Welcome to the United States of Christianity

[Ben Sones]

For those of you that are still uncertain about whether or not we have a seperation of church and state in the US of A, here are some Fun Facts.

I don't think the "under god" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance makes us a theocracy or anything. I am not all rabid about removing it. But here is a sampling of reactions from our leaders to the 9th Circuit's decision.

The US Senate opened their session with the Pledge--given by a chaplain. The president pro tem of the Senate introduced him as the man who would lead the Senate in a "prayer to almighty God, the supreme judge of the world." The chaplain prefaced his reading of the Pledge by remarking--on the floor of the U.S. Senate--"There is no separation between God and state."

Sen. Robert Byrd (R): "I hope the Senate will waste no time in throwing this back in the face of this stupid judge. Stupid, that's what he is." He also called Chief Judge Goodwin (who wrote the majority opinion) an "atheist lawyer" and said Judge Goodwin would be "blackballed" if he were ever nominated to the Supreme Court.

Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-House Speaker): "The Pledge of Allegiance is a patriotic salute that brings people of all faiths together to share in the American spirit." (Has he ever heard of Hindus? Buddhists? Pagans? And what about those of us who don't HAVE a "faith"?)

Staff Sgt. Katherine Romar (a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan): "I feel that this is part of our history and no one has a right to change it. That is the reason why we're here today, fighting to uphold our freedom." (How ironic is that?!? Anyone who thinks "under God" shouldn't be in the Pledge is not supporting our fight to stop the Taliban and al Qaeda from, um, forcing their citizens to adopt a particular religion.)

Anonymous person who called plaintiff's answering machine: "You're a dead man walking."

Best of all...George W. Bush: "America is a nation . . . that values our relationship with the Almighty." He also said the decision ignores the fact that "we receive our rights from God." He urged Congress to confirm his judicial nominees because "we need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God."

Fuck George W. Bush and fuck this whole intolerant religous fucking nutcase country. Most U.S. citizens don't deserve to live in the climate of freedom they're so willing to chuck aside when it suits them. But not to worry: at this rate, they won't for much longer.

[James Gutierrez]

For those who haven't seen it, there's a good article on Slate (http://slate.msn.com//?id=2067499) about the history of the Pledge. The whole argument that the pledge is some sort of inviolate historical document is weakened considerably when you learn the the words "under god" were added in 1954 as a bit of Cold War propaganda against godless communism.

I also thought it was an interesting bit of historical trivia that the pledge was written by a socialist.

[Murph]

As wonderful as the idea of "Separation of Church and State" seem, people still need to realize that you can't separate a man -- whether he be President, or a congressman, or an everyday citizen -- from his beliefs.

George W. Bush made no attempts at hiding the fact that he was a Christian when he ran for office. And, even if it may have been by the narrowest margin, the country voted him into office with that knowledge. They can't be surprised when he makes "Christian" statements and "Christian" decisions. He couldn't do it any other way -- he has to live with himself.

Which is why I proudly voted for him.

[chet]

Staff Sgt. Katherine Romar (a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan): "I feel that this is part of our history and no one has a right to change it. That is the reason why we're here today, fighting to uphold our freedom." (How ironic is that?!? Anyone who thinks "under God" shouldn't be in the Pledge is not supporting our fight to stop the Taliban and al Qaeda from, um, forcing their citizens to adopt a particular religion.)


Huh? You really put a mouthful of your own words into her mouth and they don't really make sense to me.

Chet

[copeknight]

I've already posted my thoughts on the Pledge, but I will just add that there is no way we're fighting "to stop the Taliban and al Qaeda from, um, forcing their citizens to adopt a particular religion."

Many of our semi-allies in the region ruthlessly repress all non-Islamic religions (i.e., Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as two of the more notable ones). Yes, Islam is tied with government in most Islamic countries and the two are woven together very finely indeed. However, U.S. policy, at present, seems to be less concerned with whether fundamentalist Islam is or is not practiced than whether it crosses into international political activity. Certainly, freedom of religion in the Middle East is not one of the U.S. goals--if it were we need to go to war against pretty much the entire region.

