To the editor: When the Pledge of Allegiance alienates Americans
The Chester Telegraph | Feb 17, 2026 | Comments 4
The Pledge of Allegiance before 1954. Image from ‘Restore the Pledge.’
As a U.S. citizen, Vietnam era veteran and taxpayer, I have no problem with most of the Pledge, although reciting it can be a very cheap form of patriotism. What I object to is the phrase”under God.” I am, as expressed by a James Joyce character, a horrible example of free thought. I have every right to that position. In fact, every American — and every human being — has a right to believe whatever they do. The government has no business interfering in that right in any way, as expressed in the First Amendment, which starts “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Of course, this basic right was abrogated in the 1950s when, in response to the Soviet Union’s official atheism, which was an horrendous violation of human rights, the phrase “under God” was added.
In 2002, The New York Times reported the following: From a constitutional standpoint, those two words (under God), Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote in the 2-to-1 decision, were just as objectionable as a statement that “we are a nation ‘under Jesus;’; a nation ‘under Vishnu;’ a nation ‘under Zeus;’ or a nation ‘under no god;’ because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion.”
As I expressed to the board, for me the worst of these options is the last, “under no god” because it would put me in a position of imposing my views on others, a grossly objectionable act. The Select Board represents ALL the citizens of Cavendish. Not everyone here is religious, and imposing the phrase “under god” is an affront to those of us who are not.
It was said that saying this is not required and that we could wait outside the building while the Pledge is recited, but that is irrelevant, and also quite insulting. Statements of board members seemed to imply that they think that the board is their personal property and that therefore they could do as they please. However, the citizens of the town finance the town government, and the board members have no personal rights in how it is run. They have no right to impose their religion on the rest of us, even if the majority of the residents agree.
The town of Cavendish, which I support with my taxes, should not in any town function suggest or impose religious beliefs or non-belief on any of us in any way. However, the Cavendish Select Board has no problem with this and in fact passed this addition unanimously. This was highly disrespectful to us personally, and disrespect inevitably leads to the opposite of respect: contempt.
Kem Phillips
Cavendish
Filed Under: Commentary • Letters to the Editor
Thanks very much to Fran Harriman for her informative comment and for sharing her personal history on this subject. There are no doubt a lot of people who have had similar experiences, but we are still a minority and that seems to make some people think we deserve fewer rights.
Fran notes that “we can be patriotic without being Christian.” After my stateside service during the Vietnam war, I became friends with a couple guys who had also just gotten out. One had also served stateside, but the other had been sent to Vietnam, gotten shot and nearly died. We were and still are nonbelievers. So, when a draft-dodging coward has, as Evan said, “doubled down on the ‘Nation under God’ narrative as a cornerstone of national identity,” the only reaction we can reasonably have is contempt for them and those who support this.
The Pledge of Allegiance was originally written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister. He did not include the words “under god” in it. That was sufficient for 62 years, including 2 World Wars. In 1954, it became politically popular to add “under god” to the Pledge, due to panic about communism. I was in grade school when those words were added. As a 10 year old child, I asked my teacher didn’t it violate the separation of church and state. I don’t remember his answer, but I do remember the clear message that I received was that wasn’t a question I was supposed to ask. 70+ years later, I still have that unanswered question.
As a 10 year old child growing up in the Bible Belt, I understood that we should not be forcing our beliefs on others as a condition of being a patriotic citizen. We can be patriotic without being Christian. I agree with Evan Parks that the phrase should be removed from the pledge and the pledge be returned to its original meaning. We are pledging our allegiance to the flag and country, not to god. We agree that it should not be divided (although I wonder if those insisting that our nation is under god are also insisting that our country should be undivided). We need to get beyond the communist panic of the 1950s, especially since few people can actually define communism, and make the pledge accessible to all US residents. I intentionally did not say “all Americans” because there are many counties in the Americas.
