One Nation Under God

Remove all ads!

What is your opinion on the troubles America is having with the Pledge of Allegiance - the battle over the words 'Under God' within it? Is it unconstitutional, or should it be there?

 

I pray, please refresh my memory on this pledge of allegience etc ...

 

Wow a post by Xaelifer that I can actually understand! I just wanted o mark this memorable occasion!

Anyway, for us that are non-american could you please elaborate? I guess it's to do with separating church and state?

 

Given the founding of the country, I think it reflects on the country's history and should remain as part of the pledge. I also don't think that it is 'unconstitutional'. As far as I remember, on religion the constitution just says (basically) that you are free to practice your own religion without interferrence. It's been a very long time, but the phrase you're referring to is "One nation under God", correct? I don't see the problem. Anyone who does should relax a bit.

Of course, here in Canada we know longer sing "God Save the Queen (King)", despite the fact that the Queen of England is still Canada's head of State (and largest land owner).

 

An atheist by the name of Michael Newdow sued because his biological daughter (he never married the mother nor had even partial custody of the girl) sued the local public school district for their custom of leading the pledge of allegiance every morning.

"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."

Because the words "under God" were added by act of Congress and signed by the president at the time (Was that FDR?), Newdow claims that it is an illegal establishment of religion. Even though his daughter and her mother are church-going people and his daughter has no problem saying the pledge, Newdow alleges that HE is injured because he is not free to send his daughter to a public school that does not inculcate religious beliefs.

The U.S. Bill of Rights says that Congress "shall pass no law regarding the establishment of a religion." Newdow says that this clause is being violated.

Now my two cents:

He's a friggin' idiot.

The establishment clause applies to things like what has happened in England, where the Anglican Church has become the official religion. This is one of the reasons so many people came to America -- to escape the oppression by the English government of anyone who wasn't Anglican.

The establishment clause does not mean that the government will never acknowledge the existence of God. The applicable catch phrase is "Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."

The Ninth Circuit, which issued the decision, immediately blocked its own ruling. It is worth noting that the Ninth Circuit is reversed by the Supreme Court on 80% of the cases SCOTUS chooses to review.

 

Shralp, do you know why "under God" was added in the first place?

 

It's true that the 'under God' bit was added in the 50s during the whole red scare but I think we should keep it. America is a nation that believes in God. Noet I said a nation not a state. If we are not forcing anyone to say the pledge then I see no reason to remove the 'under God' part. You don't see them recalling money because it says 'in God we trust' do you?

 

Typist-boy,

I don't know exactly, but it sounds like just a bit of feel-good legislation from the critters back in the day.

FDR (if it was him) on signing it just said a bit about how nice it will be to have children acknowledging the creator in the morning.

 

"America is a nation that believes in God."

Not completely.

"If we are not forcing anyone to say the pledge then I see no reason to remove the 'under God' part."

Well, it IS the official pledge of the United States, so I think it should respect freedom of religion. (Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. Even without "under God", people can still choose to say "under God". This is how I imagine the 'freedom of religion' rule applied here.)

"You don't see them recalling money because it says 'in God we trust' do you?"

True, but each resolution should be determined individually. The same people that think "under God" should be removed might also want "In God we trust" to be removed. They might be taking it one at a time.

 

Actually, our friend the Atheist TRIED to get "In God We Trust" taken off US currency...his lawyer told him he had a better chance with the pledge.

My view is that if you have a problem with the line, DON'T SAY THAT LINE.

In the US it's majority rule. Since the majority of the US believes in God (over sixty percent and this includes references such as Allah) then majority wins. Less than twenty percent of Americans believe that there is no afterlife at all.

 

"In the US it's majority rule. Since the majority of the US believes in God (over sixty percent and this includes references such as Allah) then majority wins."

Not exactly. There are still rules that must be followed. Even if 51% of the US population wanted all Chinese-born Americans to be executed, this wish would not be carried out.

