Notebook

---

October 28, 2002

'Under God'

I'm uncomfortable with the potential domination of politics by a particular religion or ideological group, too, but I've always felt that the phrase "under God" made an important personal and theological point. The fact that religious conservatives are hyperventilating about the court ruling suggests to me that they also miss this point.

One's allegiance to a nation is always limited, or ought to be. The nation has strong claims to a citizen's loyalty — up to the point where more ultimate loyalties come into play. Call it conscience, from a psychological point of view, or God, from a theological point of view. Either way, one's "pledge of allegiance" to a nation or other community has an implicit limit.

This is something that religious conservatives partly recognize, and partly grossly distort: they forget that their own church structures and religious organizations are just as limited. That's why I'm a religious liberal.

When the phrase "under God" was added, I think religious people were partly insisting on this point — and partly reacting to a fear of communists and being a bit chauvinistic. But it's the chauvinism that is the problem.

I've never felt personally uncomfortable with the pledge because I think its essential point is valid. I also doubt that it disenfranchises religious minorities, although I do have questions about the constitutionality of requiring children to say it.

I oppose turning the nation itself into God much more than I oppose a rather innocuous bit of civil religion.

UU Community 6.28.02