legal strategythat the Bush Administration and others took to defend the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance's contested phrase was to minimize or even deny its religious import altogether. u.s. solicitor General red olsen argued that the phrase "one Nation under God" in the Pledge should be understood in a descriptive,-historical not norrnative fashion-as merely acknowledgingthe "undeniable facts that the Nation was founded by individuals who believed in God" (U.5. ,Brief at 33). The late Chief fustice Rehnquist agreed,srrggesting that the phrase "ore Nation under God" is simply one of many;patrio- tic invocations of God and official acknowledgementof religion s role in our nation's history" requiring only "fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church" (btk Grove v. Newdow at 4I-42, 49-50). He provided a number of examplesof like invocations, such as Lincoln's use of the words "under God" ln his Gettysburg A!!1ess_and The SupremeCourt's Court Marshal's opening proclamation ("God savethe united statesand this Honorable court")l A segularreading of the Pledgeof Allegiancewas also shared - _ by the National school Boards Association (NSBA), who claimed thai the ghragg in question "neither suggestsnor requires supplication to a deity' (Br. for NSBA at 2-3).If petitioner EGUSD is to be believed,the Ple{Se does not even take a position on the perennial question, "Does God exist?" (Elk GroveReply Br. at t6: cf. Kao 2007). "under , Doe,sthe phrase God" in the Pledge of Allegiance merely acknowledge the role that religion has played in Ameriian history- without even presuming the existence of God? such an interpretation appears to be unwarranted since the Pledse makes no mention of the nation's history o-r any of the aforementiorrld This "acknowledg- "rr"rrtr. ment-but-not-endorsement"strategy rejects the plain senseof the con- tested phrase, which clearly implies both the existence of, and the nation's dependenceon, God. President Eisenhowerseemed to state as 130 lournal of the American Academy of Rcligion

much when he signed the Pledgebill into law in 1954 with thesewords: "[MJillions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our peopleto the Almighry' (100 Cong. Rec. 8618 (1954)).Those lvho offer a completely secularinterpretation of the post-1954version of the Pledge appear disingenuous when they claim that there is no actual appeal to God, but merely a referenceto unmentioned referencesto God. This was pointed out indirectly by Michael Newdow; when he was asked during oral arguments before the supreme c,ourt about the elasticity of *I the meaning of the phrase, he responded: don't think that I can include 'under God to mean 'no God', which is exactlywhat I think."

The Pledge of Allegiance as "Ceremonial Deism" There is an intermediary position between interpreting the pledge of Allegiance_ as theologically significant and denying 1ts religioirs import altogether. It is to regard the Pledge of AllegianCeas an essen- tially secuiar, patriotic ritual whose meaning and pbwer are enhanced by its (post-L954) theological referent. (This seemJto be behind |udge Fernandez'ssuggestion that the phrase "one Nation under God" confels a "healthy glo*.") Supreme Court |ustice Sandra Day O'Connor attempted to de- sacralize,the phrase "under God" while simultaneously co-opting the power of religious rhetoric to inculcate loyalty to the state.She defended the constitutionality of the Pledgeof Allegiance in terms of "ceremonial deism" (Newdow III at 492; Elk Grove v. Newdow at 6A-7A). The term "ceremonial deism" was coined in 1962 by Eugene V. Rostow, Dean of Yale Law school, and used by |ustice Brennan in his dissenting opinion in the crdchecase of Lynch v. Donnelly,465 US 668 (1934). Brennan defined "ceremonial deism" as practicesor referencesthat are protectedfrom EstablishmentClause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetitionany significantreligious content... land that] are uniquely suited to servesuch wholly secularpu{poses as solemnizingpublic occasions,or inspiringcommitment to meet some nationalchallenge in a mannerthat simplycould not be fully servedin our cultureif governmentwere limited to purelynon-religious phrases. (45sU.S. at716-717)

Following Brennan, O'C,onnor concluded that the phrase in question can remain, since no "reasonableobserver" of current practices con- cerning the Pledge would understand them to be signifring any "gov- ernment endorsement of any specific religion, or even of religion over Kao &pukky: The Pledgeof Allegiance t31

non-religion" (Elk Grove v. Newdow at 58).10For O'Connor, our centu- ries-old "referencesto God and invocations of divine assistance"actually *invoke serve to "solemnize an occasion" rather than to divine prove- nance" (Id. at 58, emphasisadded). But O'Connor's view and the "ceremonial deism" account more generally,seems to stand in tension with quite common readings of the text. On President George W. Bush's own interpretation of the Pledge of Allegiance, for example,citizens who recite the Pledgeparticipate in an important tradition of humbly seeking the wisdom and blessing of the Almighty." This puts President Bush himself-and the millions who agree with his interpretation-on the side of the 'not-so-reason- able" observer. If the President does not understand the referenceto God in the Pledge of Allegiance "as merely solemnizing an occasion," how should O'Connor expectyoung schoolchildrenwould or should? As we have seen,the ongoing dispute over the Pledge of Ailegiance is not simply between those who would keep it as it is and those who would seek to alter it or even remove it completely from public life. The meaning of the Pledge and the passionsevoked by the phrase "under God" cannot be fully captured through the lens of First Amendment considerations alone. By evaluating this ritual through the analytical category of "civil religion," we believe that we can provide a firller and more insightfrrl interpretation of its religious and civic meaning.lt

