Every day millions of American school children start their schedules with “The Pledge of Allegiance.”
Yesterday’s ruling by a Federal judge in San Francisco (upholding one’s right not to use of the words “under God” while reciting “The Pledge of Allegiance”) doesn’t affect if I do or do not say the words “under God” in “The Pledge of Allegiance.” Even if this ruling had gone the other way, I choose to say these words as a Catholic; however, that is my particular choice. The actual usage of the phrase is not mandatory, nor should it be. What is at issue here is separation of church and state, not just two little words. While their inclusion in “The Pledge” is not in itself religious, the connotation certainly indicates a united faithfulness. Looking at America in 2005, I see a very different place than when the words were inserted into “The Pledge” fifty plus years ago.…
Article comments
26 - alpha
First, how civilized to have a religious person write a BC post in a dispassionate way about a passionate subject (for some). Thank you, Victor Lana, for the view of reason on the side that is often without reason and for freedom from the side that often forgets freedom in its search for meaning.
Second. Dr. Pat hit the nail on the crucifix again when he writes of Freedom of Religion and the fact that, even if 75% of the population were Christian; it does not mean everyone else must march to the sound of the same drummer.
Third. In my Southern school with its prayer, bible reading, moment of silence, and pledge of allegiance -- sometimes the anthem as well -- along with religious assemblies by fanatic preachers; I could easily have lived without all of the above. By the time graduation came I would not have been interested in any of them again. Such is the result of constant, heavy indoctrination.
27 - Victor Lana
Alpha,
I couldn't agree more with you. As a product of Catholic school (here in NYC), I was overwhelmed by the necessity of things (prayer, pledge, prayer, church, more prayer) so that for a time in my life I sought to escape it completely.
Indoctrination of patriotism or faith of any kind usually leads to rebellion, at least it did for me.
28 - diana hartman
Inclusion of the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance isn't a right nor does it impact religious freedom. If it did, then the phrase not being there before 1954 would've been an issue and it wasn't. The reason for the inclusion was to differentiate the citizenry of the United States from those who the United States regarded as god-less. Religious oppression, concerns with free religious expression, and the first amendment weren't part of the reasoning behind the inclusion.
What's at issue is the impact a removal of the phrase would have on the right to practice one's religion without government interference or endorsement. There is no evidence to support the idea that removing the phrase would interfere with anyone's right to practice nor would the removal endorse any one religion.
It's almost as if the concern surrounding the phrase is exponential, that removing it would snowball into an eventual prohibition of religious practice altogether.
29 - Victor Plenty
America lost every war it fought before 1954. That was why we had to add the phrase about God into the Pledge.
Since 1954 we have been decisively winning every war we fight, and we've also never been attacked by terrorists, internal or external.
QED.
30 - The Theory
everyone has a god. the term "god" by it's self isn't nessisarily something that should alienate a person.
a god can be a diety, like the Christian god.
or it can be whatever it is that a person lives his or her life for... for some people it would be something simple like money or sex, or it could be something like science... or politics...
now if the pledge said something like, "one nation, under Jesus..." or "One nation, under Buddah" I could understand the arguement.
Of course, i've never been a pledge fan myself... so banning the entire thing would float my boat perfectly.
31 - Victor Lana
Theory, everyone does not have a god. We have agnostics and atheists in this country. Also, even those who believe in a greater power don't exactly agree on who the Creator is. God is not the same to everyone, so why should everyone be expected to say these words?
It comes down to individualism. Say it if you need to; don't say it if you don't, and never expect anyone else to.
32 - The Theory
didn't you read what i said?
a god doesn't have to be a higher power... but everyone lives their life for something that becomes god-like to them.
even atheists.
33 - The Theory
ok, after re-reading my first post i could see how i could be misinterperted.
too many thoughts, not quick enough typing skills. ;-)
34 - Victor Lana
Thanks, Theory. And right you are about god-like. Some people call Angelina Jolie a goddess. I'm not sure about atheists though. The one I know (yes, only one) doesn't believe in anything except himself. Oh, perhaps he's his own god. Who knows? Thanks!
