Over the last two years, as the legal fight over the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance has worked its way through the courts, proponents of keeping the Pledge as is remind us that it’s voluntary. In schools and other public settings, no one can be forced to recite it.
People who don’t want to say “under God,” they tell us, shouldn’t. It’s a personal choice.
That’s fine, as a rhetorical response. But in practice, if you’ll pardon the expression, God help the person who decides he or she liked the Pledge better the way it was before 1954. Just ask Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.).
Every morning on the House floor, a lawmaker recites the Pledge (Democratic and Republican members take turns). Three days ago, a member of Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s staff asked McDermott to do it and he agreed. That’s when the trouble started.
McDermott recited the Pledge — as it existed before 1954. It’s the exact same wording as now, except the ending was, “one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Congress was not amused by the gesture of old-school patriotism. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) accused McDermott of “embarrassing the House.”
And that was before the Democrats started condemning McDermott.
As Roll Call reported yesterday:
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) was furious with McDermott and blasted his longtime colleague during a Democratic leadership meeting Wednesday, according to sources.
Hoyer argued that whatever McDermott’s personal feelings were about the phrase “under God,” that when he gave the pledge on the floor, McDermott was representing all Democrats, not just himself. In Hoyer’s view, McDermott should have thought about what it would mean for the entire Democratic Caucus and not just himself before he spoke.
The sources said Hoyer believes that McDermott’s behavior gave encouragement to those who criticize Democrats as weak on the issue of faith and religious values.
“There are a lot of people unhappy with McDermott,” said a senior Democratic leadership aide.
And then Pelosi personally got involved in berating McDermott.
Forget Republicans. The sharpest rebuke of Rep. Jim McDermott’s omission of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance has come from the leader of his own party.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, summoned the Seattle Democrat to her office Wednesday to personally scold him for improvising when he led the pledge in the House chamber.
Speaking to reporters in the Capitol yesterday, Pelosi, the highest-ranking Democrat in the House, said: “I asked him to come to meet with me on that subject, very directly, to express the concern of colleagues and my own concerns about the presentation of the pledge.”
“I completely disagree with Congressman McDermott’s presentation of the pledge to the flag,” she said. “House Democrats expect the Pledge of Allegiance to be delivered as it is written, with the phrase ‘under God,’ and with respect.”
I understand the politics of this — Dems, especially those who take their faith seriously, don’t want to appear hostile towards religion — but all of this piling on is over the top.
In his defense, McDermott noted the obvious — that his Pledge was the one that he, like generations of Americans, grew up with. He said in a statement:
“My thoughts were not where they should have been and I reverted to the Pledge as it was written and taught in the public schools throughout my childhood. The Pledge has indeed been amended since then and I will endeavor to concentrate on what I’m doing in the future and say the modern version.”
McDermott obviously thought it was better to apologize and move on, and under the circumstances, I can’t say I blame him. But I don’t think he should have ever been scolded for this in the first place.
As one of my favorite Carpetbagger regulars, whom I fondly call PJ, said in an email:
“[T]he bigger question is not how McDermott defended himself; rather, why was McDermott made to defend himself in at all? … To criticize a public official for opting not say the words “under God” directly contravenes the principle of freedom of thought.
PJ is absolutely right. Advocates of the current Pledge say it’s voluntary and if you don’t like to say “under God,” don’t. But the moment someone says it the old way, it’s an offensive and unpatriotic insult that requires immediate correction.
McDermott was well within his rights to recite the Pledge he was taught to say; the same Pledge Americans recited through two World Wars and the Great Depression. It’s not an “embarrassment to the House”; it’s an expression of one man’s conscience.