[Chris Nahr]

Best of all...George W. Bush: "America is a nation . . . that values our relationship with the Almighty."

I don't want to intrude into American arguments but this mix of traditional religion and fashionable Oprah speak is simply wonderful.

So your nation "values its relationship" with the Almighty? Well, I hope you also "respect" each other and "think positively" to achieve "self-improvement" and a "successful life!" :D

[Anonymous]

Excellent post, Ben. I totally relate to how you're feeling at the moment. Today on MSNBC or CNN (forget which), they announced an upcoming story this way (to paraphrase):

"George Michael's new video makes fun of President Bush... Should it be banned in America?"

Uh, no. (By the way, the video's main target is Tony Blair, but I guess showing Bush in any light other than that emitted by a halo is a criminal offense nowadays.)

[chet]

Gabe, don't confuse the media's sensationalizing of something with actual American sentiment.

[Lando]

Look, if you're going to put little 'R' or 'D' 's next to the names of elected officials, at LEAST get it right.

Robert Byrd is not and never has been a Republican. In fact, he is about the farthest thing from one. I don't know, maybe you wanted to pretend that only Republicans responded to this ludicrous ruling.

Nope, it came from both houses of Congress, BOTH parties even.

Let's see, might you be a Democrat? :D

[Tyjenks]

If I really thought most of these politicians were stating their views from the heart, I may get involved in a discussion about how much Church and State are or are not seperate in the U.S. However, I think this an election year and God's bandwagon is always a great one to jump onto when it is convenient and when votes are being cast.

I have no doubt that a few are sincere (the president for one). Unfortunately, politicians fight to get into office and, once there, they will use any weapon at their disposal to beat people away from their spots as Kings of the Hill. God swings a pretty mean club with a lot of folks.

What is more grand than a photo op on the House or Senate steps that can be prominently displayed on every news program at 5:00pm? Congressmen standing, hand over heart, reciting the pledge. It brings a tear to my eye and a grumble in my bowels.

Another perfect example of our leaders' nasty habit of staying in power at all costs is their liberal use of the 9/11 tragedy as a political tool.

-To get votes
-To show how "the other side" is not trying as hard as they are to keep us safe and sound
-To get money funneled to their states to "terror-proof" the constituents

It is all gut-wrenchingly nauseating and there is no end in sight. I think I will leave you with that rosy view of our political system.

[Ben Sones]

Huh? You really put a mouthful of your own words into her mouth and they don't really make sense to me.

They make more sense than the words that she put there. How is keeping the phrase "under God" in the Pledge "fighting to uphold our freedom?" Freedom to do what? Have Congress ignore the First Amendment?

The irony is the "no one has any right to change it" bit, since Congress already did change it in the 1950s. The original Pledge, written in the 1890s, did not feature the phrase "under God."


Let's see, might you be a Democrat?

Not even if you paid me. And sorry for the slip-up; yes, Robert Byrd is in fact a Democrat.

[Jason Levine]

Not even if you paid me. And sorry for the slip-up; yes, Robert Byrd is in fact a Democrat.

Couldn't help notice the bit of unintended irony here. Byrd is from West Virginia, where paying for votes is a time-honored tradition.

[Lando]

Quick question -- anyone read the Declaration of Independence lately?

It's unconstitutional, by golly. Someone tell Britain we're coming back into the fold like a prodigal child.

Here's my beef. So "under God" is in the pledge. So? No one forces anyone to say the pledge -- in fact *gasp* you can OMIT those words as you say the pledge.

To me, it's just not a big deal. If it offends you, so be it. You have the right to be offended. But let's clear up one thing. You do NOT have the right to NEVER be offended.

And let's face it. That's what this is all about. People are offended by the notion that they may not be the be all and end all of the entire universe. "How DARE someone believe in God!!!"

No kidding, now if someone would go tell the signers of the Declaration of Independence that. Those idiots!!

[Kevin Perry]

Sigh.

The Declaration of Independence is NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT. It's a philosophical propaganda piece of enduring historical value, but it has nothing to do with the Constitution, or any other law for that matter.

