I honestly do not care whether or not the phrase "under God" remains in the Pledge of Allegiance. As Dave Niose reminds us
in his article, "Is it time to counter
religious bullying?" these words were added to the Pledge in 1954. I am unsymphathetic to many of the aims and tactics of some members of the Religious Right, though I do not have a political axe to grind (I've been a registered Democrat, Independent, Republican, and Democrat, in that order). I think that many religious believers are too focused on these sorts of issues, rather than actually living out the faith passed down to us from Jesus Christ and his followers over the centuries. Too much time, effort, and money is spent on these issues, in my opinion. Others disagree, and I understand why, even if I don't share their beliefs.
I am also a follower of Christ, however, and the spiritual part of life is something that I try to take very seriously. We who profess to follow Christ can do so authentically while taking into account that we live in a religiously pluralistic culture, which includes many people of no religion at all. We should be sensitive to those who fail to share our views. This is a demand of the command to love your neighbor as yourself.
However, after reading Dave Niose's article about the backlash subsequent to NBC's editing out the words "under God" in its broadcast of the U.S. Open, I do have an objection or two to raise. First, it isn't clear to me that the campaign of the American Family Association is accurately characterized as "bullying." Perhaps it is the strength of the language suggested in the AFA's talking points--"furious,-" and "grossly unpatriotic." I am not sure that this is bullying, which, according to resources on the Psychology Today website "...is a distinctive pattern of deliberately harming and humiliating others." This definition is offered in the context of children bullying other children, but the general idea seems clear, and it does not seem as if the AFA's campaign is equivalent to bullying.
Second, Niose states that it would be nice if a massive grassroots campaign of secular Americans communicated to NBC the acceptability of the pledge minus "under God." But isn't this what the AFA sought to do, albeit from a different perspective? So I would argue that it is not the tactics that are really at issue here, since from what I can glean, both sides want to foster a grassroots campaign to communicate their views to NBC. That appears to be a red herring. What is at issue is the substance of the opposing views.
Follow me on Twitter, and check out my other blog.
