 | |||||
|
| |||||
|
| LegalBits | May 2004 |
|
I Pledge Allegiance To History And Grammar If the biggest establishment clause issue today is whether or not the words "I pledge allegiance to the Republic for which the flag stands, one nation under God" may be led in a school classroom to those children that volunteer to do so, then I'd say the framers did a damn fine job of protecting citizens from the establishment of religion. In fact, I think even the most enthusiastic proponents of separation of church and state at the time would be proud that the establishment clause has protected against so much infringements that we are arguing about this at all. To reach this conclusion, I make two points: that the framers did not imagine the establishment clause would reach so broadly; and that the issue at hand is so trivial that even a broad interpretation of the amount of protection in the establishment clause would not cover it. I find it helpful to go to the primary source and see exactly what concerned the drafters of the clause. Interestingly, when Congress first reached the issue of the establishment clause, the Representatives feared mostly that the clause would be interpreted TOO broadly. The very first objection recorded was by Mr. Sylvester, who feared the clause "might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether (Annals of Congress, 757, et. seq. (Saturday Aug. 15, 1789))." Mr. Sherman stood up to claim the amendment was altogether unnecessary, because nothing in Article I ' 8 could be interpreted to give Congress the ability to establish religion anyhow (Id.). James Madison stood up to give his account as to the goals of the clause. "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience (Id.)." Even Madison refused to comment on the necessity of the clause, given Article I ' 8 (Id.). Mr. Huntington agreed with Madison's interpretation but worried that "the words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion (Id.)." He gave the example of by laws in his community regulating charitable giving. He said that the establishment clause could be interpreted as to constantly side with an individual failing to perform his engagements, because to side with ministers would qualify as establishment (Id.). More evidence into the narrow nature of the establishment clause can be seen in the proposal by James Madison to rewrite the clause to include the word "national" before "religion." To do so, Madison claimed, would point the amendment directly toward the object it was intended to protect, that is the prevention of a national religion. Madison's proposal was struck down, NOT because establishment of a "national" religion was too narrow, rather because anti-federalists did not sign on to a NATIONAL constitution, rather a FEDERAL one. Indeed, many anti-federalists already felt slighted by the interpretation of the word "union (Id. (Gerry))." You will note that nowhere in the constitution does the word "nation" or "national" refer to the United States of America, instead opting for "union" or "several states." The Pledge issue seems rather trivial in comparison to the real purpose of the clause, being to prevent the establishment of a national religion, because the Pledge does not even coerce the saying that "I believe in God." It is true, as Madison notes, that the enforcement of religious practices is tantamount to establishing a national religion, but the Pledge of Allegiance does no such thing. The Pledge does not force ANYONE to pledge allegiance to God, or even to a nation under God. Rather, you pledge allegiance to a republic. There, the direct object of the verb to pledge ends. Following that clause comes modifiers. Those modifiers apply to the noun "republic." Implied in the structure is that the republic is one nation under God, one nation indivisible, and one nation with liberty and justice for all. The fact of the matter is, NOWHERE in the pledge, does the speaker claim they BELIEVE that the republic for which the "flag of the United States of America" stands truly IS one nation under God, one nation indivisible, or one nation with liberty and justice for all. Even if one implies it, and the implication is weak semantically, and nowhere does the speaker swear an oath to believe that there IS a God, rather ONLY that IF there is a God, then this nation is under it. Hell, even the anti-federalists, as noted above, would dispute that the republic is even "one nation." Admittedly, this is all semantics, but semantics is everything. To have a speaker swear that they agree with the Declaration of Independence is different than reciting the Declaration of Independence. And to have a speaker swear that they agree with the modifiers of the word "republic" in the Pledge is different from just saying the modifiers and swearing only to the republic. When the words "under God" were placed in the Pledge, they were, interestingly not placed after the word republic, something that would be more problematic. As currently written, it is not. In conclusion, I will simply sum up. First, the framers did not intend for the establishment clause to provide this much protection. Second, I see no way of interpreting the Pledge into a religious exercise, for nowhere in the Pledge must one state a belief that a God exists, much less pledge allegiance to that God. ---------------------- |
