I usually keep things light on Friday, but sometimes news happens at the end of the week.
Yesterday, a group of students protested the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at their school, Boulder High. They met peacefully outside the school during the weekly school recitation of the Pledge as a way of showing that they are against the Pledge being recited over the school’s PA system.
It’s clear that this is about the use of the word "God" in the Pledge. No matter how you feel about the Pledge, and about religion, it strikes me that adding the reference in is simply offensive. It was done in the 1950s as a way of weeding out those dirty red commies during the dark McCarthy years of the US government, which is reason enough to take it out. But it also implies that this nation is based on religion, which is patently false. The Founding Fathers were mostly deists, not Christians — Jefferson himself created his own Bible where he literally tore out all events he deemed as supernatural in the "standard" Bible. Imagine one of the Presidential candidates admitting to doing that today.
The truth is, no matter how you slice it, is that America is not "one nation under God". It just isn’t. We have a Mormon running for President, and we’ve had a Catholic and various other flavors of Christians as President. They would disagree quite strongly over the nature of God. Moreover, we have Muslims in this country, and Jews, and (gasp) non-believers too.
So, which God is it we’re united under?
According to the article about the Pledge,
Members of the student group say they have three main gripes with the way the traditional pledge is read at the start of second-period classes: It takes away from school time; it’s ignored or disrespected by mocking teens; and the phrase, “one nation, under God,” violates the separation of church and state.
I think a case can be made both ways for that last point, and I’ll let Constitutional scholars who are smarter than me fight that out. But I think it is entirely disrespectful of students to make them recite the Pledge, or force them to hear it. There’s a simple and logical way to look at it: what if it said "One nation, under Allah"?
Why is that idea ridiculous, but using the word "God" isn’t?
There is video of the protest, and I have to say that I am really proud of these students who are sticking up for their rights. At the end, they recite a version of the Pledge which, I think, is far superior to the one we have now.
Interestingly, there is another video from Daily Camera:
Notice the one student they interview who says that if people "have a problem with it", they should leave the country. You might excuse him for saying something so anti-American because he’s young, but note that the other students, sticking up for what America truly means, are the same age. Maybe Boulder High needs to review their social studies class curriculum.
I live in Boulder; we moved here a few months ago. We could have moved anywhere in the country, but we specifically chose Boulder because of the school system here. Boulder High is one of two outstanding high schools in this area (Fairview is the other one), and when the time comes — if the students are as active and thoughtful as they are now — I will be happy to see The Little Astronomer attending.
Tip o’ the flagpole to Too Many Tribbles.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:35 am
As a European, I find the concept intolerable not because of the God reference, but because it is reminiscent of brainwashing and indoctrination in totalitarian states.
That is directly incompatible with freethinking people, which is what we want our children to become.
You might disagree of course.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Pharyngula is also discussing this topic today
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/growing_bolder_in_boulder.php
September 28th, 2007 at 11:51 am
“and we’ve had Catholics and Christians as President.
Catholics are Christians - just a different “flavour”.
And Jews and Muslims also adhere to the same god as recorded in the Old Testament. They have differing viewpoints about the New Testament, the Q’ran etc., but it is the same deity they have as a fundamental (good word? bad word?) start point.
“God” is not a specific name whereas Allah is - the problem with using any specific name is that you then get the baggage that comes with it - e.g. Allah is inextricably linked to Mohammed which would cause difficulties for Christians and Jews. Similarly the use of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit would cause problems for Jews and Muslims alike. And let’s not get started on Hindu’s, Sikhs, Zoroastrians and the rest.
An Irish comedian, Dave Allen, always used to finish his broadcasts with “Good night, and may your god go with you”. Just a thought.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:53 am
I find the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools to be an offensive violation of the separation of church and state, but not just because of the addition of the word “God”.
Requiring children to recite the pledge is an affront to any religions that prohibit the swearing of oaths. This includes some (debatably) Christian denominations such as the Religious Society of Friends (a.k.a. Quakers).
September 28th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Personally I find it ironic that “under God” literally divides the phrase “One nation indivisible.”
September 28th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Go Panthers!
September 28th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Interesting that they pledge allegience to “the flag” but it is clearly not the stars and stripes they are holding….