[Matthew Gallant]

Can we make "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" a legal document? Ben Franklin said it.

[Bub, Andrew]

Thomas Jefferson said that Matthew, though it may have been muffled by Hemming's skirts when he did. Franklin moved to add a line recognizing God as Father of this Union, he was voted down. He wasn't as keen on seperation of Church and State as the rest of those wacky founders.

[Jim F.]

I wonder... if the kids were saying the Pledge in class, and an Islamic student replaced "Under God" with "Under Allah", what do you think the classes response would be?

That's what the Pledge does to other religions every day. Yes, kids are given the option to just sit in at their desks during the Pledge, and they can omit the words "Under God" when they say it. But seriously, these are 8 year olds. How many do you think are going to be willing to be teased by their class mates? How many times are they going to be called unAmerican before they stand up and say the words like everyone else? There will be some holdouts, but not many. Peer pressure is a very strong thing.

It's a slippery slope. Our money all says "In God We Trust" on it, so do we change that as well? Personally, I say yes, and this is coming from a man born and raised a Catholic.

Every Supreme Court session begins with "God save this honorable court", or something like that. But what if, in the future, one of the Supreme Court Justices is a Bhuddist? Should it then be changed to "God save this honorable court...except for Judge Stevens". Why does the ritual have to be performed at all? "All rise. The honorable supreme court is now in session" sounds plenty official to me. Why do we need to bring God into it? Tradition, I spose.

Mine isn't a popular opinion, but it's still my opinion. God isn't something that should be forced upon anyone, and yet every morning it is forced on children of other religions. Why not restore the Pledge to the pre-1954 version? Honestly, what does it hurt?

[Matthew Gallant]

Bartlett's attributes the quotation to Franklin (http://education.yahoo.com/search/bfq?lb=q&p=num%3A245.1), Bub.

[Stroker Ace]

It's a slippery slope. Our money all says "In God We Trust" on it, so do we change that as well? Personally, I say yes, and this is coming from a man born and raised a Catholic.

I'm with Jim on this one. I've been watching this argument on a whole lot of forums for the last week or two, and there have been a lot of people bringing up "In God We Trust" and that sort of argument. I feel that tradition is NOT a valid excuse. It is true that there are references to God throughout our culture - on our money, in our courtrooms, et cetera - but this is not an excuse to maintain the status quo.

If our current traditions clash with the Constitution, then one of them has to be changed. Personally, I'm in favor of keeping the Constitution as it is, and dealing with a little bit of discomfort and transitional stress if necessary. I am afraid that making concessions in favor of a vocal religious majority can only set a bad precedent for the future protection of free speech.

[Jason McCullough]

Past court cases against religion on the currency haven't fared too well.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist/coinsdoc.htm

My easy way of checking that these things are unconstitutional or not: if 90% of the public complains when you remove it, it's probably violating the establishment clause.

[Bub, Andrew]

Point Mathew, with a Bartlett assist.

[Alan Au]

I agree with the original point that the zealous political response to the pledge decision was much more disconcerting than any legal ramifications of the matter (whether or not it gets overturned).

In other news, the Bill of Rights will now be replaced with the Fifteen, er, Ten Commandments. *smirk*

- Alan

[Lando]

Sigh.

The Declaration of Independence is NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT. It's a philosophical propaganda piece of enduring historical value, but it has nothing to do with the Constitution, or any other law for that matter.

Really? Nothing to do with the Constitution? Interesting opinion.

You'll note, there is no LEGAL DOCUMENT forcing people to say the pledge of allegiance. There is NO LAW. NONE. NO ONE has to say "under God". NOBODY. In fact, if someone wanted to argue about separation issues, then prayer in Congress or invoking God's blessings on the Supreme Court sessions would be a better place to start.

Frankly, I don't care. I think the arguments on both sides are pathetic. Followers of Jesus Christ, counting me, should have more important things to worry about than whether a pledge of allegiance to a nation includes the words "under God". By the same token, those who insist that the United States has no religious heritage and should not be allowed one are seriously misled.