* Ailtght"y ,. ACLIJ, 492 lls 573 (i989). O'Connor also raises the question of the 'coercion" test at the end of her concurring opinion, but concludes that coercion here is inconsequential, since "such acts [of ceremonial deism] are not religious in charactei' (Elk Grove v. Newdow at 70-72). lt An amiar brief of Americans United for Separation of Church and Stat€, the ACLU, and Americans for Reiigious Liberty reports President Bush as having stated the following in a letter to an American Buddhist leader: As citizens recite the words of the Plefue of Aitegiance .. . rre affirm our form of govern- ment, our belief in human dignity, our unity as a people, and our reiiance on God.... When we pledge allegiance to One Nation under God, our citizens participate in an important American tradition of humbly seeking the wisdom and blessing of Divine Providence. (Letter from President George W Bush to Mitsuo Murashige, President, Haw. State Fed'n of Honpa Hongwaaji lay Ass'ns (Nov. 13, 2002)

President Bush also stressed the importance of the "universal God" or "the Almighty" in his own iife as well as in the "life of our country'' when reacting to the Ninth Circuit ruiing as "out of step with the traditions and history cf America" (!{hite House Press Reiease, "U.S., Russia Continue Joint Efforts to Fight Terrorism," fune 27, 2002; available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/newsl r el?^xes/ 2@2 / A6 | pr intl 20O20627- 3.html). " Yehudah Mirsky 1986 has recognized that the U.S. C,ourts have so far failed to acknowledge the idea of civil reiigion and thus have not used the conceptual and analltical tools that it could provide. Seealso Cloud ZOM:336-337 and Epstein 1996. 132 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN LIGHT OF CI\NL RELIGION This section details four ways that civil religion in general, and the Pledge of Allegiance in particular, participates in the kind of "sacred legitimation of the social order" discussedearlier. Our analysis of civil religion is basedon two distinctions-the first regarding its content (i.e. the scope of the religious sourcesthat can be incorporated in this civil religion), and the second, its character(i.e. its posture toward the state). The first distinction itself turns on the question of inclusion or exclu- sion: some commentatorswant civil religion to operatein a conservative or culturally "preservationist" fashion, while others encourage a more "pluralist" model, whereby rituals are attentive to and reflective of the increasing religious diversity of the nation. The other distinction, between priestly and prophetic modes, is especially apropos when rituals of civil religion involve religious language.On one reading of the Pledge of Ailegiance, the phrase "one Nation under God" works as a "priestly'' convention in buttressing the claims and bolstering the legiti- macryaf the state (i.e. 'under God" means "God is on our side"). On a different reading, the phrase "one Nation under God" servesa "prophe- tic" agenda, so that it is God and not the state that commands American citizens' ultimate loyalty. The Pledge of Allegiance can be interpreted from all of thesevantage points. By describing thesepossibi- lities and assessingthe merits of each, we raise questions about the meaning, purpose, and desirability of both the Pledgeof Allegiance and American civil religion.

Civil Religion and the Preservationist Impulse Under a "preservationist' understandingof civii religion, the contin- ued use of traditional expressions,tropes, and rituals of civil religion is necessaryto maintain cultural coherence,a senseof national identity, and the stability of our central institutions. Most preservationistsview *Christian" America as a (or increasingly, a "fudeo-Christian") nation and accordingly find it appropriate for our sFmbolic systemsto reflect and reinforce that identity.t' To illustrate, Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington interprets the entire Pledge of Allegiance controversy as

" ft tt t-p"*nt to disthguish this normatipepreservationist apprcach from the more histoticql one discussed earlier and as championed by the likes of Chief }ustice Rehnquist, |ustice O'Connor, the Petitioners of Elk Grove v. Newdow (2004), and the Executive Branch ofthe federal government as represented by Solicitor General Ted Olsen's ReplT Brief for the {lnited States as Respondent Supportiflg Petitioners. Kao Copulsky:The Pledge of Allegiance lJJ

"sharply pos[ing] the issue whether America is a secular or religious nation" (Huntington 2004: 81-83). Sincehe concludesthat America is a "predominantly Christian nation with a secular government," whose "Anglo-Protestant" political ideals stand at the heart of our "cofitmon culture," he submits that Michael Newdow rightly feels like an "out- sider" becauseof his , just as "non-Christians may legitimately seethemselves as strangers"(2004: S2-84), While Huntington concedes that "atheists and nonbelievers" have the right to refuse to recite the Pledge or participate in any other "religiously tainted practice of which they disapprove," he still insists that all who stand outside of the cul- tural mainstream must accept its hegemony or face permanent alien- ation (2004: 82, 106).If Huntington's diagnosisis to be accepted,rituals of civil religion such as the Pledgeof dlegiance serveto articulate and reinforce a coherent national identity as well as provide a means for outsiders to become members of the political community. (Recall the fact that the Pledge of Allegiance is collectively recited by newly-minted American citizens at natarulization ceremonies.)should these rituals be removed from public life, cultural fragmentation and disintegration of our collectiveidentity loom as menacing possibilities. As provocative and "politically incorrect" as Huntington's yiews may appear to some, there is empirical evidence to suggestthat a sig- nificant portion of the American public shareshis views. sociologist of religion Robert Wuthow (2005) engagedin six-year researchproject to document how Americans today experienceand think about religious diversity. His data show that while support for tolerance is palpabie, 50o/oof all respondentsstrongly believe that the U.S. was founded on Christian principles, 52o/othat America has been strong becauseof its faith in God, 32o/othat the U.S. in the twenfy,first century is still basi- cally a Christian society, and 24o/athat foreigners who come to live in America should give up their foreign ways and learn to be iike other Americans (2005: 200).'" Supreme Court Justice Douglas' mid- twentieth century assessmentof our national self-consciousness,that "we are a religious people, whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being," still commands broad assent,as does the idea that this Supreme Being should be understood along Christian or "|udeo-Christian" lines (Zorachv. Clausen,343U.S. 306 (L952)).Thus, it is not surprisingthat this "preservationist" concern has been articulated in a number of the legal arguments discussedearlier in support of the Pledgeas well as in