35 - steve
God is nothing to do with a certain in particular religion. why should we try to have a nihilistic approach in our image? Everyone has their own interpretation in what God is.
36 - The Searcher
"Under God" was not in the original Pledge and was added for purely political reasons, to codify the idea that "I am an American, therefore I am a Theist."
It would appear that the identity of the country is being "hijacked" by those who are ignorant of the views held by some of the founding fathers:
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
--[Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper February 10, 1814]
"The government of the United States is not in
any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
--[Treaty of Tripoli, 1797]
"It is error alone that needs the support of
government. Truth can stand by itself."
--[Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782]
37 - steve
The phrase "under god" was added while combating the Soviets during the Cold war. The Communists in their country did not believe in god, and now the communists in our country want to do away with "under god" as well
38 - Victor Lana
Steve,
I understand what you're saying, but NO ONE can take away your god. The Jews under Nazi oppression proved that. They worshipped their god even if in secret. The Russian Christians under the Soviets proved it. The Shia under Saddam Hussein proved it.
By removing or not saying "under God" whilst reciting "The Pledge" doesn't stop the faithful from being faithful, or from saying it if they want to. If it does stop anyone who wants to say it, then perhaps they should question their feelings about their god.
39 - steve
if someone finds an injustice in reciting the pledge as-is; then do not include "under god" or do not recite the pledge at all. The majority wants it to remain.
40 - The Searcher
Steve does bring up a great point with regard to the will of the majority being the cornerstone of a representative democracy.
I suppose it then becomes a question of whether the will of the majority in this case constitutes an infringement upon any of the individual civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
To determine that, one must determine exactly what the Pledge of Allegiance really is. Is it itself an institution or manifestation of the government? Does it constitute government endorsement of a particular religion?
Then one must ask, is monotheism a particular religion. Well, it is a particular TYPE of religion, certainly. Then we must split hairs and ask, does the Constitution forbid establishment only of a PARTICULAR religion, or ant TYPE of religion. Delving into these areas requires us to make educated guesses at the intent of the framers, which I think was quite clear if you examine their writings.
I personally think the phrase should not have been injected in the first place, because I believe, as Jefferson did, that the nation can stand on its own, indivisible with liberty and justice for all, without resorting to divine authority.
Church and state can be no more separated than men can be from the values they hold and the laws they construct therefrom; the church tells men how to think and men make the laws which govern the state.
Religion makes too many people feel too good to ever be anything less than a darling of the majority.
Having said all that, I personally take the position of Jefferson:
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are
injurious
to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are
twenty
gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
41 - diana hartman
steve says: if someone finds an injustice in reciting the pledge as-is; then do not include "under god" or do not recite the pledge at all. The majority wants it to remain.
the searcher says: Steve does bring up a great point with regard to the will of the majority being the cornerstone of a representative democracy.
yes, he does; and with that assertion, steve neglects to prove that the majority of americans want the pledge to remain as is...
"under God" in the context of the pledge clearly suggests subservience to God, a religious diety...the injustice is that this is the government having made a law respecting an establishment of religion...
as has been suggested, where one can obstain from saying "under God", one can just as easily add it...
the insistence that "under God" remain in the pledge wrongly meshes the idea that patriotism and loyalty to one's country is directly tied in with one's belief in God -- and that is a fundamentally incorrect idea...
if it were true, then how do religious proponents explain the patriotism, loyalty, and service of military servicemembers and other american citizens who don't believe in God?
42 - The Searcher
Remember, this country was first settled by religious radicals, and if the lives and death of countries are anything like those of people...ashes to ashes...dust to dust...
43 - Michael J. West
if someone finds an injustice in reciting the pledge as-is; then do not include "under god" or do not recite the pledge at all.