 

I will probably get utterly flamed for this but I think that the whole pledge of allegience is completely silly and a tool to 'brainwash' US citizens. Why force children to swear anything to a nation? Or even make it a demand for new citizens? I dont know how it is in other countries but here in Sweden we most assurdly have no such thing. I would never swear allegience to anything, especially not a nation or goverment. I think the discussion should be about whether to have a nationalistic pledge of allegience that may instill blind faith in the place you live and make you blind for its errors at all. Instead of talking about whether god should be in there or not. If I ever would move to the states and would need citizenship due to legal technicalities I would never swear an oath like that, for it would be a pure and simple lie and one I wouldnt want to give. Oh well I have rambled on but I find the oath dangerously patriotic and very silly.

 

Uh, no.

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion mean two different things. Freedom of religion means that you are free to practice whatever religion you choose. Freedom from religion means that you are free from the influence/depiction/gov't sanction/whatever of your neighbor's religion.

In short, one applies to what you are free to do. The other applies to those around you.

In fact, the Constitution and its amendments do not even guarantee freedom of religion. It just says that Congress is not allowed to impose a national religion. Individual states can have (and have had) official religions.

 

I just gotta say this Shralp. As I read your post, that part just made me laugh. Somehow I found it hilarious. Very... "eloquent" Shralp. Good timing...hehehe...

joacquin: I suppose to a certain degree, a pledge of allegiance is conditioning in way. Try to look at it this way though: the pledge of allegiance (of any nation) is a way of honoring those men and women who have gone before, who gave their talents and lives to establish a lasting legacy for the next generation. It is an affirmation of their deeds and a simple verbal show of gratitude for their accomplishments. Many countries today would not exist if not for the heroism and selflessness of their children throughout history.



I actually have been following this issue over at Fox (yep, we get it here on cable )and it has really sparked my interest.

 

I saw the guy that started this whole mess on 'The Pulse' last night. That guy is a dumb a$$! I wanted to reach in to my tv and slap him up side the head!

 

It does sound to me like Mikey Newdow is a fool, but that's not because of his beliefs.

He's a fool because he's jabbing at a Baalor Lord with a stick saying "You're not fair! You're not fair!"

Unfortunately this issue, as Sapiryl has enumerated, is dependant on majority vote, and thus (due to generalities for everybody) won't be won, especially by Newdow. So Mickey Newdow is going to cry himself to sleep for a very long time without accomplishing anything but tears.

I saw Mickey Newdow on a talk show the other day presenting his case to a belligerent old moron who wouldn't let him talk. What I did get out of it is an interesting argument:

Would teachers ever force their young students to put their hands to their hearts and say "one nation, under Allah, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?" Or "one nation, under Buddah, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?"

Nope, they wouldn't, and Mister Newdow said that "God" presents a Christian theme to religion forced on to children in schools.

Interesting, I thought. So...?

So... he thought there was religious freedom in America, and this is not religious freedom. This is oppression, and his kids shouldn't be forced to say "under God" when he's an atheist.

Unfortunately, the other side of the dime is bigger (huh?). Like ingenious Shralp mentioned,

This is where Newdow's bouncing on a stick between a bath and a lava pool. "God" in the Pledge is most likely supposed to be a universal figure representing all the major dieties of religion, so everyone gets a bite of the infinite cookie. Thus, most people misconcept it, or replace it without changing the letters, for their own personal God, and Newdow's just pissed off that they're doing it.

Not separation of church and state? Sure, it's not, when everyone's practically praying with their hands over their hearts to a God, but that's not the government's fault - it's the people's decision due to their own religious freedom. This is an excellent view of separation of church and state in the fact that everyone can say whatever they want in the place of God, just so long as they keep their allegiance to the State.

Whoooooa, did I say 'everyone'? There's a snag here. What about schoolchildren? I bet that, more than once, a child has been sent to the principal for leaving out "Under God". And I bet that, more than once, a child has been sent to the principal for bringing a Bible to school. Paradox? No, just misunderstanding.

