Dr. Nathan S. French
It’s a moment in the day that many Americans know well. After a few morning announcements, a teacher, a student, or, perhaps, a principal, asks everyone to rise and recite the pledge of allegiance to the U.S. flag. Imagine, though, in this scene that one of your classmates refuses to stand. What happens then?
Refusing to stand for the pledge of allegiance may occur for many reasons including protest and objection on the grounds of religious freedom. In the case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), the U.S. Supreme Court argued that a public school may not mandate compulsory pledges or flag salutes because such mandates violate First Amendment freedom of speech rights. In his notes on the case, Justice Jackson argued, “To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.”
Just over five decades before, Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), a Christian socialist Baptist minister authored the original language of the pledge of allegiance, which he argued would bring young Americans – from recent immigrant communities to long-standing residents – together in a shared moment during the school day. It read:
“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Notice anything? For those who have heard, observed, or the recited the pledge after 1954, you might have noticed that this language omits any mention of “God.” In 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower along with supportive members of Congress called for the inclusion of “under God” as a way of differentiating the United States from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which promoted state-sponsored atheism as a core principle of its Marxist-Leninist ideology.
Bellamy argued that the pledge would bring Americans together. Similarly, Eisenhower argued that the pledge was foundational to a shared American identity. Yet, in each case, the goal of the pledge was to establish a clear differentiation of Americans from non-Americans.
As an act, of course, a pledge signals a particular type of affirmation, loyalty, or support. Are the oaths of office, undertaken by U.S. Presidents, military personnel, judges, politicians, first responders, and others forms of such a pledge? Are these just promises? Or something more? What role do pledges and oaths play in American democracy?
Public affirmations such as pledges and oaths might be dismissed as mere promises to one another. Yet, what seems to set them apart is their performance in public life. For many Americans, rituals such as oath-taking or swearing-into office of a public official involving tremendous emotional feeling and a renewal of bonds and commitments to one another and to the institutions with which they are entrusted. At times, the manner, method, and language by which such pledges and oaths are undertaken leads some to question the sincerity of others in their commitments to the U.S. and to the duties that they are swearing to uphold.
On Oaths & Pledges
Oaths and pledges have social force. As Joanne M. Pierce, a professor of religious studies at Holy Cross University notes, scholars have long parsed oaths as a “ritual act, or more specifically a speech act.” Further, Pierce notes citing the British philosopher John L. Austin, oaths might also be better understood as “performative utterances.” In Austin’s framing, an oath is not merely a description of one’s obligations or the facts of the world. An oath, instead, brings about action that will affect the social reality of broader society. In short, oaths change oneself and how one is perceived by others.
In its etymology, the word “oath,” traces an uncertain meaning through Germanic languages. Some argue that it might traces it’s meaning through the Ancient Greek word “oitos” meaning ‘what is to come’ in reference to something undertaken. In contemporary usage, Pierce notes, oath-taking is “also about the intention in the future to commit to act in a certain way.” Oaths played a substantial role in the Roman empire and in medieval western Europe.
Oaths of Office in U.S. History
The third clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution forbids any religious test to be required as a qualification for any office or public trust unde4r the United States. In place of this test, an “oath or affirmation” is required of all federal and state office holders to support the U.S. Constitution. This is the only explicit reference to “religion” in the seven articles of the Constitution.
The sixth article was designed to push against the usage of “test acts,” often used in British politics to secure offices for members of the Church of England against Catholics and those Protestants considered outside of acceptable British parameters. At present, the U.S. oath, as determined by Congress, reads as follows:
“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]”
In addition to members of Congress, this oath is also observed by commissioned U.S. military officers. The oath of enlistment varies slightly, noting that enlisted personnel will “obey the orders of the president of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”
A similar oath is sworn by the elected President of the United States, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution on the day of her or his swearing-in: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Applicants for naturalization to the United States have had to declare their intention and commitment to become a U.S. citizen involving the declaration of an oath of allegiance to the United States, renouncing any allegiances to a foreign “prince, potentate, state or sovereignty.” A standardized text for that oath first appeared in 1929 with language added regarding “bearing arms on behalf of the United States” added in 1950 and language regarding “performing work of national importance under civilian direction” added in 1952. Today, the oath of allegiance taken by every immigrant seeking to become a U.S. citizen is administered by an immigration judge or authorized officer of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
Some modifications of this oath are accepted. For those claiming conscientious objection to military service, an applicant’s religious organization or authorities may need to offer supporting evidence – in the form of documentation, testimony, or other forms of explanation – of the individual’s sincerely held objections. Applicants may also omit the words “so help me God” and replace the words “on oath” with “solemnly affirm” in recognition of individual matters of freedom of conscience.