tn For a fine-grained anaiysis of specficaily evangelical Chri*ian views about poiitics, see C. Smith 2000. 134 lournal of the American Academy of Religion

the authors' of certain amicus briefs desire to retain the reference to God as the pre-political sourceof rights. Nevertheless,the very heritage that such preservationistsare striving to protect is itself a selectiveretrieval of certain events,symbols, mem- ories, and interpretations-one that distorts or suppressesany evidence that does not conform to their desired image. In fact, conceptions of a "Christian" founding (or a "secular" founding, for that matter) do not take into account the maddeningiy complex history of church-state relations in America. But preservationistsare not just waxing nostalgic for a "golden age" of unified national identity. They are also willing to use such a vision to exclude or marginalize whomever is currently regardedas the religious or cultural Other-Qaakers and other dissident Protestant sects or denominations in colonial times; Mormons in the nineteenth century; |ews and Catholics until the second half of the twentieth century; a-nd atheists and members of many other religious traditions still now.ls Civil Reiigion and the Pluralist Impulse While preservationistswould ignore dissent from minority voices for the sake of a uniform national identity, others are calling for civil religion, and not these non-conformists, to change.Those who accord- ingly espousea 'pluralist" or a "multiculturalist" vision of civil religion encouragethe expansion of the forms of civil religion even beyond this now familiar "|udeo-Christian" gloss. According to Martha Nussbaum, for example, a "reasonable 'civil religion"' for America today wouid include "a celetrrationof the diversity of traditions and comprehensive doctrines that are contained within a nation, as a source of its strength and richness"(2005: 16; cf. Rouner 1999and Feldman2005). Perhapsthe seedsfor this positive reception, greater inclusion, and participation of beyond |udaism and Christianity in traditional rituals of civil religion have already been sown. Consider the case of Islam in America. Islam began receiving ceremonial distinction and official recognition in the U.S. from the i990s onward in previously unprecedentedways: Muslim imams offered the invocation for the first time in the U.S. House of Representativesin 1991 and in the U.S. Senate in L992; Muslim chaplains were established in the Army in 1993,the Navy in L996, and in the Air Force in 2000; the White House held its first Eid al-Fitr (end of Ramadan celebration) in 1996;Islamic

" S* ll"-U uger 2002 for the argument that the development of the doctririe of "the separation of church and state" was motivated by nativist, anti-Catholic prejudice in the mid- nineteenth century. SeeLaycock 2003 fcr a trenchant critique of Hamburger'i ciaims. Kao Capulsky: The Pledge af Alkgiance 135

symbols (viz. a star and crescent)were displayed on the white House Ellipse for the first time in l99T next to the National christmas Tree and a large Hanukkah menorah, and the pentagon hosted its first Ramadan meal for Muslims in 1998.During the Na-tionalDay of prayer and Remembranceservice at the washington National cathedral three days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Dean of the Cathedral, the Very Rev. Nathan D. Baxter, even addressedhis invoca- tion to the "God of Abraham and Mohammed and Father of our Lord, |esus Christ."r6 The rest of the service contained standard elements of civil religion in its solemn and popular varieties: remarks by president George W. Bush, a sermon by "'America's pastor," Rev. Dr. Billy Graham, readings from Scripture by rabbis and ministers, and the singing of christian hymns and songs of an expresslypatriotic nature (e.g. "God Bless America," "America the Beautifirl"). Gt, amidst these familiar forms of civil religion stood another novelty: a prayer with readings Iiom the Qur'an led by Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiql, an imam and former director of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Finally, following his victory in the Nov. 7, 2006 midterm election,the first-ever Muslim member of congress, Minnesota RepresentativeKeith Ellison, used the Qur'an for his swearing-in ceremony-one once owned by Thomas |efferson. If the preservationistdesires cuitural and religious differencesto be reduced in the American "melting pot," pluralists advocate a patch- wcrk_quilt, by which such public displays and official recognition of a plurality of religious traditions are the means by which new ind histori- cally marginalized groups make their presenceknown in America civic lile. As might have been expected,however, the ceremonial recognition of other religions and the expansion of civil religious expressionsto include them have met with resistanceand occasional hostility. The aforementioned Islamic symbols on the White House Ellipse in 1997 were desecrated when the star was removed and spray,painted with a red swastika (Dinan 1997). President Bush experiencediome backlash by his evangelical Christian base for going beyond the "|udeo- christian" script when publiciy stating his belief at a press conference that Christians and Muslims pray to the "same Godt (pruden 2003). Conservativeradio talk show host, Dennis Prager, has publicly chided RepresentativeKeith Ellison's decision to take the oath of office on the Qur'an because such an act "undermines American civilization"

tu The fi:ll text of the invocation as well as tlre program itself can be found online at: http:ll www.cathedral.orglcathedral/programs/wtc9.ll/PresPrayer.html (accessedOct. t, 2005). 136 lournal of the American Academy of Religion