Suppose I recite the pledge by saying, "One nation, above God"? Is that okay by you?
44 - Michael J. West
Another question: is the Pledge of Allegiance an oath? If it is, there are very strong constitutional grounds for removing "Under God."
45 - Kenny
I'm 29 years old. When I was growing up I would not say the words "under god" in the pledge even though I was terrifeid someone would see that I was not saying those words. I often think back on that and it pisses me off. No one told me I did not have to say it or that I could opt out. It has further caused me problems with my children. I want my kids to be good citizens. I want them to be patriots. But I do not want them to be christens. So how do I explain it to my seven year old. Beats me. I told him there are a lot of idiots in the world the beleive in imaginary gods. Yes its bigoted and deliberatly anti christen, But what else can I do? Let him be recruited by the Pledge?
46 - The Searcher
Most of the Christians I speak to about this believe that to remove "Under God" from the Constituion would be to infringe on THEIR right to worship freely.
They are also fond of: "But the United States was founded as a Christian nation."
And then there is: "But Christianity is already enmeshed in our government buildings and ceremonies and no one's complained about it before!"
It's this latter one that I find the most interesting in a sociological context. Christianity isn't changing or evolving, but perhaps people are. Perhaps each new generation yields a greater number of non-believers and apostates than the one before, just as each passing year makes a child less likely to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
47 - The Searcher
Forgive me, I meant to write "Pledge" rather than "Constitution" in my first sentence.
48 - Michael J. West
Perhaps each new generation yields a greater number of non-believers and apostates than the one before, just as each passing year makes a child less likely to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
I'm not sure I believe that. Survey after survey demonstrates that Christianity is in no danger of being overtaken as the belief of the majority of Americans. I don't really think that there are more nonbelievers now than there have ever been...I just think that in this age of Information and Communication, they're just more vocal than ever.
49 - The Searcher
And here I was getting all optimistic that more people were learning to think critically.
50 - Brian
It is important to remember that this is a Christian nation in regards to the majority of the population. Our government was founded by men with religious values, and for every "Framer" who spoke against the inclusion of religion in government, there was another who accepted the fact that it is impossible to separate the two. The biggest factor is to try not to legislate based on religious values, because if you try and separate government and religion completely, you will see that it cannot be done. Is there objection to having "God" on our currency too? Or how about the Supreme Court reciting a prayer that invokes a God each morning as sessions begin?
51 - brian
Searcher:
"Most of the Christians I speak to about this believe that to remove "Under God" from the Constituion would be to infringe on THEIR right to worship freely. "
It certainly is not infringing on their right to worship freely, but the fact that Christianity and our government's history is meshed together is valid. This does not represent an establishment, but rather a recognition of the foundation and growth of our country. Each individual is granted the right to practice whatever religion they'd like (and there are still barriers on that).
52 - DrPat
Brian (and/or brian): This is NOT a Christian nation -- this is deliberately and by serious forethought a non-religious nation.
PEOPLE in this nation subscribe to various faiths and beliefs. But an important concept in the US national ideology rests on the foundational areligious structure of government.
The concern about the "under God" clause rises directly from fears that it represents exactly this kind of majoritarian bullying: Most of US are Christian, therefore we get our way.
Fortunately, the Founders were wise enough to bar that path. It's only because of state's rights that the Pledge has persisted in its current form for 50 years.
53 - diana hartman
our country was founded by christians with christian values and beliefs...
i got that...
those same christians are the ones who came up with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"...
what's that about then?
54 - Victor Lana
Kenny,
I had a similar situation last year. In nursery school my daughter was taught "The Pledge" with "under God" included. I didn't know this until March, by the way, when she innocently recited it for me.
What to do? Nothing at the time. This year in Pre-K they haven't gotten to that point yet (of reciting The Pledge). If your read my post, you know that I am not personally against "under God" but for people to have freedom of choice when saying it.
It's hard for a 4 year old to be expected to have such choice; she will say it the way she is taught in school. This is a concern, is it not, for some Americans?