September 28th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Hey, here’s an idea. Say “under God” if you want to, and don’t say if you don’t want to. I do not believe anyone should be forced to say “under God” whether its because they don’t believe in God, or they believe saying it violates the seperation between church and stay, or maybe just because they feel like being lazy that day and save them some trouble.
I also do not believe people should be denied from saying it if they want to, whether it offends others or not. We have ample evidence on the web and on television that most people will say something that will offend somebody somewhere. If people stopped talking to avoid offending others, it will be very quiet.
Besides, whether a person says it or not is a personal thing, or at least it should be. I should decide to say it or not say based not on how others will react, but based on what my personal feelings are, and I should not be ridiculed one way or the other.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Oh, and on the whole “love it or leave it” attitude, the United States of America was founded by a bunch of deist radicals who thought that the separation of church and state was vitally important.
If you want sanctioned prayer in government supported schools then go to some other country … perhaps one run by Islamic fundamentalists.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Loyalty oaths have NO place in our school systems (or anywhere else for that matter)! I used to object to being asked to say the Pledge when I was young, and I still do today. I especially disliked the “under God” part. It did not, and does not, belong there. And note that I say this as someone who considers himself to be a Christian. The worst thing that ever happened to Christianity was when it got mixed up in politics! And I mean that to extend all the way back to Constantine, by the way.
If the government (and, by proxy, the schools) wish to instill a sense of civic duty and responsibility in its citizens, which I would argue is a worthy goal, then perhaps they should re-introduce ACTUAL CIVICS CLASSES, where students could learn about the the Constitution, rather than have them mindlessly parrot some stupid pledge! Just a thought.
Oh, wait… Then the students might figure out that our current administration has been trying earnestly for seven years to gut the Constitution and establish an imperial presidency! I guess you can forget the civics classes.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
@Tony
Children, especially the very young, don’t always have the capacity to go against what the teacher and other kids in the class are doing.
I have no problem with allowing a couple of minutes of silence at the start of each day to accommodate silent prayer, meditation, or whatever else a student wants to do inside their heads. I do feel that it should be silent though.
“If people stopped talking to avoid offending others, it will be very quiet.”
You say that like it’s a bad thing. If saying something isn’t necessary, and if saying it is likely to offend someone, then keeping quiet is the polite thing to do. Out country could use a bit more quiet.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
It’s a great thing to teach children to be proud of the country they live in, but I think that doing this over school time is ridiculous. They’re supposed to learn, not babble a pledge. They say in the article that they used to have the pledge 8 minutes before class… Sounds like a great idea to me. Too bad some people whined.
As for the “under god” part… Hm. Well, I’m not the type to go psycho and remove religious symbols everywhere. I mean, I’m not offended by baby jesus cribs in malls at christmas times. Was it written that way originally? If so, well, that’s how it goes. But to the very least it should not be cited on learning time.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
[…] ~FallenAngel~ wrote an interesting post today!.Here’s a quick excerptYou might excuse him for saying something so anti-American because he’s young, but note that the other students, sticking up for what America truly means, are the same age. Maybe Boulder High needs to review their social studies class … […]
September 28th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
I agree completely with Steve T. — this is a loyalty oath and unacceptable, and the god part is very offensive and most likely unconstitutional (the establishment clause). My daughter is an 11th grader and refuses to say or even stand for the pledge in her first period class. It took a call from me to get her teacher to stop harassing her about this. (Fortunately, we live in a fairly liberal college town so most people here are easy going about personal expression.) Her school didn’t always do the pledge — it started fairly recently and I’ve wondered if it has to do with that odious No Child Left Behind piece of crap legislation. Here’s a little annoying tidbit: Did you know that NCLB requires that your child’s name and other information be given to military recruiters unless you deliberately opt out?
September 28th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
@Michelle
No, it was not written that way originally. The “under God” portion was added in the 1950s. as was the “In God We Trust” on the US coins. As BA stated earlier, this was done as a political statement by the US government against the “heathen communists”.
Would you be offended by state or federal legislatures opening with a reading from the Torah or Quran? How about a sculpture of Ganesha being placed in front of every government building? We could have a goat sacrificed and burned at presidential innaugurations to ensure prosperity for the term.
