The Pledge of Allegiance has been a topic of discussion since it was first penned by Baptist minister Francis Bellamy in 1892, but a particular debate has arisen in the years since 1954 — something that we are reminded of by the passing of Reverend George M. Docherty on Thanksgiving Day at the age of 97. Docherty, after all, was one of the original proponents of the insertion of the phrase "under God."
While some may shudder at the thought of altering the pledge in its current form, it is important to note that the wording and the symbolic acts surrounding it have been modified several times in order to keep up with changing national circumstances.
The original pledge read, "I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." In 1923, however, the National Flag Conference changed "my Flag" to "the Flag of the United States" so that the large influx of new immigrants would know which flag was being referenced. The words "of America" were added the next year in order to further clarify.
Even the salute, which is today performed with the right hand over heart, was altered in the 1940s. The original salute (termed the "Bellamy salute" after the author), consisting of an extension of the right arm with the palm held up, bore a striking resemblance to what later became the Nazi salute. President Franklin Roosevelt mandated the change in 1942 — some 50 years after its inception — in order to avoid comparisons.
Finally, in 1954, Congress passed a resolution to insert the phrase "under God," primarily to draw a distinction between Americans and the atheistic followers of communism in Korea and elsewhere.
There is a fear in America that even marginally updating venerable customs and practices diminishes their value; that to alter the pledge in particular, even in order to make it more applicable to a broader swath of people, would give it less meaning and strip it of historical context.
All this is not to say that we approach this debate with a hardheaded sense of justice. We do not see the current pledge as offensive or dangerous, or as conferring too great a connection between Church and State. Indeed, non-believers who feel strongly about the matter can easily make use of the art of mumbling — a skill that has aided countless children during Christmastime choir recitals.
Yet we do feel that a more appropriate summation of the bond between man and country could be had by removing "under God," if for no other reason than that it is more inclusive that way. The purpose of the pledge has always been, after all, to express as accurately as possible the allegiance that We The People feel to our nation. The words are not nearly as important as the ideas behind them — something that should always be made clear. Altering the wording wouldn't change the meaning of the pledge. Besides, believers could always mumble.
