Sunday, April 04, 2004 I don't know about you, but many of the things I memorized in childhood took up permanent residence in my brain. I can still recite the Girl Scout Pledge, for instance, even though it's been decades since I had any occasion to. And the Lord's Prayer, of course. And the 23rd Psalm. I can't tell you how many nursery rhymes I can recite from memory. Naturally, I also remember the Pledge of Allegiance, since every school day, beginning in kindergarten, started with that recitation: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Oops, I mean "one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." I always forget that part -- because when I learned it, that part wasn't there. So whenever I find myself in a group reciting the pledge, and we get to the "under God" phrase, I fall out of synch. It's not a philosophical difference. It's just old habits dying hard. In the case of the pledge, you have to be a certain age to understand. You have to have gone through your formative school years before the words "under God" were added. I was 13 when "under God" was added. By then the version I'd been reciting for the previous eight years was permanently implanted in my brain. Right now, however, a different adage is coming to mind -- the one about how, if you wait long enough, many of the things you remember will roll around again. And sure enough, if Michael A. Newdow has his way, the U.S. Supreme Court may reinstate the Pledge of Allegiance as I learned it. Newdow is an atheist who does not want his daughter required to recite what, in his view, is a prayer. His case has been working its way up through the courts, and last month he had the unusual opportunity to argue it before the high court himself -- no doubt because even though he's an emergency room doctor now, he used to be a lawyer. He asked the court to order the Pledge dropped from mandatory school recitation altogether or, if retained, to have the words "under God" removed. Personally, I have no strong opinion on how this turns out. I think the separation of church and state is an important American principle, but I'm not sure this particular application is all that big a deal one way or the other. Newdow's case, however, did prompt me to do a little research on how "under God" got into the pledge. As a number of articles and reports have noted of late, it happened in 1954, at the height of America's Cold War fervor, the intent being to distinguish us from "godless Communists." That makes it mildly ironic that the original pledge was penned by a man of the cloth who saw no need to include reference to God. That original version, written in 1892 by Baptist minister Francis Bellamy, was a little different from the one I was taught. It was also different from the one he really wanted. As chairman of a National Education Association committee to plan a Columbus Day quadricentennial for the public schools, Bellamy was looking for a way to get the word "equality" into the commemoration. As a Christian Socialist whose vision for America was social, economic and political equality, he thought it an appropriate ideal to embody in an oath that would be recited by public schoolchildren. But Bellamy knew the word would never pass muster with his committee members, who were against equality for women and blacks. So he settled for "liberty and justice." The pledge underwent a few other changes and adjustments over the years. There was minor fussing with the words in the '20s, such as changing United States to United States of America. Then in 1942, Congress changed the recitation protocol. Before that, reciters would hold the right arm rigid and directed forward, palm down. As this had an uncomfortable similarity to the Nazi salute, it was decided that the right hand should instead be positioned over the heart during recitation. The addition of "under God," which followed an extensive campaign spearheaded by the Knights of Columbus, drew objections from Bellamy's son, David. He sent a message to Congress saying his father, now deceased, would not approve of such a change -- a sentiment subsequently echoed by Bellamy's granddaughter and great- granddaughter. All to no avail. Frankly, I'm surprised "under God" didn't get axed at the same time Madalyn Murray O'Hair convinced the Supreme Court that all prayer should be eliminated in public schools. But it didn't, which means we'll probably hear the same high-decibel outcry once the Newdow case is decided. As I said, I don't think the foundation of the Republic will be disturbed either way. But if Newdow wins, it means that at the next pledge recitation, I will no longer be the one who's officially out of synch. Fran Wood is a Star-Ledger columnist.
Word change wouldn't disturb the Republic
Not for commercial use. For educational and discussion purposes only.