"Nothing to do with the Constitution" is still a bit of a stretch. I doubt the Framers would agree with you. And please point to where I said the DoI was a legal document. Please throw up some more strawmen while you're at it, they're fun to watch sailing through the air. :)

[Anonymous]

"You'll note, there is no LEGAL DOCUMENT forcing people to say the pledge of allegiance. There is NO LAW. NONE. NO ONE has to say "under God". NOBODY."


Since when does "there is no law" mean the same thing as "no one has to say it?" Haven't you heard of peer pressure? Of social consequences? Of teachers judging students on factors other than pure achievement? There is no law forcing people to submit to sexual harassment in the workplace either. Yet people have still needed legal assistance from our courts to protect them from the tyranny of the majority.

[James Gutierrez]

As I understand it, the legal reasoning that says that "In God We Trust" is ok on coins is basically the same reasoning that says that "Under God" in the pledge is unconstitutional even though you don't have to say it. I think it was first applied to cases involving school prayer, in any case, the test is not whether or not participation is mandatory, but whether or not abstention requires a public protest or statement of (non)belief. Remaining silent (or omitting the words) while everyone else is reciting a prayer or the pledge is considered a public statement, while spending money with "In God We Trust" is not. Whatever your personal view of the decision, it does seem legally consistent with previous decisions.

Note: I'm not a lawyer, but my little sister is, and a damn smart one. Although since she's my little sister I can never, ever admit that she's right. I figure I'm pretty safe here on a gaming message board. On the other hand, she has spent the last 2 weeks at my house monopolizing the TV to play Xbox Morrowind, so you never know...

Which brings up another (totally off-topic) point: I never would have considered Morrowind a good choice for casual gamers until watching her play. She completely ignores all of the power-gaming strategies and barely pays attention to the main story and instead runs around trying to get people to "like" her, exploring caves, and trying to find cool looking things to wear. Her latest goal is to kill all of the Telvanni, "because they're assholes".

[Kevin Perry]

Quick question -- anyone read the Declaration of Independence lately?

It's unconstitutional, by golly. Someone tell Britain we're coming back into the fold like a prodigal child.

Sorry to interject fact when I know you were just being snarky. You got the brunt of my impatience with all the people who run around quoting the DoI and the Constitution as if they were interchangable.

The DoI is a list of grievances with England. More broadly, it lays out the philosophical underpinning of the movement that would later (after much intellectual struggle, not to mention the military kind) design the US Constitution. But the translations are hardly perfect: it took more than a dozen Amendments to come close to the 'inalienable rights' mentioned in the DoI.

The DoI is filled with such examples of rhetorical flourish. But it took 11 years before the lawyers worked out the details.

[Ben Sones]

In fact, if someone wanted to argue about separation issues, then prayer in Congress or invoking God's blessings on the Supreme Court sessions would be a better place to start.

That is exactly my point. I could care less about this whole Pledge issue, in and of itself. What worries me more is that the reaction to the ruling, which indicates that this issue is really just the very thin end of a very large wedge. If the only thing at stake was whether or not the Official Oath of National Loyalty had the word "god" in it somewhere, it would be a non issue, at least for me. I think it's wrong, as a matter of principle, but in practical terms I really don't care.

But the real issue is that many people in our government apparently believe that all the truths that are supposed to be "self evident" are not basic human rights at all, but privileges granted by a Christian God. That's practically a direct quote from the leader of the Executive branch, and if that doesn't disturb you profoundly (whether you are religious or not), it should.

[Jason McCullough]

'But the real issue is that many people in our government apparently believe that all the truths that are supposed to be "self evident" are not basic human rights at all, but privileges granted by a Christian God. That's practically a direct quote from the leader of the Executive branch, and if that doesn't disturb you profoundly (whether you are religious or not), it should.'

Well, it's not like the view is somehow unique to him; there used to be a large branch of philosophy taking this view. It's been discredited due to bad logic, of course, but bad philosophy never dies.

[Supertanker]

Really? Nothing to do with the Constitution? Interesting opinion.
...
"Nothing to do with the Constitution" is still a bit of a stretch. I doubt the Framers would agree with you.