(2006). Minnesota State RepresentativeArlon Lindner boycotted the His Holiness The XIV Dalai Lama of Tibet's address to the Minnesota Legislature on May 9, 2001 because"the Buddha religion ... has historically been considered a cult" and falls outside of the "public religious ethic that prevails in this country, Iudeo-Christian ... [which] is the moral and spiritual foundation of our Constitution, Bill of Rights and most of our laws" (Helms 2001, Lindner 2001). The Family Research Council regarded the first-ever Congressional invocation by a Hindu priest in 2000 as "one more indication that our nation is drifting from its ]udeo-Christian roots.'"r7 Even the Lutheran Church-Missouri Slmod (LCMS) pastor who participated in an ecumenical 'Prayer for America" service at Yankee stadium on September23, 2AAI faced suspensionand formal chargesof unionism (i.e. worshipping with non-LCMS Christians), syncretism, and idola- try by his co-religionists not so much for the content of his prayer, but for sharing it alongside of other Christian, |ewish, Muslim, and Hindu, and Sikh clerics (Neuchterlein 2002). One could enumerate many other examplesof backlash. It is therefore an open question whether religions outside of the dominant "|udeo-Christian" paradigm will find genuine acceptanceas bona-fideAmerican lsligions anytime soon. A separatebut related ques- tion is just how elastic civil religion can or should be in light of our ever- changing attitudes about and demographics concerning religion. One could, for example, read the history of religions in America as a humble but progressive narrative of gradual incorporation and greater inclusion: the early English Puritan establishment of the frst colonists soon gave way to a "tacit, 'disestablished' civil religron in the dominance of the 'Protestant paradigm,"' with Catholics eventually gaining mainstream *|udeo- acceptanceafter centuries of "nativist" persecution, and the term Christian"-incolporating Iews into the mix-gaining widespreaduse by the mid-twentieth century (Elshtain 2fi)l: 5i; Herberg 1955).Put differ- ently, just as Catholics were largely seen as wholy un-American, un- democratic, and quintessentially Other throug}rout much of American history but have gradually been seen as 'Americanized" and are today consideredpart of the mainstream, so it is possible for commonplace attitudes about other religions currently regarded as foreign or strange

" P*LPt t-l"g to media criticism, they later issued a clarification affirrning the truth of Christianiry but conceding that "it is not our position that America's Constitution forbids representatives ofreiigions other than Christianity from praying before C,ongress" (Koff2000). We thank Professor Diana Eck for originally bringing to our attention &ese cases of resistance to the Hindu priest and the Dalai Lama. Kao Copukky: The Pledgeaf Allegiance 137

(e.g. Islam, Sikhism) to change over time, as well. To be sure, as Cathofics in America gradually developed a distinctive "American Catholicism," such acceptance is likely come only after members of these other religions adopt the organizational structure and mindset set by Protestant denominationalism as well as "prove" themselvesto be good and loyal Americans over successivegenerations.'" The story of religion in America is not only one of increasing religious tolerance, then, but also that of the canopy of civil religion being stretched over these other religions, as the growing use of the term "Abrahamic" in place of "|udeo-Christian" to describe the character and values that define the United Statesattests iO'Keefe 2003). Now, some defendersof the current version of the Pledgemaintain that its wording is alreadysufficiently pluralist, that "God" is sufficiently broad to include practically any notion of divinity. Nevertheless,it must be rememberedthat this is a decidedly weak form of pluralism. For it is clear that any mention of deity in this context, no matter how self- consciously vague, would be considered problematic by those who do not believe in any God. This is why Michael Newdow and his non- monotheistic supporters strenuously insisted that we should not put schoolchildren in a &fficult position of choosing between fidelity to their non-monotheistic beliefs and an expressionof national patriotism. A decidedly more "pluralist" model can be found in the srrggestionof Margo Lucero, a substituteprincipal and eighth-gradeguidance counse- lor at a Colorado middle school, to replacethe words "under God' with "under your belief system" to encouragea spirit of inclusion and toler- ance (Richardson 2005). Perhaps such a pluralist emendation of the Pledgeof Allegiance would, as Nussbaum suggests,appreciate the broad spectrum of religious or philosophical views among the American people and celebrateits diversity of faith. But celebration of diversity is not the same as the political legitimation of the state,the acknowledg- ment of a shared moral tradition, or the forging of solidarity to a common cause.Indeed, the celebrationof such diversity and the plural- ity of "comprehensivedoctrines" runs counter to the attempt to articu- late exactly what it is that unites American society. While the preservationisfstance stressesshared narratives, rituals, and normative

\4*" rp..fically, ron-nror.stant religions might adopt the notion of religion as voluntary and henceforth "compete" for adherents, decrease the actual and perceived dependence on foreigr reiigious authorities, otganize themselves at the Pmtestani-inspired denominational and congregational level, involve themseh'es in public debates, and offer services and activities beyond those of an expressly reiigious nature (e.g education, recreational activities, sociai seruices) by participating in civil society. See McGreevy 2003 and (particularly on the difference between a "church" and a "denomination") Casanova1994. 138 Journal of the American Academy of Religion concerns and accordingly expects others groups to assimilate, the "shared values" under any movement toward pluralism may become mere tolerance itself, or else the belief in the essential goodness and desirability of such diversity. Thus, if the objective of civil religion is to help forge a shared understanding of national identity and purpose, it would be very difficult for a self-consciouslypluralist civil religion to achievesuch ends.