One of the major points of the founding fathers was that the government should not favor *any* religion over another one. Either all of them should be equally promoted(including the very silly ones with only a single practitioner) or none of them should.
Anything else is simply un-American.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Another commenter elsewhere made a very astute point about the irony of replacing the phrase “one nation, indivisible” with the patently divisive phrase “one nation, under God”.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
It’s mind boggling to me how the United States of America seems to be the only country in the world where we must observe everyone else’s customs and not offend any minority group in any situation.
The seperation of church and state has been ripped off by people with agenda’s and twisted to mean what they need it to. Go research where the term came from, go actually read the consitution (a drag, I know…) to understand what the founding fathers of this country were trying to implement.
It’s situations like this that are destroying the identity and soverignity of the United States. May God help us all.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
“Oh, wait… Then the students might figure out that our current administration has been trying earnestly for seven years to gut the Constitution and establish an imperial presidency! I guess you can forget the civics classes.”
Am I the only one who thinks this sort of rhetoric is absurd? I have no shortage of disagreements with the present executive branch, but really? Let’s try to be the rational folks that I know frequent this blog rather than falling into irrationality either to the right OR the left.
As for the civics classes, I think they should be mandatory.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Selina Morse -again - beat me to the comment. Was going to say “What? You mean Catholic’s AREN’T Christians??”
And here I thought they were - like - the original ones!
She’ pretty much spot-on about the other stuff too - even Dave Allen, whom I used to watch “religiously” - as well as Benny Hill. Strange that I can find reruns of Benny, but not of Dave. I recall one particular evening when they each did a show as if they were the other.
Fear the curse of the four-and-a-half fingered hand!
JC
September 28th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
As a German, I too find the concept of this Pledge highly disturbing. Especially the part about God, but also the whole thing. One should help children to use their own brains, not to be mindless Pledge reciting zombies.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
@JackC
Actually, I’m pretty sure the original Christians were mostly Jews.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
I’m surprised more fundamentalist Christians aren’t offended by the Pledge of Allegiance since pledging allegiance to a symbol, the American flag, looks remarkably like idolatry to me.
But then, who claimed that people are ever consistent in what they believe anyway.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Being a foreigner living in the U.S., I’ve always found the pledge of allegiance a little creepy. It strikes as more than a little like brainwashing.
I tend to think that it’s more important to value the elements of the country that you like, rather than the country itself. For example, I like the freedom that I have here to pursue research that is deemed by my peers to be valuable and interesting. And I would fight (metaphorically) to keep that freedom. However, I hate the soft bigotry that I see in the inner city where I live. Now, should I love the U.S.A.? Or should I hate it? The answer is both. And neither. I love the many beautiful things here, and I hate the many screwed up things. But pledging allegiance to a country right or wrong seems to be a way to get people to shut up (and to encourage the “love it or leave it” folks).
Indeed, I wonder how much of the trampling on the better parts of the constitution would have been possible over the last few years if not for things like the pledge of allegiance…
“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” — Samuel Johnson
September 28th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Doc
Point taken!
September 28th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
“… and we’ve had Catholics and Christians as President.”
I think “Catholic and Protestants” would have been a much better way to put that.
(And in the first sentence of that same paragraph, you should delete one of the occurrences of “is”.)
September 28th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Selina Morse wrote:
“God†is not a specific name whereas Allah is
I’m not so sure about that. The word “God” is certainly used as a specific name in our culture. If a Christian starts a prayer with “Dear God”, we can be pretty sure he’s not addressing Zeus.
“Allah”, as I understand it, is simply the Arabic word for God. I think that Arabic-speaking Christians refer to God as Allah.
And even if “God” doesn’t specify which god you’re referring to, it certainly specifies the number: one and only one. It blatanly excludes both atheists and Hindus, as well as followers of any other religion that doesn’t believe in exactly one god. That’s unnecessary and unacceptable.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
[…] website do not eat 28Sep07 This is how it began. Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: […]
September 28th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Tony writes:
Hey, here’s an idea. Say “under God†if you want to, and don’t say if you don’t want to. I do not believe anyone should be forced to say “under God†whether its because they don’t believe in God, or they believe saying it violates the seperation between church and stay, or maybe just because they feel like being lazy that day and save them some trouble.