No, he's right, there is no evolutionary relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution. The Declaration was not a previous version of the Constitution. Nobody knew what the Constitution might eventually contain when Jefferson wrote the Declaration. The Declaration was written in 1776 to declare to George III the colonies' independence from England and to explain the reasoning for it to the world. Once the War of Independence was won, the Constitution was written in 1787 to set up the basic structure of governance. Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Declaration, and he was not present at the Constitutional Convention - he was in France.

Look at their effect, too. The Declaration has absolutely zero legal authority or weight - it is just an historic document. On the other hand, the Constitution is the highest law of the land, superior to all, and the source of all other legal authority in the USA.

The National Archives to the rescue:
About the Declaration: http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/declaration/declaration.html

About the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/constitution/constitution.html

[Murph]

Umm...Here's my question: If I'm in a classroom, and I don't say the words "Under God" when I recite the pledge, do you really think that people going to judge and attack me? Do you really think that anyone (when this room full of kids is looking at the flag, pledging their own allegiance) is even going to notice? I don't think so...But I suppose I could be wrong.

And why is it okay for the Declaration of Independence, which is "not a legal document" to obtain a Christian reference, but not the pledge of allegiance...which is also "not a legal document" or anything remotely close.

That baffles me.

[Ben Sones]

The Pledge contains a reference to God only because Congress passed a law making it so, in violation of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion..."). When the Declaration of Independence was written, there was no Congress (well, there was the Continental Congress) and no Constitution. Is the phrase that big a deal? No. Is it the tip of a much bigger iceberg, which may itself be a much bigger deal? Yeah.

[Jason McCullough]

'Umm...Here's my question: If I'm in a classroom, and I don't say the words "Under God" when I recite the pledge, do you really think that people going to judge and attack me? Do you really think that anyone (when this room full of kids is looking at the flag, pledging their own allegiance) is even going to notice? I don't think so...But I suppose I could be wrong.'

Did you not go to school? Differences are treated rather harshly.

[Murph]

Did you not go to school? Differences are treated rather harshly.

I don't think anyone in my class would have noticed...That's all I'm saying.

[chet]

Ben, I read and read your post - and I still don't get it.

The right to bear arms is in the second amendment. So do you share the same outrage for those senators and congressmen who are for gun control?

The ability for these elected officials to disagree with the supreme court is why we have checks and balances. The supreme court ruled one way, and now some elected officials don't like it (I still have no idea at all about your quote from the military personal expressing a personal opinion and you turning it into some kind of military doctrine).

The other point is this is all open to interpretation. So they added it in 1954. At one point they banned booze and then repealed it. The constitution is not set in stone, it is a slowly moving target that is open to interpretation (which I guess is why this didn't take 15 minutes to settle such an 'obvious' case).

So you took a few quotes from a few people and got your panties in a bunch. This argument and their reaction to the ruling is no different than any number of other cases. There is a ruling, some people get pissed, some people get happy. Some of those in both groups are elected officials.

Are you suggesting that elected officials cannot publicly express a dissenting opinion to a supreme court ruling? That is what I am taking away from your original post, and I find that idea much more scary than their reaction to a ruling on the pledge of allegiance.

Chet

[Anonymous]

"And why is it okay for the Declaration of Independence, which is "not a legal document" to obtain a Christian reference, but not the pledge of allegiance...which is also "not a legal document" or anything remotely close.

That baffles me."


Maybe it would help unbaffle you if you considered that children are not asked to plege their life to defending the Declaration of Independence every morning.

[Murph]

Maybe it would help unbaffle you if you considered that children are not asked to plege their life to defending the Declaration of Independence every morning.

No, but they have to study it in school, just the same. They will even be tested on it. They'll never be tested on the pledge, and I don't think anyone will notice if they skip the words "under God" for their own personal reasons.

And I'm not convinced that they'd be ridiculed for it, anyway. I think that's a ridiculous idea.

