2007/02/14 by Grace Y. Kao, Jerome E. Copulsky · 2 citations
Social Sciences · Arts and Humanities · #Religion and Society Interactions #American Constitutional Law and Politics #Mormonism, Religion, and History
paper · doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfl065
openalex publication_date 2007/02/14 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01
Recent court challenges to the constitutionality of teacher-led recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools have centered on the question whether the Pledge is to be understood as a religious or secular ritual, given its post-1954 addition of the phrase “under God.” After a brief discussion of Establishment Clause jurisprudence on this question, we argue that the category of civil religion usefully illuminates what is at stake in constitutional debates about the Pledge and in similar rituals. We develop four perspectives through which the Pledge of Allegiance in particular, and civil religion in general, can be understood to function: preservationist, pluralist, priestly, and prophetic. Thus the ongoing controversy surrounding the Pledge of Allegiance is best understood not as a dispute between “believers” and “atheists,” but on the contested meaning, significance, and propriety of civil religion in America itself. In the end, we suggest that even without the contested phrase, the Pledge would remain a potent ritual of civil religion, serving all four functions, and urge further serious study of the religious significance of the phenomenon of civil religion.