I had understood that the 1954 insertion "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance had been a Red Scare/Cold War change, one of the more harmless instances of breast beating and demagoguery from that period. The actual genesis of the phrase "under God" is a lot more troubling, according to The Chicago Tribune's obituary of the Reverend George M. Docherty printed Monday (page 30). Docherty, an immigrant from Scotland who headed the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, DC, first heard the pledge when it was recited to him by his 7 year old son. Docherty apparently was struck by the absence of God in the Pledge, as compared with the Scottish practice of saying "God save our gracious Queen" and "God save our gracious King." So he sermonized about it at church before President Eisenwhower. Shortly thereafter the Republican Congress enacted the revised pledge with the "under God" ending.
So there you have it. the phrase "under God" is the product of the divine right of kings and of the practices of the United States' colonial master. Since the King or Queen is the titular head of the Church, and one of the attributes of royalty is being chosen by God for the job, it makes perfect sense for the British to have this practice. But everything about this practice is repellent to our Constitution, specifically the Establishment clause, and to our ethos.
Why should the State listen to some religious leader's suggestion, based on repellent principles, and impose an oath on all Americans, particularly young people who are the captives of public schools?
Why would the United States want to emulate a practice founded in feudal Europe for elevating the status of kings and queens above the rest of human kind? (OK Christianity borrowed pagan practices fo worshipping trees and made them central to Christmas, so maybe our Democracy needed to be dressed with a little more palettable religion).
Why would nostalgia for the old country justify toying with the fundamental principles of our government?
Frankly, as a tactic for differentiating Americans from the godless Communists, the change in the Pledge made some sense (if one believed there was an existential fight for human kind going on at the time). But apparently that was not the case. This Republican-backed show of religiosity was borne of the United Kingdom and state religion.
How refreshing that the President-elect has made it a habit to go to the gym on Sundays, without advertising his religous practices. That is a secular devotion more in keeping with our founding principles.