Priestly and Prophetic Civii Religion In this section we deal with the posture that civil religion takes toward the state.According to Martin E. Marty, the "priestly mode" is "celebrative, affirmative, [and] culture-building" (I974: 145).re Interpreted in this light, civil religion servesto aid in the legitimation of the state,its institutions, and its policies, by infusing its rituals with reli- gious rhetoric and deploying theological syrnbols and warrants in suppoft of the regnant political order. In the words of Samuel Huntington: "Civil religion enablesAmericans to bring together their secularpolitics and their religious society,to marry God and country, sa as to give religious sanctity to their patriotisrn and thus to merge what could be conJlicting loyalties into loyalty to a religiously endawed country'' (Huntington 2004: 103, emphasis added). In the specific case of the Pledge of Allegiance, then, the phrase "under God" could be understoodto mean that'God is on our side." In contrast to offering priestly endorsement, civil religion can be understood to be operating in a prophetic manner. As Bellah argued:

What I meantby civil religionin America-what I pointed to in my originalarticle and spelledout in the book, TheBroken Cwenant-was a long tradition in Americanpublic life" of which Lincoln is the absol- ute centralexemplar, of callingthe nation to accountas responsibleto an authority higherthan the nation,of insistingthat the nation is not absolute,and making that part of our public life (emphasisadded, 1986).

On this construal civii religion neither automatically celebrates,nor uncritically accepts, whatever the nation does, but actuaily makes possible quite radical political self-criticism. Thus, if priestly ciwl

t' Aside from distinguishing between priestly and prophetic modes of civil religion, Marty makes a further distinction between'the Nation under God" and "the Nation as Self-Transcendent." This latter form is when God language is absent entirely and thus the Nation itself becomes the sacred and transcendeni entity (1974). Kao Copulsky:The Pledgeof Allegiance 139 religion tries to give divine or transcendent sanction to "who we are," the prophetic type instead stresses"who we need to be" in the light of some higher, transcendent ideal.2o For example, in his famous "I Have a Dream" speech, Dr. Martin Luther King, Ir. employed prophetic civil religion to champion civil rights by appeal- ing to the still-unsatisfied promises of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. More controversially, Pat Robertson and |erry Falwell's suggestionthat the 9/11 terrorist attacks could be explained as a sign of divine disfavor for the advance of secularism in American public life-witnessed by the Iegalization of abortion, influence of feminism, promotion of "alternative lifestyles," the "throwing God out of the public squ:rre, out of the schools," etc.- can be understood as an instance of civil religion that is prophetic in character and,preservationist in content (Lincoln 2002: LA4-fi7} It can be argued that priestly civil religion has been more popular than prophetic varieties.For example,in contrast to the reverent humi- liry sense of sin, and theological ambiguity displayed in Lincoln's Second Inaugural, most Presidential uses of civil religious rhetoric in times of war are,premised on the priestly conviction that God is on America's side." From another angle, the popularity of Lee Greenwood's song "God Bless the U.S.A."-in heavy rotation during Gulf War I (1991) and again in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September11, 2001-reveals how many Americans appealto God (or else use God-talk) in times of national crisis or tragedy. However, the public-at-large responded much more positiveiy to the priestly- pluralistic civil religious ceremonies-note the favorable receptions of the National Day of Prayer and RemembranceService at Washington National Cathedral (September 14, 2A0l) and Yankee Stadium "Prayer for America" (September23,20}1)-than they did with the Robertsonl Falwell preservationist-propheticcritique. Perhaps it can be concluded that Americans are fonder of the priestly idea of God blessingAmerica than they are of prophetic civl religious jeremiads.Moreover, the state's

to That is, that the nation is accountabie to God, or to some ideal (e.g. "democracy"). See Marty 1974 far more on this point. 2r See White (2002)'for more on the immediate negatil'e reaction to what many now consider to have been Lincoln's greatest speech. While Lincoln is generally considered to be America's civil theologpan par excellence,his thought raises certain difiiculties. For erample, the idea of America as a 'new nation" proclaimed in the Gettysburg Address is based on a founding myth of voluntary mi$ation, and the mlth's overall effect-nhether intended or not-has been to obscue the record of slaves and Native Americans, who were either exploited or subjected to genocidal sitermination for the nation's advancement (Angrosino 2002:249). 140 Journal of the American Academy of Religion interest in civil religion would seem naturally to tend toward the priestly mode and away from the prophetic. Those who advocatea priestly civil religion would most likely affirm the current text of the Pledge of Allegiance. However, someprophetic civil religionists, concerned that rituals such as the Pledgeare primarily designedto inculcate love of country rather than commitment to a set of ideais for which the country is supposedto stand, might object to its frequent use in public schools and other fora. While this latter group might endorse tlie ostensibly religious ratibnale behind the 1954 intro- *under duction of the phrase God" in the Pledge (i.e. to signify that the nation is under an authority higher than the state), they might be appalled by some recent strategiesthat defended its constitutionality by draining the phrase "one Nation under God" of any genuine religious content. As we suggestedearlier, it may well be the casethat the state'sinter- est in promoting civil religion in patriotic rituals will nearly always be priestly and not prophetic, since the state will want to foster patriotism and obedience-not a critical attitude toward its institutions and pol- icies. Moreover, the American public has largely rejectedappeals to pro- phetic civil religion when used to ercplainor justi$r national misfortune. Indeed, some may question the need of a prophetic civtl religion at all, insofar as it provides the vehicle of self-criticism. For, if self-criticism with referenceto an ideal is what is most desired in prophetic civil reli- gion, it is important to ask whether state-sponsoredcivil religion is the most effectiveway of achieving this goal. There are ample opportunities for such national self-scrutiny made possibleby a wealth of sourcesthat do not depend upon either the rhetoric or rituals of state-sponsored civil religion. There are public voices both within and outside of the United Stateswho subject many of America's projects or values (e.g. its drive toward military dominance, its policies regarding poverty and welfare) to strenuous and sustained examination. The Charter of the United Nations, international human rights law, and other conventions maintain that no nation, not even the world's sole superpower,is above correction or critique. Many Americans offered possible explanations for-and even self-criticism about-national disasterssuch as 9/i1 and Hurricane Katrina without appealing to prophetic civil religion as an explanation." There may be-times wh.tt-t"cognition of huiran error,