[Sharpe]

Umm...Here's my question: If I'm in a classroom, and I don't say the words "Under God" when I recite the pledge, do you really think that people going to judge and attack me? Do you really think that anyone (when this room full of kids is looking at the flag, pledging their own allegiance) is even going to notice? I don't think so...But I suppose I could be wrong.

That baffles me.

I myself go back and forth on the "under god" issue (for practical & political reasons) but I really have to post a response to Murph here. My own personal experience is a good example of what having a "non-mandatory" pledge really does.

I was raised by Jehovah's Witnesses, which was the church that originally won the Pledge case at the Supreme Court back in 1942 - this was way before the Under God language was added - they opposed the pledge as they did not believe in pledging allegiance to any earthly government (and they still don't even with "under God" in there). Nowadays I am not a member of the JW's but back then I was brought up not to salute the flag and not to recite the Pledge. The official position I was told: to stand like the other kids, but not to put my hand over my heart and not to recite the pledge. You might think that would make it so that the other kids would not notice but then you'd be forgetting how observant bored little kids can be. During 1st grade (there was no pledge in Kindergarten) my teacher made no special comment about my non-pledging but the other kids DID notice, and I was rapidly designated a religious "weirdo" and something of a social outsider. My 3rd grade experience was similar - by 4th my school had stopped with the daily pledge.

It was in 2nd grade that I ran into the big trouble. I had a teacher who obviously did not read Supreme Court opinions and a principal who was a serious fire & brimstone type. The teacher decided that my non-pledging was a serious offense and took me to the Principal who decreed my punishment: one hour detention every day for the entire school year. My parents were not educated enough to know about their legal options so they did nothing. So I spent the entire second grade year banging erasers and cleaning chalkboards for an hour after class, every day.

Now as far as governmental coercion goes, thats pretty wimpy. But you see, the 1st to 3rd graders at that school rode the 2pm bus. If you were a religious dissident sentenced to eraser-detention for an hour you had to ride the 3pm with the 4th to 10th graders. This was a rural area and my bus ride was about 1hr (on the 3pm bus). Now, if you're a 2nd grader, riding the bus with the 4th to 10th graders you kind of stick out, and if the big kids realize the reason WHY you are riding the late bus is that you are a damned unpatriotic religious whacko who won't even salute the flag, well then, you get your ass kicked every day :).

You remember how Calvin described gym class as "Lessons in Urban Warfare"? That was my non-pledging, ass-kicked experience on the late bus during 2nd grade.

I survived of course, and the bruises never lasted more than a day or two (to be honest, true beatings were rare, perhaps once a month - the daily ritual was hazing, hassling, "arm-burns", Melvins, knocked to floor notebooks etc), but the point being: this was an ostensible "non-mandatory" practice, occuring at a US School in 1974-75 and yet the way people reacted made not saying the Pledge a pretty big deal (at least for a second grader).

Bottom line: people get impassioned about this issue on political and religious grounds; don't dismiss it as not that big a deal. In subtle ways, it can be quite a big deal.

Dan (Sharpe)

[Murph]

Wow. Kids suck, don't they?

Maybe I'm naive, but I think there's a difference between not saying the pledge at all, and omitting the words "under God." It's a little harder to not notice a complete lack of saying the pledge. But maybe I'm still giving kids too much credit.

I think kids in my classes as I was growing up could have gotten away with it unnoticed. I seem to vaguely recall one of my buddies when I was pretty young choosing not to say the "under God" part, and I don't think anybody ever said anything to him about it.

But, things are different in every classroom, and probably different now then when I was in school.

[Ben Sones]

Are you suggesting that elected officials cannot publicly express a dissenting opinion to a supreme court ruling?

Not at all. I am frightened by their opinion of how this country should be run, not offended by their expression of that opinion. They are welcome to say anything they like, and to believe anything they like. They could say "we should really put all black people to death," or "maybe the government should start regulating what the newspapers are allowed to say," and while I won't begrudge them the right to have and voice the opinion, I'd find the opinion itself very disturbing.