I also do not believe people should be denied from saying it if they want to, whether it offends others or not. We have ample evidence on the web and on television that most people will say something that will offend somebody somewhere. If people stopped talking to avoid offending others, it will be very quiet.
Tony, I humbly suggest that you’ve missed the point.
I am not the least bit offended by anyone saying, or not saying, “one nation under God” if they choose to do so. It’s a religious sentiment that I don’t happen to share, but the right to express such sentiments is specifically protected by the First Amendment.
What offends me is when children are coerced into expressing such sentiments, or to listen to them, in a public state-sponsored school. Sure, any student can opt out (at the risk of considerable harassment from their peers, or even their teachers), but how many children have the courage to do so? The point is, they shouldn’t have to.
With the addition of the phrase “under God”, the Pledge of Allegiance effectively becomes a prayer. You can pray all you like. You can pray in public if you like (but if happen to be a Christian, you might want to read Matthew 6 first). What you can’t do is impose prayer on everybody else in a state-sponsored public school.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Keith,
We might use it as a specific name but only through convention (and because using the name of god - Yahweh (often translated as Jehova) is forbidden in the Old Testament). Christians usually refer to Father (oops - sexist lobby on standby here) when praying.
Language, as I’ve said before, is a huge problem when talking about god. You yourself fell foul of it when you said “I think ‘Catholic and Protestants’ would have been a much better way to put that”. When we use Catholic (with a capital ‘C’) we usually mean Roman Catholic. However, the Anglican Church (including Church of England, Church in Wales, numerous others throughout the world) would describe themselves as catholic and reformed. Definitely not Protestant - which is a different thing altogether. Language causes us problems once again (indeed, there is only one language, I would argue, that does not have multiple interpretations, and that is the language of mathematics; but I digress).
The point Dr. Phil was originally making, though, to get right back on track, is that the phrase “under God” is divisive and was introduced as a political move. That clearly is unacceptable on so many counts.
I’m just glad we don’t need to recite the Magna Carta in schools in the UK.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
“Notice the one student they interview who says that if people “have a problem with it”, they should leave the country.”
I keep hearing people saying this, and I’m beginning to think they might have a point. Why don’t we leave? Why doesn’t everyone who loves freedom, and hates tyranny, government intervention in our lives, and a mixing of religion and state go somewhere and form our own country where we can live in liberty?
Oh, wait a minute, we already did–THIS IS IT!!! THIS is the place where you go when you want to be free.
If you want government health care, go to Canada or Germany.
If you want gun control, go to the UK or Australia.
If you want religion in government, take your pick!
Just PLEASE leave us THIS ONE PLACE where we can be free! That’s all we ask! Please?
September 28th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
“one nation, under God” is deliberately ambiguous because “One nation under whatever rules this universe is governed by” is bulky and cumbersome.
I don’t understand why people get bent out of shape about this.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
@Kevin F.
Then you shouldn’t mind if we change it back to “one nation, indivisible” then, right? It’s much less bulky and cumbersome than having those extra, ambiguous words in there.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Personally, when I am with a group who is reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, I stand mute. For the simple reason that I believe my standing silent is supporting the very value this country used to hold dear: individual freedom. Far more so than bleeting in unison someone else’s words.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I’d personally like to see the original Pledge reinstated:
“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Note that the original pledge also required the person reciting it to have one hand over their heart and the other hand raised palm up towards the flag. This was banned after WWII because of the simliarity between it and the Nazi salute.
Whether or not the original pledge is reinstated, I believe fervantly that the history of the pledge should be taught to children as part of civics/history.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
I’ve been following this since yesterday, when I found it on the site of The Friendly Atheist. I hope it stays interesting. Like so many things in our society, we need to have an honest conversation about this issue.
As an (not quite aside) aside, I enjoy your columns.
Thanks!
