You probably know it by heart. Chances are you've recited the words hundreds, if not thousands, of times over your lifetime:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
So after a three-judge panel in California ruled last month that the words "under God" make the pledge unconstitutional for official school recitations, it came as no big surprise that everyone had something to say. A nationwide uproar followed, mostly in defense of the pledge, but punctuated with voices lauding the decision.
Durham's school system was not affected directly by the ruling, which applied only to the 9th Circuit and even then was quickly stayed by the same judge who wrote the opinion, Alfred Goodwin.
But the possibility that an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court could lead to a similar ruling--unlikely as that may be--was enough to cause local citizens to reflect on what the pledge means to them.
Durham Public Schools' policy states that no student is ever required to recite the pledge, and the choice of whether to encourage students to join in is left to the individual school, says DPS spokesperson Michael Yarbrough.
"I think most schools are doing it, I think most schools are providing the option," he says, "especially since September 11."
Many in the schools believe the pledge helps instill the value of citizenship.
"I'm the daughter of an army veteran, so I think it is our right to keep our students educated about our rights," says Lorraine Tuck, assistant principal at Carrington Middle School, where the pledge is recited weekly over the intercom, led by students. "I think the Pledge of Allegiance is a good way to keep that patriotic feeling."
Tuck says most students are pleased to say the pledge, although occasionally someone will choose not to participate.
"We have asked some of our summer school students [who have been reading the news about the decision]," she says. "Their response was, 'We're going to do it anyway.'"
But others worry that unchecked patriotism could be dangerous, and that refusing to change the words of the pledge could be one small symptom of such an excess.
"We've sort of gotten into this patriotic fervor that can sort of spill over into extremism," says Phillis Scott, a member of the Board of Education who says she would prefer the pledge if it didn't include the phrase "under God," lest students who do not share the beliefs behind the pledge feel uncomfortable. "As much as I didn't really agree with people who would burn the flag, the great thing about America is that we have the freedom to burn the flag, the freedom to disagree with those in power," she says. "That's sort of what makes America America, the freedom to personal beliefs."
Some parents argue that forbidding their children the opportunity to recite the pledge in school violates their freedom to express their beliefs.
"[We're forgetting] the faith in God that started this country and made it great," says Ruth Booth, the mother of a student at Carrington and another at Southern High School. "Now people are trying to push their faith, their lack of faith, their beliefs down my throat."
She adds that the idea of the separation of church and state--the basis for the 9th Circuit's ruling--cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution. "What the founders were trying to do was not to have a Church of England," she says. "We don't want [a national church] now, but that's different from having a faith."
Van Alstyne claims that the separation of church and state is a logical continuation of that principle and one that protects the majority religion from being misappropriated by the government, for purposes like propaganda, as much as it protects minority religions from persecution.
"To the extent that the state can locate its authority under the authority of Christ, it profanes the religion," he explains, giving the example of the highly religious "Battle Hymn of the Republic" during the Civil War. "It was to claim Christ and God on the side of the Union as opposed to the slave-holding, irreligious South."
That basically constitutes a claim to the endorsement of a secular (and therefore, from a Christian perspective, flawed) state, by a perfect, divine authority. "If you were a devout Christian, nothing would disturb you more," Van Alstyne says.
While he sees how the ruling might be overturned on the grounds that the words are too insignificant to represent a real breakdown of the church-state distinction, Van Alstyne says the decision has some merit, especially since Congress' 1954 addition of the words "under God" was motivated primarily by Cold War ideology.
In the middle of the debate is a wide group of people who like the current wording, but are willing to change it if those words become a stumbling block for other citizens.
"I kind of think it's a whole lot of fuss about nothing," says James Henderson, father of a Jordan High School student. "I try to be tolerant, so if someone else has a problem with it, fine, we change it. [But] unless that is a very strong-held feeling, I don't have a problem with it."
That's a perspective with which Tuck, the assistant principal at Carrington, could agree. And Kathryn Meyers, chair of the Board of Education, supports the pledge as is, but adds the pledge's most important function is teaching students the value of citizenship.
What's the future of the pledge of allegiance? Van Alstyne predicts the decision will likely be overturned after an en banc review by a larger number of the justices on the 9th Circuit, probably within three to six months, and probably by a split vote. If it stands up after that, the possibility of a constitutional amendment backing the pledge might even cross the horizon, he says.
No matter which way the decision goes, it won't be the first shot, or the last, fired in the battle over the relationship between church and state.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.