Oaths and the Question of Who Can Serve?
From the earliest moments of the presidency, however, several prominent framers of the U.S. Constitution and the American democracy debated whether the lack of a religious test meant that various Christians – and even non-Christians – would be eligible for office. Thomas Jefferson, for example, affirmed that a non-Christian could hold office, even acknowledging that the religious freedom and religious tolerance promised by the United States would extend to the possibility of a Muslim holding office.
Jefferson had a deep interest in the foundations and philosophy of law. As part of his queries, he purchased a two-volume copy of the Qurʾan in the translation by the English philologist George Sale about eleven years before authoring the Declaration of Independence. As Jefferson debated the unfolding of the early American government, he noted, repeatedly, that the system of laws to be designed for the United States would ensure that regardless of the religiosity of the president – or lack thereof – all citizens would continue to enjoy equal rights before the law. As Denise Spellberg notes of her book, Thomas Jefferson’s Qurʾan: Islam and the Founders, “It strikes me that Jefferson was theorizing for a future that included Muslims — not in spite of their religion, but because of it and because of his notion of universal civil rights.”
Those two volumes of the Qurʾan were later used at the swearing-in ceremony of Keith Ellison who, before a term as the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, once served as the first openly elected Muslim candidate to the House of Representatives, beginning his term in January 2007. At the time, tremendous controversy emerged around Ellison’s decision to use the Qurʾan, with some observers, such as Dennis Praeger, arguing “America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress.”
The question of whether a Bible or Qurʾan – or any other text – emerged again in January 2021 when Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia questioned whether the oaths of office sworn by Representatives Ilhan Omar from Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib from Michigan were valid because they were sworn on copies of the Qurʾan and not on the Christian bible.
Representatives Ellison, Omar, and Tlaib were by no means the first public officials to take their oaths of office on texts other than the Christian bible. John Quincy Adams took his oath on a law volume containing a copy of the U.S. Constitution in 18325. Theodore Roosevelt did not use a bible in 1901, but did in 1905. And, most recently, President Donald J. Trump did not place his hand upon a Bible at his swearing in ceremony in January 2024. A copy of a family Bible and the Lincoln Bible, used at President Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration in 1861 was nearby.
Whether thorugh oaths or through pledges, the public recitation and affirmation of obligations and duties to one another, to the flag, and to the constitution, open up the possibility for ongoing conversations regarding patriotic loyalty, constitutional responsibility, and the freedoms of speech and conscience preserved in the articles of the constitution and in the First Amendment.
Questions for Class Discussion
Think about a time that you’ve made a promise. What do you think differentiates your promise from an oath of office or a pledge of allegiance?
Have – or do you know – someone who has opted out of a pledge or changed the langauge of an oath to match their own conscience and freedom of expression? Why did they do so? What was the outcome?
Consider the statement, “Pledges and Oaths bring people together. But, sometimes, might also push them apart.” Explain this statement, thinking about the idea of oaths as “public affirmations.”
Documentary
“How American Muslims Influenced Thomas Jefferson and America’s Founders (American Muslims),” PBS (link)
Scholarship
Forest Church, So Help Me God: The Founding Fathers and the First Great Battle over Church and State. New York: Harcourt, Inc., 2007
“The Debate Over Religious Tests,” Center for the Study of the American Constitution, University of Wisconsin, Madison (link)
Gaston Espinosa, ed., Religion and the American Presidency. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009.
Kevin Kruse. One Nation under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. New York: Basic Books, 2015 (link)
Joanna M. Pierce, “The History of Oath Taking Ceremonies and Why they Matter when Taking Office,” The Conversation, October 19, 2020
“Religious Test Oaths in State Constitutions, 1776-1784,” Center for the Study of the American Constitution, University of Wisconsin, Madison (link)
Denise Spellberg, Thomas Jefferson’s Qurʾan: Islam and the Founders. New York: Vintage Books, 2014.
Joel Witte, Joel A. Nichols, and Richard W. Garnett. Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment. Fifth Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2022.
Leave a Reply