Inquiring Minds: Ken Miller on the recent ruling regarding the Pledge of Allegiance

Professor of Biology Kenneth Miller, the author of “Finding Darwin’s God,” has long debated with creationists to advocate for teaching the science of evolution in schools. In the wake of the recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that declared the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional because it includes the phrase “one nation under God,” GSJ writer Mary Jo Curtis talked with Miller about this latest controversy over the separation of church and state.

Given your background, what's your reaction to the federal appeals court ruling?

I've opposed the teaching of creationism and "intelligent design" in the science classroom for the very simple reason that they are not science. They are religiously-motivated doctrines that could properly be studied in a class on history, philosophy or sociology. However, their principal scientific claims are wrong. The issue of how the Pledge of Allegiance should be worded seems to me to be a quite different issue. I think that the Appeals Court ruling showed a remarkable lack of common sense and historical perspective in making its decision, and I hope that its ruling does not stand.

Although we have a separation of church and state, it seems that many people – including President Bush and other leaders – equate patriotism with religion. Is that appropriate?

I think that patriotism and religion are quite different concepts, and it is a great mistake to conflate them. Many distinguished and patriotic Americans have not been particularly religious. I am aware of President Bush's religious feelings, and, like any American, he should be free to express them. But neither he nor any one else should equate the two.

Congress added the phrase "under God" to the Pledge at the height of the Cold War in 1954. Do you see parallels between that era and today's emotionally-charged post-9/11 atmosphere?

Quite frankly, there are certain parallels. In both eras the country was subject to a genuine threat. On Sept. 11, the heart of our greatest city was destroyed in an act of war. In the years preceding 1954, nearly 50,000 Americans died resisting aggression in Asia. It would hardly be surprising if citizens in both eras were determined to define the ways in which they believe the American state is unique. I am sure that the 1954 rewriting of the Pledge was part of that determination. And I have no doubt that the sharp public reaction against the court's decision is part of the same determination.

When President Eisenhower signed the change into law, he declared, “Millions of school children will daily proclaim… the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.” However, the Ninth Circuit Court argues the current form of the Pledge of Allegiance is “conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief.” Since the population of the U.S. today is substantially more diverse than it was in 1954, shouldn't we be more inclusive of the increasing number of Americans who don't follow a Judeo-Christian tradition?

I don't accept the premise of your question, which is that the Pledge of Allegiance is noninclusive of those outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition. One might say the same thing of the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the inalienable rights of human beings on the basis of Divine will. Yet American society remains a haven for people around the world precisely because of the open and tolerant values that have grown out of those religious roots. I see nothing wrong in admitting that fact.

To me and, I suspect, to most Americans, the language “under God” in the Pledge and “In God We Trust” on our currency is not a state establishment of religion of the sort prohibited by the First Amendment; rather, it is a simple civic acknowledgement of the role that humility in the face of God has played in constructing a society that values and respects the beliefs of all of its members – even those who regard the Deity as nothing more than historical fiction.