Some teachers are incompetent idiots using their authority as means of undeserved respect.

Is that why "Under God" has to be kept in? Maybe. Who knows. Education is a bend in reality when it comes to religion, but if you want to hear more on that, read my story The Silver Evolution (under Northward in Creativity Surge). That's a quick advertisement because I'd really really like some feedback on it, so email me if you do. Anyway, what was I saying? Oh yes, school.

So why are kids lining up in school auditoriums and saying "One Nation, Under God" when some kids have parents who are atheists or other religions? One reason:

1) "God", to the state in this case, is universal, like I said. Most people don't realize that. Michael Newdow is one of them. So if kids have other religions than ones that believe in the name "God" for a spiritual overlord, understand that it's simply a symbolic word for yours, too. If you're an atheist, well, here's the deal:

The word 'Under' has a few different meanings.

"In or into a position below or beneath something"

"Below some quantity, level, or limit"

"In or into a condition of subection, subordination, or unconsciousness."

"Subject to the authority or guidance of"

"Lower than and overhung, surmounted, or sheltered by"
-a recent Merriam-Webster dictionary

Now, what does this all mean? It means whatever the hell you want it to. That's the good thing about America. Some of these would fit an atheist's few perfectly: try

"In or into a condition of subection, subordination, or unconsciousness to God."
instead of "Under God."

This would be saying that there are different understandings of God, and that America, like it or not, is subjected to them. It doesn't say "God exists and America is led by Him" like Newdow opposes. It doesn't even mention anything about the existence of a God.

By the way, all you who read those definitions should probably pick one that makes the most sense to you, or make one up. Thus, maybe you won't become an unthought Mickey Newdow or misunderstood Uncle Sam.

And if you're an atheist and it bothers you that other people think differently about the meanings of the words "Under" and "God", well, then you're sparring against your only weapon: religious freedom. Everyone can think whatever they want about these things, but the words stay. The words are necessary because they encapsulate within the Pledge religious freedom, in the form of loose guidelines. If you can't understand that you can think they mean whatever you want them to, you are a hypocrite, and your thoughts are useless. The words stay.

 

It's not a question of consensus. It is a question of the Constitution. The phrase is NOT unconstitutional. Shralp has done a good job explaining the situation.

 

"Dangerously patriotic?" Like I said in another thread, some of you need to get some respect for your own countries -- or move to ones who do.

But I agree partially with joacqin. I refused to say the pledge of allegiance as a school child. Part of it was just rebelliousness, I think. But I also thought that it was kind of silly for me to be pledging allegiance to a country I really knew very little about. After all, I reasoned, there could be much cooler countries out there. So when the pledge was said, I stood up, faced the flag, and said nothing.

No one ever gave me a hard time about it. I don't think anyone even noticed. Not teachers, not other students, no one. This gives the lie to Newdow's case.

Now, much later in life, I gladly say the pledge of allegiance. I joke about moving to the UK or Russia, but the US would have to do a Hell of a lot of screwing up before I'd contemplate it seriously.

 

When the Pledge was originally written, all religious references were deilberately omitted by the Christian writer. I'm sure he's rolling in his grave right now.
The phrase was added in the 50's as a knee jerk reaction to the "Godless Commies" during the Cold War, and has no place in the pledge, IMO. I refuse to say "Under God" as does my mother, who is Catholic.
So there's my opinion.

 

I agree completely, Stefanina.

I instruct my kids to do it that way, as do I.

How foolish is it to imagine that the freedom of religion could be construed in any way that did not include freedom *from* religion? Obviously any mention of God foisted on myself or my children in a public school setting is (a) establishment -- my particular religion rejects any and all deities, and (b) coerced -- I send them to school to learn, and expect them to respect their teachers and authority in general -- except in this case, they must buck the tide and stand up for religious freedom, as the framers of the constitution were so careful to obviate.

It is high time this cold-war induced stupidity be challenged, and I can only hope the court has the courage to make a constitutional and not a political decision.