55 - diana hartman
my answer to "what is god?" was to explain it the same way i explained zeus, santa, or little red riding hood: fictional character, story with a moral, etc...as they got older i explained why man ever thought the earth was flat, why he ever thought the earth was the center of the universe, and why he ever thought sanka was a good idea, etc...
don't assume that within your own child you will have to deal with the dogmas of religion because you won't...sure they'll have questions about the outside world and what others believe and why they believe what they do, but don't think the fortress is already there because it isn't...kids will go with what you believe for a very long time, and then they will add, subtract, and otherwise alter it to fit their own need for truth...
of my 3 kids, one 12 and the other two in college, my daughters believe in "something" and that this something is responsible for the process of evolution along with everything else...my oldest daughter has gone so far as to say "if there is a god, it has unlimited powers of creation, but its powers are limited to creation"...my son is adamantly anti-religion...
i chose to raise them on sesame street and the learning channels...i did not allow them to attend church or church camps with friends for the same reasons i would not let them watch scary movies or eat liver: it might be good for you but that's not been my experience...
56 - Victor Lana
Thanks, Diana.
Your post, coming from such experience as a parent, helps to bring clarity. Still, just as liver and church camp may be seen as less than a nutritious experience, there has to be some kind of parental moment (inevitably) a time to put a foot down or say "no" or whatever.
I wonder what it is, I suppose. What I fear is coming down one way and forcing her to go in an opposite direction. I guess this is the way of the parent.
57 - gonzo marx
well, for one parent, the Moment to place their foot down firmly came to bringing this lawsuit to the Courts...
one of the proponents for the removal is the same atheist who objected to his child's recitation of the Pledge containing those words previously...which the Sc skirted by deciding, that since he was not the parent of custody, he had no standing to bring the case
this time, he has others who DO have standing to bring it
one of the things i found fascinating about the previous attempt was how impressed the SC was with the arguing of the case by this gentleman, who is no lawyer and has no formal training...
it should be quite interesting to see how this plays out when SCOTUS picks it up this time under Roberts...it is clearly a violation of the Establishment clause that has been waiting for 50 years or so to be shot down
Time wounds all heels
Excelsior!
58 - diana hartman
gonzo, michael newdow has a law degree...
victor, michael newdown put his foot down in a way that i wouldn't have as a custodial parent...i don't have time to do what a non-custodial parent would do and i'm very glad he's found the time to do this, again...
but even without his having brought suit, there is no limit to the impact a parent can have even if there is a limit to saying "no"...me and my kids have had our differences to be sure, specifically with regard to this particular issue, but i had a good 15 years with each of the two older children of what i consider "my way" making a cozy enough foundation in their hearts and heads before the rest of the world got in their pot shots...
as i said my son is anti-religious and this is not something i agree with on any level...tolerance, when the only difference is difference and not a threat, is very important to me...
unfortunately, he sees religion, christianity moreso, as an attack and consequently feels threatened and defensive...i could tell him "no" and have told him "no" within the confines of my home, but the bottom line is that children are people and will eventually make up their own minds...fortunately, he's not yet 21 and i prefer to attribute his hostilities to his age and in part his gender as he is not this radical and headstrong in any other area of his life...an artist, avid reader, well traveled, and fluent in 3 languagees, he's no stranger to diversity and is an otherwise easygoing young man...it is this one aspect of the world, religion, that gets his goat...he's too young to really trust his heart and mind, to know for sure where he stands, what he would say or do in a confrontation based on what he has done and said before...he wobbles around on the pedastal of atheism, set in motion by extremist atheist views but still finds these more comfortable than even the most liberal religious view...a year ago he took issue with nativity scenes in front of privately owned businesses whereas now he understands this is their first amendment right...his biggest concern is that he, and others, have no constitutional protection from those who firmly believe "spreading the word" is their constitutional right...
as of last night, my last word on this to him was "if you were being mugged by someone with no weapon, would you give them your money?"...
no doubt he'll have an answer by this evening...