---::-- " Also widely denounced was the prophetic civil religious response ofifered by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin that the devastation of Hurricane Katrina (2005) was a manifestation of God's anger at the United States for having invaded Iraq under "false pretenses" and the Afiican American community in particular for not taking better care of their children (Roig-Franzia 2006). Kao Copukky: The Pledgeof Allegiance 141 evil, or incompetence is more constructive than appeals to divine providenceor divine wrath. Indeed, it is safeto say that such a prophetic mode of thinking about politics would continue to emanate from individuals, churches,and other religious institutions themselves(in the form of what Martin E. Marry and others have called "public religion"). This final point about the role of "public religion" for self-criticism is important, since some religious leaders criticize the very idea and usageof civil religion itself, whether "priestly'' or "prophetic," given the danger that either posesto the health and vitality of their own religious traditions. Christian ethicists such as Stanley Hauerwas and |ohn Howard Yoder have long sought to counsel Christians in America away from both their "Constantinian" tendencies and their misguided primary allegiance to the state as opposed to the church of which Christ is the head. After all, the grand tradition of biblically-infused civil religion in America has regarded America as the "New Israel," placing America itself in a covenantalrelationship with God. As we see, then, civil religion and its attendant rituals have the potential not only to offend the non-theist, but also raise difficulties for the faithful theist. as well.

CONCLUSION It is clear that American civil religion, whether in its preservationist, priestly, or prophetic cast, will be objectionabie to one group or another. There will never be a functional civil religion that will please all Americans. Insofar as such rituals strive to promote unity, they do so at the risk of estranging some citizens from frrll participation in the polity. Religious groups who have conscientiously refused to salute or pledge allegianceto the flag (e.g. |ehovah's Witnesses,Mennonites, the Elijah Voice Society, members of the Church of God) have been legally prosecuted-and in some cases,violently assaulted(Gunn 2004: 589-490; Ellis 2005).'" By linking assentto a theological claim with an affirmation of civic loyalty, the current text of the Piedgesorts out who can and cannot be true patriots, and thereby divides, rather than unites, all Americans. Why not call for a reversion to the pre-1954 text? Even without its theological referent, the Pledgeof Allegiance could still be considereda ritual of American civil religion. The Pledge could still work in a

23 Admittedly, legalpersecution for such conscientiousnessall but abatedafter the WestVirginia v. Bzmette(1943) decision. Yet harassmentfor thosewho electnot to participatein Pledgeof Allegianceceremonies still continueseven today. 142 Iournal of the American Academy of Religion priestly fashion to inculcate patriotic sentiments. Its invocation of "liberty and justice for all" could still s€rveas a prophetic clarion call for a free and just society. Such a pledge would not imply that patriotism was dependent upon a certain religious belief-and thus satisff a central conviction of pluralists*but would still articulate those American valuesthat are essentialto preserve.However, given the wide- spreadpublic opposition to the Ninth Circuit's holding in 2002 that the phrase "under God" is unconstitutional, the removal of the phrase would likely prove politically unfeasible. To return to the legal issue with which we began, continued consti- tutional challengesto the Pledge of Allegiance raise the prospect of increasedscrutiny for other forms and rituals of civil religion, such as the National Motto inscribed on our coins, the employment of legislativeand military chaplains,the opening of legislativesessions with prayer,prayers at presidential inaugurations, displays of the Ten Commandments on public property, the use of the phrase 'God savethe United Statesand this Honorable Court" at the opening of SupremeCourt proceedings,the singing of certain patriotic songsin public settings,and certain national holidays (e.g.Christmas and Thanlsgiving). While we cannot discussany of these practicesto any degreeof satisfaction here, the difference between all of them and recitationsof the Pledgeof Allegiancein public schoolsis that the latter primarily affects children and involves a level of coercion and personal commitment that all of the former do not (Sullivan 2002: 376). Put succinctly,only the Pledgeof Allegianceis put in the form of a first-personal and present-tenseoath or affirmation. Anyone who recites the Pledge thereby provides greater assent to its content than does a spenderof a coin to the words that are inscribed on it (i.e. ""). Moreover, a public school student'sdaily recitation of the Pledge must also be seen as a performative act in a manner that is qualitatively unlike his or her recitation of historical texts such as the Declaration of Independenceor any of PresidentLincoln's speeches,even if simiiar theo- logical referencesare also to be found in thosetexts (Nichols 2004: 8A2).24 This is because the Pledge is a ritual that asks individuals to make a personal affirmation of its claims and values, thereby "alter[ing] one's moral relationship to [them]" (Newdow III, 328 F.3d 4S9). Not to acknowledge this fact is to fail to take the Pledge of Allegiance seriously as a pledge.