September 28th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
The high school at which I taught in CA for many years allowed the substitution of a paragraph or so of U.S. history in lieu of the pledge. Instead of having all the second period teachers read the piece, it was read over the intercom system. Second period was extended by seven minutes so this announcement could be read, as well as the general trivia du jour. It didn’t prevent inattention by some of the cave dwellers, but it did give the rest of us food for thought. While the principal had final choice, the items could be submitted by anyone. This process was legally upheld by the CA courts and Dept. of Ed., so no “criminal” violations occurred. During those few times when we did recite the pledge as a school, anyone who disagreed could opt out by remaining silent or leaving the area, also upheld by the courts. Many of our native American activist students chose the latter, as did a few “non-believers” and the few slackers who saw an opportunity to dodge some class time. This solution defused the issue among the more vocal of our parents who supported one side or the other.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
America’s laws and culture do have a Judeo-Christian origin. Murder, theft, and perjury come directly from the Ten Commandments, and even adultery is punished in divorce court. Even “Honor Thy Mother and Thy Father” is there–a special court order is required to “emancipate” a minor. Every president has at least claimed to be Christian (and to say “Catholics and Christians” as if the former weren’t the latter suggests grave misunderstanding, like saying “Virginians and Americans”). I don’t think we’ve had a single president who would claim that the nation is or has a higher authority than God (but feel free to find a reference to a president making that claim), and very few congressmen would. So it truly is “one nation, under God”. Remember the purpose of the religion clause in the First Amendment is to keep government from doing harm to religion. Also, remember our own declaration of independence directly states that all liberties are granted by “our Creator”. US was founded under God and is under God. That the US does not require one to believe in God does not change that. Congress had made a perfectly appropriate reaction to the Soviet Union who outlawed religion–it illustrated for all that the US is different. One could argue that the Soviet Union’s system is somehow better, but the number of people fleeing to the US versus the very few Americans going to the Soviets belies that, just as does the fact that the US won the cold war.
If the students want to go outside when the Pledge of Allegiance is read, let them; it’s childish and they are only making themselves laughing stock. But Congress is certainly under no obligation to repeal the law, and the constitution does not give the supreme court the authority to do so either.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
@Todd
Your post is essentially saying, “Things are this way because they’ve always been this way, and therefore they’re the right way.”
This is a logical fallacy, plain and simple.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
With regards to “our Creator”, Jefferson specifically said our Creator instead of “God” because he was a deist and did not hold to the teachings of the Christian church. And while you may not find any official proclamation that there is any higher authority than God, Jefferson and many other founding fathers did reject the teachings. As deists, they would have believed in a “Creator”, but as one previous post stated, Jefferson edited his own version of the Bible to exclude all supernatural references. When accused of not being a Christian, Jefferson would point to his Bible and declared his own familiarity with the text.
While Congress is under no obligation to repeal the law, legally, it should be taken as a moral issue. To enforce the Christian centric pledge is to actually harm religious freedom as it said that only Christian believes are to be respected.
Students who stand up for the separation of Church and State are not necessarily non-believers. Simply ones who see a principle and are sticking to it, just as good citizens should.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
> At the end, they recite a version of the Pledge which, I think, is far superior to the one we have now.
If you truly just had an issue with the “god” term, you would be satisfied with its omission.
The kids’ proposed new wording is so P.C. that it oozes.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Todd: our system of laws and justice owes a lot more to the Code of Hammurabi than the Ten Commandments.
Besides, don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t commit perjury…has there ever been a nation that DIDN’T have these laws, even before the Ten Commandments were written?
Can anyone say, cum hoc ergo propter hoc?
September 28th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Todd, Todd, Todd,
Of all the posts above I’ve read and silently argued with, yours is the one that is missing the point, by a long shot. No matter what the men who wrote and endorsed the Constitution personally believed (including an ancestor of mine), they also believed in the SEPERATION of the church and state. They, or their immediate ancestors, had experienced what happens when a church and a state were intertwined; many had come here to escape that, and they made sure they codified it in the Constitution. It wasn’t just “to protect religion from the government,” and I, among many others, believe that religion can be far more dangerous when used by the government. Congress did not make a “perfectly appropiate response”; in fact, what they did was NO different than what the Soviets were doing - dictating what their citizenry can/cannot believe.
Todd, it’s the other way around, according to my copy of the Constitution on the desk in front of me. Believe what you want. But my government can’t tell me to address a god. If a group of kids want to pray before school, THEY should be the ones standing outside. The kids outside yesterday should have been inside.
