How can two short words provoke such controversy far and wide across America?  The phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance has become the subject of a national debate that will soon reach a climax with a decision by the Supreme Court. The court will rule on whether or not it is a violation of the First Amendment to have public school teachers lead students in reciting the pledge when it includes those two words.

The Pledge of Allegiance was first used in public schools in 1892 and did not contain the now disputed phrase. Nor during all of my years as a public school student, did these words  form part of the pledge. My schoolmates and I simply said “one nation, indivisible, with freedom and justice for all.”

It was in 1954 that the Congress at the request of President Eisenhower, added “under God”. He took his cue from a Catholic fraternal organization, the Knights of Columbus that lobbied for the change as a blow against communism. Eisenhower was glad to endorse their effort because the world seemed dangerously poised for possible nuclear war.

In October 2002, President Bush signed legislation confirming the use of these words as part of the pledge. For good measure he also approved the motto “in God we trust” on United States currency.

Though belief in God has always loomed large in my life, the explicit mention of God in this statement of allegiance to our country has from the beginning seemed to me an outside intrusion. I have never felt the need to include it among the words that express a commitment to the United States.

As a believer in God I am in good company: nine out of every ten Americans share this belief, polls show. Michael Newdow, however, is not among them. Newdow, a resident of the Sacramento, California area, has sued his local public school district, on the grounds that his son should not be exposed to the formula. The father professes himself an atheist and does not want his son to be indoctrinated with any religious beliefs.

It may be worth recalling an earlier Supreme Court ruling in 1943 that said students could not be required to say the Pledge of Allegiance at all. However, in practice, almost everybody, of whatever age, finds it difficult to resist group action, especially when it is endorsed by authority. To be the only one not saying the pledge when all around you are reciting the words makes most of us feel very uncomfortable.

I approach the issue with mixed feelings. On the one side, I appreciate our country’s history of honoring God publicly and praising the Creator for the blessings we enjoy. What has been termed “civil religion” seems to me valuable in itself and a glue that helps bind us together as one people.

And yet, the separation of church and state holds great importance for me and those of my Catholic tradition, as it does for those of other faiths. We all benefit from the constitutionally guaranteed freedom to practice our religion. The law protects us from governmental interference so long as we are not doing anything that infringes on the rights of others.

Ultimately, it seems to me not of great importance whether the phrase “under God” remains part of the pledge of allegiance or not. I can argue both ways but, whatever happens, people of faith are not going to lose that faith or grow up without it simply because of two words found in the formula.

What remains of greater importance is the quality of one’s love of God and country. Patriotism cannot be allowed to become a substitute for God and made into a religion. To make of the Pledge of Allegiance a statement of ultimate concern would be to violate the spiritual traditions that most Americans believe in.

With or without the phrase “under God,” the pledge raises vital questions for those who recite it.

Can we love God as one who is for all people, no matter their skin color, economic condition, or country of origin? And can we love our own country, not because it is rich and powerful or because it allegedly acts with more altruism than other nations, but rather because we keep alive the hope of achieving liberty and justice for all?

Richard Griffin