'n Supreme C,ourt Justice Brennan apparently overlooked this point in Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), when he noted that recitations of the Pledge may be no more of a religious exercise than the reading aloud of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, since each contains ailusions to the same historical facts. Kao Copukky: The Pledge of Allegiance flJ

it is neverthelessdoubtfirl that those who oppose the Pledge of Allegiance for the reasons that we have enumerated will win the support of most Americans. The overwhelmingly negative public responseto the original decision of the Ninth Circuit and the promises by elected politicians to protect the current wording of the Pledge suggest the deep commitment of many Americans to this ritual of American civil religion, however they understand it. The American Jewish Congress certainly feared that any proposal to strike "under God" from the Pledge would be met with backlash in the legislature and in society-at-large.This is why, as a "matter of tactics and judg- ment," they appealedto notions of ceremonial deism and civil religion to provide the Court with a way of retaining state-sponsoredreligious languagethrough the subterfugethat the phrase is no longer really reli- gious at all (Nir 2004; Copulsky 2005). We would urge all Americans to consider more seriously the phenomenon of civil religion as religiouslysignificant. Michael Newdow was correct when he argued that, despite its vagueness,the phrase "under God" is not theologically holloq and that the fusion of religious commitments with patriotism in the current version of the Pledge threatens both. According to some concerned lewish and Christian clergy, to fail to take seriously the statement "I pledge allegiance. .. to one Nation under God" is to ask "millions of school children [daily] to take the name of the Lord in vain" and accordingly violate one of the Ten Commandments (Br. for Rev. Dr. Betty lane Bailey et al. x 2). In the contest between prudential gain from the use of rhetorical strategiesinvolving purely "secularized" notions of civil religion and religious honesty,it is the latter that ought to be encouraged.

REFERENCES Angrosino, Michael. V. "Civil Religion Redux." Anthropological 2002 Quarterly7 5 /2: 239-267. Bellah, Robert 'American Civil Religion in the 1970s" t974 (augmented version). In American Civil Religion, ed. by Russell E. Richey and Donald G. Jones,255-272. New Yorh Harper & Row 1976a 'The Revolution and the Civil Religion." In Religion and the American Revolution, ed. by Ierald C. Brauer. New York FortressPress. Journal of the American Academy of Retigion

L976b "Response to the Panel on Civil Religion." SociologicalAnalysis 3712: 153-L59.

1976c "Comment on 'Bellah and the New Orthodoxy."' Sociological Analysis 3712: 167-L68.

1980 "American Association of Law SchoolsLaw and Religion Panel: Law as Our Civil Religion." MercerLaw Review3Il2:482-485.

1986 'Habits of the Heart: Implications for Religion." Lecture: St. Mark's Cithohc Church, Isla Vista, California. February 21.

1987 "Uncivil Religion: Interreligious Hostility in America" and "Conclusion." In Uncivil Religion: lnterreligious Hostility in America. ed. by Frederick E. Greenspahn. New York: Crossroad.

(1967)L99t "Civil Religion in America." ln Beyand Belief: ksays on Religion in a Post-Traditionalist World. Berkeley: University of California Press.

(r97s) 1992 The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in Time of Trial,2nd ed. Chicago; University of Chicago Press.

2000 "Interview: In God We Trust: Civil and Uncivil Religion in America." Radio National Encounter. ]une 25. http://www.abc.net.auknl relig/enc/storiesisi43 139.htm (accessedon Oct. 15,2005).

Bellah, Robert N Varieties of Civil Religion. New Yorlc Harper & and Phillip E. Hammond. Row. 1980 *Machiavelli, Beiner, Ronald Hobbes, and Rousseau on Civil 1993 Religion." The Review of Politics 5514: 617-638.

Casanova,]os6 Public Religionsin the Modern World. Chicago: t994 University of Chicago Press.

Cherry Conrad ed. God's New Israel: Religious Interpretations of 1998 American Destiny, revised and updated ed. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Kao Copulsky:The Pledgeof Allegiance 145

Cloud, Matthew W. "'One Nation. Uader God': Tolerable 2004 Acknowledgement of Religion or Unconstitutional Cold War Propaganda Cloaked in American Civil Religion?" Journal of Church and State:(Spring) 46123ll-340.

Copulsky, lerome E. "One Nation Under Whose God? Iudaism, The 2005 Pledge of Allegiance, and American Civil Religion." 37th Annual Meeting of the Association of Jewish Studies. December 20. Washington, D.C. Dean, William The Religious Critic in American Culture. t994 Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Demerat-h,N. J. III "Civil Religion in an Uncivil Society."Annals of and Rhys H. Williams. the American Academy of Political and Social 198s Science480: 154-166.

Dinan, Stephen "'Hate Crime' Probed: Muslim Symbol on 1997 Ellipse Painted with Swastika." Washington Times,December29.

Ellis, Richard |. To the Flag: The Unlikely History of the Pledge 2A0s of Allegiance. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Elshtain, JeanBethke "Faith of our Fathers and Mothers: Religious 2001 Belief and American Democracy." ln Religion in American Public Life: Living with Our Deepest Differences-eds. Al-Hibri, Azizah. Y., fean Bethke Elshtain, Charles C. Haynes and Martin E. Marty, 1st ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Epstein, StevenB. 'Rethinking the Constitutionality of Ceremonial 1996 Deism." ColumbiaLaw Review9618:2A83-2174.

Feldman, Noah Divided by God: America's Church-State 2005 Problem-and What We ShouV Do About It. New York Farrar, Strausand Giroux. Geddicks, Frederick Mark "The Establishment Clause Gag Reflex." 2044 Brigham Young University Law Review No.3: 9951AA4. http:l/lawreview.byu.edularchives/ 2004_3.htm 146 lournal of the American Academy of Religion

Gehrig,Gail "American Civil Religion Debate: A Source for t98l Theory Construction." lournal of the Social ScientifcStudy of Religion2011:51-63.

Gunn, T. |eremy "Religious Freedom and Laicite; A 2005 Comparison of the United States and France." Brigham Young University Law Review No. 2. http://lawreviewbyu.edu, archives/2004 2.htm.

Hamburger, Phiiip Separation of Church and State. Cambridge: 2002 Harvard University Press.