And if one of my kids were to stand up like those kids did, I couldn’t be prouder.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
I think the pledge should go back to the way Francis Bellamy original wrote the Oath of Allegiance in 1892:
“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, Indivisible, with Liberty, Equality and Justice for All.”
I wrote a bit about this on my myspace blog. It’s a shame that something that is really a personal choice is becoming such a political issue. Such a waste of time and resources.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Isn’t a standardized pledge of allegiance, whether mandatory or not, just a bit medieval?
The US is, in theory, a secular republic, a government in which the government is answerable to the citizenry. Pledging allegiance is something one does to a monarch or to a totalitarian state not to a nation of the people for the people.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
And Jews and Muslims also adhere to the same god as recorded in the Old Testament.No, their gods are derived from the same mythological traditions, but taken in radically different directions. The concept of Jesus as the son of God, let alone the whole Trinity thing, is incompatible with Judaism and Islam.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
I’m actually not a big fan of the replacement pledge the kids used:
“I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes. And to the diversity, in which our nation stands, one nation, part of one planet, with liberty, freedom, choice and justice for all.”
It implies that my right to free speech or worship (or not) comes from the Constitution. Last time I read the Constitution (and the Dec. of Ind.) those are rights that I already have regardless. Those rights are simply protected from government restriction.
@Todd
Oh man. I’m not trying to be condescending but seriously? Thou shalt not murder? That’s a Christian exclusive? Shane Killian pretty much nailed that one (and I believe Hitchens goes to much greater lengths in his new book to show the complete ridiculousness of that belief).
September 28th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Sean
Jesus isn’t mentioned in the Old Testament (as I’m sure you know).
However, the Jewish Torah is essentially the Old Testament in a slightly different order. Muslims bracket Christians and Jews together as “People of The Book”. The Christian “God the Father”, Islam’s “Allah” and the Jewish “Yahweh” are essentially derived from the same sources - Genesis through to Malachi.
Jews stopped there. Muslims add Mohammed and his writings (allegedly from the words spoken to him by the archangel Gabriel). Christians add Jesus and the Holy Spirit (based upon eye-witness accounts and letters to early churches). That’s what separates these religions at grass roots level.
Of course, within each you have various sects which further complicate things….
September 28th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Todd: America’s laws and culture do have a Judeo-Christian origin. Murder, theft, and perjury come directly from the Ten Commandments, and even adultery is punished in divorce court. Even “Honor Thy Mother and Thy Father†is there–a special court order is required to “emancipate†a minor.
The immorality of murder, theft, perjury, adultery, and disobedience is recognized in cultures across the world in all time periods, often completely independent of Judeo-Christian influence. These moral standards existed first and were incorporated by western religions. Western religions did not invent them.
September 28th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
“”I pledge allegiance to Queen Frag, and her mighty state of hysteria.” - from Calvin & Hobbes
Interesting link, Red Skelton, prophet?
http://www.snopes.com/glurge/skelton.asp
And Wikipedia has a nice article on the Pledge. The “under God” addition didn’t have much to do with Communism, Phil. Like I have always said, politics KILLS skepticism in even the best skeptics. Please take more care in what “facts” you post or this just becomes another ideological blog with all heat and no light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_the_words_.22under_God.22
September 28th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
“America’s laws and culture do have a Judeo-Christian origin.”
Well, I suppose…given that King Henry was at least nominally Christian. Um…given that this started with the Pledge of Allegiance, why are you on to the legal system? And If you’re going to discuss it, instead of skipping here directly from the bible, at least bring up Henry, because he had a lot more direct influence on the legal system as it stands today than Jesus did.
September 28th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
It should also be noted that Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam. Just not the Son of God. Jesus is also Jewish, not Christian, and his teachings were the teachings of God under Judaism.
I know that everyone already knows all this, but I thought it should be mentioned.
September 28th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Phil, you’re attacking the pledge for the wrong reason.
The pledge of allegiance is wrong because it implies (strongly) that the people are subservient to the state. In a government by the people, for the people and of the people, it should be the state pledging allegiance to us.