59 - Victor Lana
What a great counter argument, Diana. Still, age is definitely a factor, as is gender. When I was your son's age I was off the wall: communism, Marxism, heavy metal, and everything else that bugged my Dad appealed to me.
So, if he comes back and says, "Yes," he would give money to someone mugging him without a weapon, what will you say then? Just curious.
60 - diana hartman
i'd do what any good mother would do:
i would smack him in the back of the head and verbally assault him starting with "are you crazy?!"...
OR
as i've so many times done: sigh, feedback his response, and pose another question...
"compliance; interesting...this suggests you subconsciously agree that the mugger has a right to your money and/or that what is yours is beyond your control to hang onto...why is that?"
the best way to assess what your child really thinks is to feedback to them what they've said, posed tentatively as to seek clarification...they will either concur or dispute...if they don't offer a reason for the dispute, ask them for it...sometimes their own concurrence sounds funny when it's going in their ears rather than coming out of their mouths...
once i've stated my opinion or belief, it hardly does me any good to repeat it especially when dealing with a young adult...i've found it more effective to, even with small children, state my thing once and then use feedback and sincere nonjudgemental clarification...this helps both of us get a clearer picture of where they stand and, sometimes, they realize they don't like the view...
the same can be done to and said of others, like religious folk...
61 - gonzo marx
thanx for the correction, diana...senility must be setting in...i stand corrected...
very good Thoughts from your commentary, much appreciation for your sharing...
Excelsior!
62 - noname
It's hard to believe, and yet at the same time not hard, that people are making such an issue out of this.
This is a clear-cut matter, very simple: The Constitution says there must be a separation of church and state. Therefore, adding the words "under God" (notice it's CAPITALIZED, meaning not A god but GOD Himself in the Judeo-Christian religions) in the Pledge of Allegiance, which was created by the government for loyalty to this country makes it unconstitutional.
No, it doesn't matter whether the majority of people like it or whether the majority of people believe in God or A god. The majority of people wanted to keep in slavery for a long while. Did that make it right?
No, it doesn't matter that this country was founded by Christians. This constitution was made, or rather, amended, saying that church and state will be separate.
No, it doesn't matter if "under God" can be interpreted in different ways. The word "God" is, first of all, a Judeo-Christian idea/belief, and even if it were "under a god", it is still a religious idea/belief. The key word here is "religion". Doesn't matter if you take "god" to be God, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Odin, the Great Spirit, etc. or even just a concept of a greater power governing the universe, it is still RELIGIOUS. Therefore it has no place in our Pledge.
No, it doesn't matter if you are given a choice to say it or not. The point is is it's IN the Pledge. Besides, the same thing was said about school prayer.
Some people here are bigotted enough to defend this as if it's not hurting anyone. Really? So how about we change it for a year to "under Buddha" or something like that and see you say it? A lot if not most people will not do something that goes against their religious, or perhaps NON-religious, beliefs out of concept. Saying "under God" in itself is something that goes against some people's beliefs.
Anthony Grande is so bigotted that he refers disparagingly to atheists. These are exactly the type of people who are fixated to keep this country a "Christian nation". These are the same types who have less respect for you, if not outright hate you, if you have different religious beliefs to theirs, will seek to have school prayer in schools, the Ten Commandments in government/public buildings (that is another issue but runs on the same concept as this), etc. These are sick, EVIL people and we should not tolerate them. Wars have been started with their disgusting ideology and it's time we started cracking down on them, with their "If you don't believe in God and Christ you are less of a person."
The only harm in taking "under God" out of the Pledge is it will offend the religious Nazis who feel that as long as something is in the majority then it is O.K., even though that is debatable with this.
It's very simple: this goes against the Constitution and violates people's rights, so it should be corrected.