I'm cool with people having different views than I do, but that doesn't mean that I have to like their views, or nod my head and smile dumbly when they suggest something that is completely antithetical to my beliefs. In those cases, I reserve the right to "get my panties in a bunch," as you put it. There are way too many people in government (and out, apparently, since all these people got elected) who'd be just as happy to piss away a lot of the freedoms that, for me, make this country worth living in. Is the Consitution a living, changing document? Sure. But I'd like to think that the founding fathers got SOME stuff right. Too many people seem to find the Constitution more of an inconvenience, without pausing to consider whether the quality of life as we know it would have ever been possible without some of these basic human rights.

[Anonymous]

"I think kids in my classes as I was growing up could have gotten away with it unnoticed. I seem to vaguely recall one of my buddies when I was pretty young choosing not to say the 'under God' part,"

You do realize those two sentences contradict each other, right? You, all these years later, do in fact remember who in your class chose not to say "under God."

Sorry for the cheap shot, but the essential point is that children shouldn't be forced to live a life of hoping they're "getting away with it unnoticed," feeling like a secret Jew in an Allah-spoutin' Al-Queda training camp, because they happen to be the only one in class who feels like being honest about their feelings regarding the existance of God.

The pledge is a crock. That time should be spent learning something, not enforcing Pavlovian loyalty tests.

[chet]

Sorry for the cheap shot, but the essential point is that children shouldn't be forced to live a life of hoping they're "getting away with it unnoticed," feeling like a secret Jew in an Allah-spoutin' Al-Queda training camp, because they happen to be the only one in class who feels like being honest about their feelings regarding the existance of God.

So all the rest are lying? Excellent logic!

[Murph]

"I think kids in my classes as I was growing up could have gotten away with it unnoticed. I seem to vaguely recall one of my buddies when I was pretty young choosing not to say the 'under God' part,"

You do realize those two sentences contradict each other, right? You, all these years later, do in fact remember who in your class chose not to say "under God."

Not at all. It's not that I "noticed." Nobody noticed. He informed me of his decision in confidence. That's why I remember it. I don't think anyone else was aware, and if they were, it was a non-issue.

[Lando]

No, he's right, there is no evolutionary relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution.

I didn't say there was an evolutionary relationship. I said there WAS a relationship. Sure Jefferson wrote the FIRST DRAFT, and a lot of what he originally wrote didn't make it into the final document. A few of the other signatories were at the convention even if Jefferson wasn't.

Obviously they are DIFFERENT TYPES of documents. But to say they are completely unrelated is ludicrous and historically inaccurate.

[Met_K]

Wow, um, I'm officially declaring Quarter To Three on the verge of hell because of the new forums.

Christ, this is just stupid.

[Aszurom]

The Pledge of Allegiance
A Short History
by Dr. John W. Baer

Copyright 1992 by Dr. John W. Baer

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.

The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.

In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:

It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...

If the Pledge's historical pattern repeats, its words will be modified during this decade. Below are two possible changes.

Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.'

A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'

[Jason McCullough]

'Obviously they are DIFFERENT TYPES of documents. But to say they are completely unrelated is ludicrous and historically inaccurate.'

The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document. The Constitution is. Do we really need to go over this?

[Lando]

The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document. The Constitution is. Do we really need to go over this?

No. Unless you feel you need to. Are you telling me the philosphy laid out in the Declaration has no relation to the system of government set out in the Constitution.

Granted, Jason, you and I are polar opposites when it comes to idealogy. However, maybe we can agree that something being legally binding does not preclude it having some relation to something which is not legally binding. For instance, just because the Magna Carta is not legally binding in the US does not mean that the Bill of Rights is not related to it.

Anyway. Horse. Dead. Move to the next.

[Jason McCullough]

It's related, but irrelevant. You're right, it has about as much influence in a court of law now as Magna Carta: you can use it as a point on a historical trendline in favor of your already argued position, but that's about it.

[Rob_Merritt]

The whole point of "under god" is to make nonchristians to choose between their beliefs and their country.

[Lando]

LOL.

As my son would say, "More, more!"

I need some more good laughs.

[Rob_Merritt]

I need some more good laughs.

I don't find any of this funny.