September 28th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
A few folks have expressed the opinion that the Pledge (as currently recited” is unconstitutional.
While you or I may think so (and I do), as a matter of law what’s constitutional is what the Supreme Court says is constitutional. Though I don’t have a cite, I’m pretty certain that the Pledge has already been challenged and upheld by an earlier court.
Fat chance the Roberts court will ever reverse that.
September 28th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
I pledge Alliegence to the Blue Marble, that I may defend it and all it’s creatures with all my heart and soul and make desisions that will benefit the planet as a whole.
September 28th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
>>>It was done in the 1950s as a way
>>>of weeding out those dirty red commies
>>>during the dark McCarthy years of the
>>>US government
Phil, I agree with you overall, the Pledge is an anachronism, but posting utter BS like the above quote undermines your position. You cannot proclaim yourself a defender of truth and science and then trot out tripe like this.
The addition of “under God” was initialed by the Knights Of Columbus in 1952. Several bills were introduced and failed. It was after President Eisenhower talked with a reverend named George Docherty that a successful bill got passed an 1954 or so.
The McCarthy era was ugly, but not *everything* that happened was a result of it.
You can be so elegant on science topics and many posts against the anti-science crowd, but sometimes you do go a bit, well, rabid. Maybe write the blog offline and then allow a cooling off periods and, you know, maybe some fact checking?
September 28th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Now I’m beginning to see why the Hindus and Buddhists see things in cycles. Must’ve been a slow news day.
Yes, we’re once again on this Pledge of Allegiance kick. When some sort of official action is taken against the kids for protesting, wake me. Otherwise, good for them, they excercised their right to protest and the school administration upheld that right. It’s not that difficult to omit “after God,” after all.
> If the government (and, by proxy, the schools) wish to instill a sense of civic duty and responsibility in its citizens, which I would argue is a worthy goal, then perhaps they should re-introduce ACTUAL CIVICS CLASSES, where students could learn about the the Constitution, rather than have them mindlessly parrot some stupid pledge! Just a thought.
The civics classes that died after the 1950s because they were seen as methods of indoctrination? Let’s face facts. All societies that look to live beyond a generation indoctrinate their children. That’s sort of the point. Let’s just realize this, get it in the clear, and get on with indoctrinating our kids to be good citizens =and= critical thinkers, if such can be managed.
September 28th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
When I recite the pledge, I inadvertantly omit “under
God”, because of the many years that I recited it
the old way. It does smack of church and state
collusion. But either way makes me happy.
But, again, what has this to do with astronomy?
September 28th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Though I agree that the Pledge issue is worth some attention, I’d like to point out that it’s really not very effective as brainwashing.
We recited the Pledge in my elementary school, starting when I was so young that I didn’t know what the word “allegiance” meant. I actually thought it had something to do with the French Foreign Legion (there was a TV show about that, so I knew the word “legion” and the similarity of the sound was enough to throw me off.)
It’s unlikely that my schoolmates were turned into brainless automatons any more than I was. *beep* *click*
September 28th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Time for an Any Rand quote!
“”The conflict of reason versus mysticism is the issue of life or death - of freedom or slavery - of progress or stagnant brutality.” -Ayn Rand. Welcome to The Infidel is Great!
That should be what kids recite in school.
September 28th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Regarding Communism and the words “Under God”:
While the sources quoted in the Wikipedia article makes no mention of it (that I saw in my quick peek), you can see the parallel tracks of the change to the Pledge and the rise of McCarthy and his inquisition. At that point, McCarthy had already been place on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which ultimately allowed him to pursue subversion, espionage and Communism. As we all know, Communists were considered Godless, and McCarthy was quite vocal about it.
This all happened in 1953-54.
The bill was introduced in February 8, 1954 and signed into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954. McCarthy’s infamous hearings convened on April 22, 1954.
So while the people who introduced and pushed for the amendment to the pledge make no mention of Communists, it can be argued that Communism was on the mind of every person in Congress at that point.
September 28th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
There seems to be a semantical argument over the identity of “God”, and whether the “Abrahamic Religions” really address the same god. Is it one God with various (mis)interpretations, or different concepts of God mistakenly taken as the same being by the application of the concept of “monotheism” and an accident of some common heritage? And (in)judicious use of a generic label as a moniker (i.e. “God”).
