I would like to highlight an article from the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, written by Grace Y. Kao and Jerome E. Copulsky (both assistant professors at Virginia Tech), entitled “The Pledge of Allegiance and the Meanings and Limits of Civil Religion.” If you’re logged in, you can find it here on the OUP Journals website, or you can find the link to the journal from the AAR website if you’re a member. Though it is not directly biblical studies related, it is related to the interpretation of texts generally and to the concept of communal memory. For those who cannot get the article from the above links or from a library database (or don’t have time to read through it at the moment), here is the abstract:

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.

I am in full agreement about the refocusing here. The most important facet of the Pledge of Allegiance is not the “under God” phrase (which I think is abhorrent for my own religious reasons), but rather to what we are compelling children to pledge their allegiance: the flag, the country, and not God. God is an afterthought here, a tacked on phrase to make the pledge sound more religious in the face of communism; it just makes the Pledge worse. These are my opinions, not the arguments of the authors.

You may know that Anabaptists have advocated the right for their children not to say the Pledge, and have taken their challenge about this and other school-related issues to the courts (which is an interesting theological issue in itself, that Anabaptists would appeal to civil authorities to challenge the enforcement of civil religion). For a relatively recent court challenge of the Pledge by a Mennonite, here’s a Washington Post article that might interest you. You may also be interested in this article by the Mennonite scholar, J. Nelson Kraybill: “A New Patriotism: Pledge of Allegiance.”