Hammon{ Phillip. E., "Forum: American Civil Religion Revisited." et al. Religionand American Culture 4lI: I-23. t994

Helms, Melissa "Dalai Lama Visit Stirs Controversy." 2001 Minnesota Public Radio. May l. http://news. minnesota.publicradio.orglfeatureslI 2 00 1 05/0 1- hughes-dalail (accessed on September 20, 200s).

Herberg, Will Protestant,Catholic, Iew: An Essayin American (19ss)19e0 Religious Sociolog. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Huntington, Samuel Who are We? Challengesto American National 2004 Identity. New York Simon & Schuster.

Kao, Grace ''One Nation under God' Or Taking the Lord s Forthcoming Name in Vain? Christian Reflections on the Pledge of Allegiance." lournal of the Society of Christian Ethics.

Koff, Stephen "Criticism of Hindu Plucked FromWeb." Plain 2400 Dealer (Cleveland, OH). Septemb* 23. http:ll wwwlexis.nexis.com/.

Laycock, Douglas 'The Many Meanings of Separation:Review of 2003 Separation of Church and State by Philip Hamburger." University of Chicago Law Review 70/4:1667-L7Al.

Liebman, Charles S. Civil Religionin Israel: Traditional ludaism and Don-Yehiya, Eliezer Political Culture in the lewish Sfafe. Berkeley: 1983 University of Catfornia Press. Kao Copukky:The Pledge oJ Allegiance 147

Linco]n,Bruce HoIy Terrors: Thinking About Religions After 2042 Septemberll. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lindner,Arlon "Rep. Arlon Lindner's Comments" lE-mail text; 2AOl May ll. Minnesota Pablic Radio News. }:'tLpi/l news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200105 i0l_hughes-dalai/lindner.shtml (accessed on September20,2A05). Marty, Martin E. "Two Kinds of Two Kinds of Civil Religion." In L974 American Civil Religion,ed. by RusselE. Richey and Donald G. ]ones. New York Harper & Row. Marty, Martin E. and "Public Religion in America Today." The Edith L. Blumhofer Martin Marty Center. University of Chicago 2005 Divinity School. http:iimartf-center.uchicago. edu/researchlpublicreligion-today.shtml

McConnell, Michael W. fuligion and the Constitution. 2nd ed. et al' New York Aspen Publishers. 2006

McGreevy, fohn T. Catholicism and American Freedom.Ner'rr Yorlc 2003 W.W Norton & Company.

Mirsky, Yehudah "Civil Religion and the Establishment Clause." 1986 The YaleLaw lournal 9516:1237-1257.

Neuchterlein, ]ames "Let us Pray." First Things 122:.8-9. 2002

Nir, Ori "A|-Congress Stands Alone on Pledge Issue," 2404 The lewkh Daily Forward, ]anuary 9. http://www forward.com/articles/ajcongress- stands-alone- on - pledge-issue/(accessed on November 10, 2005).

Nussbaum, Martha "Radical Evil in Liberal Democracies." Public 2005 Presentation at the "lnitiative on Religion, Politics, and Peace The New Religrous Pluralism and Democracy." Georgetown University. htlp:// berkleycenter.georgetown.eddS9S6.html(accessed on Decemtrer18, 2006). Lprl. 21-22. O'Keefe,Mark "Has the United StatesBecome ludeo-Christian- 2003 Islamic?" NewHowe News Sewice (^INS). httpl/ 148 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

www.newhousenews,com/archive/okeefe05i 503. html (accessedon March 28,2006). PewForum on Religion "Conference:God BlessAmerica: Reflectionson and PublicLife Civil Religion After September ll." Brookings 2AA2 Institution Washington D.C. (http://per+4orum. org/events/ index.php?EventID=22(accessed on October 15, 2005). February 6. Prager,Dennis "America, Not Keith Ellison, Decides What 2006 Book a Congressman Takes His Oath On." Townhall.com. November 28 (accessed on December3,20A6).

Pruden, Wesley "A Little God Talk From the Chief." 2003 Washington Times. Navember 25. http://www. lexis-nexis.coml.

Richardson,Yalerie "Altered Pledge of Allegiance Stuns Students." 2005 Washington Times. Apt'rl 23. http://wwwlexis- nexis.com/.

Roig-Franzia,Manuel "New Orleans Mayor Apologizes for Remarks 2006 about God's Wrath." . ]anuary 18. Rouner, lcroy "What is an American? Civil Religion, Cultural 1999 Diversity, and American Civilization." The Key Reporter 6413. http:l lwwwpbk.org/pubs/Keyre porter/Spring99/Rouner.htm (accessedon Oct. l, 2005).

Smith, Christian Christian Americe? What Evangelicals 2000 Christians Really Want. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Smith, StevenD. Faredained Failure: The Quest fo, a (r99s) 1999 Constitutional Principle of Religious Freedom. Oxford University Press,new ed.

Sullivan, "Neutralizing Religion; Or, What is the Winnifred Fathers Opposite of 'Faith-Based'?"History of Religions 2002 4l14:369-390.

Stackhouse,Max "Civil Religion, Political Theology, and Public 2004 Theology: What's the Difference?" Political Theologt513:275-293. Kao Copuhky:The Pbdge of Allegiance 149

Weintraub, ]eff Public and Private in Thought and Practice: and Krishan Kumar, eds Perspectiveson a Grand Dichatomy. (Morality 1997 and Society Series). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

White, Ronald C. Lincoln's Greatest Speech: The Second 2002 Inaugural. New Yodc Simon & Schustet.

Wuthow, Robert America and the Challenges of Religious 2M5 Diversity. Princeton, New |ersey: Princeton University Press.