As far as The Pledge itself, when you make kids do it everyday, it's just becomes something unmeaningful. Besides, I'll bet a lot of the younger ones don't even understand all the words in it or what it means. I didn't when I was in elementary school.
But I'm not going to argue that it should be taken out of schools. No. Just that we fix this "under God" bit, which wasn't even part of the original version.
But I do agree that a person shouldn't have to declare their allegiance/patriotism with a religious reference. In fact, if you really want to be patriotic why don't you vote and just generally do your best to help this country. (Voting is a whole other issue. Why so many Americans claim they are true patriots yet only about 60% of those eligible vote is beyond me.)
63 - noname
By the way, I meant to add that this guy and any other people who have the courage to undo these unconstitutional injustices has my full support.
And to add something to a point I made earlier, if you think I'm exagerrating with the whole "wars have been started with their disgusting ideology" and "religious Nazi" remarks then you are dead wrong. This guy received DEATH threats from people for what he tried to do the first time he went to the courts. No, not all the religious bigots will give you death threats if you go up against them but they certainly will hold you in contempt.
64 - The Searcher
Well-said, Noname. I think it's especially important to reiterate your point about slavery being supported by the majority, with regard to the question of whether might in numbers makes right. I'll wager that the same people who argue such, wouldn't believe so if the majority wanted our President's head on a silver platter.
Does the authority of laws, and the very integrity of our society and government requre a "leg up" from Deistic beliefs?
Personally, it would do me no harm whatsoever to take all the God stuff out of our currency and from our government buildings, but most people seem to believe that our entire system would collapse like a house of cards without the stamp of divine approval on all of those things.
I would argue that, for a government which purports to value the separation between church and state, pairing every government institution, ceremony and artifact with religious symbols is rather contradictory. It's like Jimmy Swaggart on TV condemning sexual misconduct while he's getting sucked off under the podium by a teenaged whore -- it just doesn't seem to wash.
65 - noname
While we're at it, in addition to taking out "in God we trust" on currency and whatnot how about we stop making people swear on a bible? That's easily unconstitutional.
66 - Michael J. West
Actually, we don't make them swear on a Bible. In many states people can swear on whatever they prefer: the Koran, or the Torah, or whatever. I've even seen cases where people swore on a copy of the Constitution.
67 - noname
They should just have people swear on a prison jumper because that's what they'll be wearing if the break that oath!
68 - voltairean
HELLO, of course this nation was founded on christian values. why else did we condone slavery for so long. what else would explain our penchant for war. i'm just surprised we dont encourage canibalism and incest and all that other fun stuff in the bible.
69 - JujuBee
I object to this part of the pledge:
"I pledge allegiance"
I would sell this country to Osama in a second, given the chance.
This part is inaccurate:
"Liberty and Justice for All,"
...since the government's power extends to acts which are not injurious, against Jefferson's remark.
Anyway, thank G-d for 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina.
70 - Victor Lana
Juju,
You're lucky you're here in the USA and able to say (or in this case write) whatever you wish. I have lots of problems with things in this country at this time, but we also still have it better than most.
Go over to Iran or China and see what free speech is like and then get back to us.
Peace!
71 - noname
I'm not sure why JujuBee said all that, but I'm guessing he's just a flamer.
However, just for argument's sake we'll take his comment seriously. There are two things you'll notice to those who are anti-American yet live here:
1) They for some reason think other countries have it better AND/OR...
2) They aren't doing anything to help this country or even the world in general. They just bitch and not offer any real solutions.
If JujuBee's comments are sincere, he fits into one or both of those. He may just be an outright terrorist, or at least a wannabe, but I suspect more than anything he's just flaming.
However, my comments on anti-Americans still stands. If you hate America so, go to a better country. If you don't "hate" America, so to speak, but just hate the numerous injustices, how about you help correct them? If you don't want to do either, you should be uniformly exiled or executed, because you are not helping mankind but merely crying at the stuff which in a very small part you have contributed and are contributing to and just don't want people to know this.