Thanks very much to Evan Parks for his terrific comment. I don’t think I ever heard the saying “there can be no freedom of religion without freedom from religion.” By disallowing one side of the dispute, the other side becomes compulsory, and if you are required to believe, you aren’t really believing at all. You are just going along.
I was angered by Evan’s description of the abuse he has taken for simply trying to assert his and other people’s right to think as they please. Although, after losing whatever faith I had at age 15, perhaps out of fear I never made an effort to free myself from the obvious denial of rights that government-imposed religious displays in fact are. Thank you, Evan, for having the courage to do that. Now, 65 years after my “conversion”, I’ve simply gotten fed up with this sort of thing and can no longer put up with it.
Finally, it is indeed “terrifying” that the US administration wants to ‘bring faith back to the public square.’ As I mentioned in the piece, I was drafted during the Vietnam war, serving stateside. Now the country is run by an overprivileged, lying, draft-dodging coward. It is probably not hard to imagine the contempt I have for him and his supposed religion.
There can be no freedom of religion without freedom from religion.
Unfortunately, I feel very much the same as Kem. Every time I am expected to pledge allegiance to a nation ‘under God,’ I am reminded that many people seem to have no problem whatsoever imposing their religious beliefs on others. Time and again, the message is loud and clear: as non-believers, we belong to the ‘out’ group, and this country exists only for those with a particular, narrow superstition.
This is no mistake; the phrase ‘under God’ was added to the Pledge of Allegiance on June 14, 1954, following heavy lobbying by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization. The organization, along with various clergy members, demanded the change to distinguish American ideology from ‘godless’ communism during the Cold War. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the bill into law on Flag Day. From the very beginning, it was meant to exclude anyone who wasn’t the ‘right’ kind of Christian and to send a message to people like me and Kem that we somehow do not qualify as Americans.
Over the years, many have unsuccessfully tried to reverse this exclusionary, and hateful addition. While this is a clear constitutional violation and an ‘establishment’ of religious belief, the phrase persists—likely because those responsible for protecting it are believers themselves. Consequently, it is still recited thousands of times a day across the nation.
This is NOT religious freedom; it is a clear example of religious believers imposing their views on others and underscores why a secular government is vital. Phrases like ‘In God We Trust’ and ‘Under God’ are deliberately exclusionary. They exist for explicitly religious reasons: to disenfranchise, and shame those who do not subscribe to the majority’s religious beliefs.
I have tried to change how the pledge is recited in my own community, without success. In school, I was publicly shamed and repeatedly punished for refusing to recite it on several occasions. Unfortunately, these concerns often fall on deaf ears. People will continue to recite the phrase, without giving a thought about how it is excluding, and shaming a significant portion of the population, just so that they can maintain the pretense of being a ‘morally superior’ chosen people with an exclusive right to the American identity.
I would love to believe that this is finally the time that this injustice is finally going to be remedied, but in this timeline, with fascist white Christian nationalist Republicans in the seat of power, it is obviously very unlikely. With the 250th anniversary of American independence approaching this July, the administration has doubled down on the “Nation under God” narrative as a cornerstone of national identity.
The terrifying establishment of the Religious Liberty Commission and the White House Faith Office has shifted the federal focus from the ‘separation of church and state’ to ‘bringing faith back to the public square’—and to hunting down and persecuting people they believe are guilty of ‘anti-Christian bias.’ Life for non-believers in the near future is looking very dim. This destructive white Christian nationalist movement has frightening echoes of past fascist religious movements, such as the Nazi Holocaust.
These explicitly religious and exclusionary phrases are exactly the sort of poison that allows such movements to take hold of positions of power in what is supposed to be our secular government.
These aren’t just words. Words matter; they are a declaration of ownership, exclusion, hate, and prejudice. Removing them is vital to securing our secular democracy. Who can truly argue that the pledge isn’t better off without the bigoted phrase ‘under God’ without invoking what is clearly religious discrimination?
Again, there can be no freedom of religion without freedom from religion.