Christianity claims linkage to the “Old Testament” through the accident of Jesus’ heritage and the expansion of the concept of monotheism taken to mean that any “one god” must be the same “one god”.
Doc said:
> Requiring children to recite the pledge is an affront to any religions that prohibit the swearing of oaths. This includes some (debatably) Christian denominations such as the Religious Society of Friends (a.k.a. Quakers).
In high school my sister had a friend who was Jehovah’s Witness, and they got chastised by teachers for not standing for the pledge during a pep rally. My sister joined in not over sharing the friend’s attitude about the flag (i.e. it is a form of idol), but because of the principle of religious freedom and free expression that was being trampled.
Arthur Maruyama said:
> Personally I find it ironic that “under God†literally divides the phrase “One nation indivisible.â€
Amen.
Jesse said:
> It’s mind boggling to me how the United States of America seems to be the only country in the world where we must observe everyone else’s customs and not offend any minority group in any situation.
Clearly a strawman. Exaggeration for comedic effect?
> The seperation of church and state has been ripped off by people with agenda’s and twisted to mean what they need it to. Go research where the term came from, go actually read the consitution (a drag, I know…) to understand what the founding fathers of this country were trying to implement.
Let’s see, a country that gets its sovereign legitimacy from “We the People” and not from any deity, a country that proclaims there will never be a religious test for office, a country that enumerates as one of the prime rights that cannot be infringed is the right to freedom of religious worship and freedom of expression. Jefferson in particular had a lot to say about the need to keep religions out of government.
> It’s situations like this that are destroying the identity and soverignity of the United States. May God help us all.
You might also wish to bone up on why the Supreme Court has ruled expressions such as “In God We Trust” as legal an not unConstitutional. The argument is that these are meaningless expressions of cultural heritage and should not be taken as legal prescriptions. That’s right, according to the Supreme Court, God is meaningless.
Kevin F. said:
> “one nation, under God†is deliberately ambiguous because “One nation under whatever rules this universe is governed by†is bulky and cumbersome.
Uh, if that is what they wanted to express, they could have used a turn of phrase from the U.S. Constitution - “We the People”.
Todd said:
> America’s laws and culture do have a Judeo-Christian origin.
No, they don’t. Jefferson addressed this canard. The American legal system is primarily founded upon the British legal system, which was primarily founded upon British common law, which predates Christianity.
> Murder, theft, and perjury come directly from the Ten Commandments,
So murder, theft, and perjury were valid in all cultures prior to the arrival of Judeo-Christian influence?
> Every president has at least claimed to be Christian. I don’t think we’ve had a single president who would claim that the nation is or has a higher authority than God (but feel free to find a reference to a president making that claim), and very few congressmen would.
How about looking at what the Founding Fathers put in the U.S. Constitution.
Not “By the powers of God, the Almighty, and our Creator of all that is Holy and Good” or any other religious language that was de facto at the time. They explicitly referenced earthly powers, the power of the People.
> Remember the purpose of the religion clause in the First Amendment is to keep government from doing harm to religion.
Jefferson has a lot to say about this. He emphasizes it is at least as important to keep the priests from doing harm to the government. The corruption is 2 way, and so is the prevention. Jefferson is explicit.
> One could argue that the Soviet Union’s system is somehow better, but the number of people fleeing to the US versus the very few Americans going to the Soviets belies that, just as does the fact that the US won the cold war.
Completely irrelevant gobbletygook. The Soviet Union was a tyranical system of oppression and economically corrupt - it did not even follow the system it claimed to represent.
September 28th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
This site is becoming unreadable.
PS - To whoever it was that was talking about the current administration trying to take over the world and kill all the children. Replace current administration with communists and say it out loud and ask yourself who you sound like.
September 28th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Yuk: You’re trying to imply causation with only correlation.
C’mon. We’re supposed to be skeptics here. There was a full moon in those dates somewhere as well. Shall we blame that? 
Maybe the general sentiment led to it. You’d have to ask any surviving members of the Kinghts Of Columbus if there are any. But claiming it was a definite tool to “weed out commies” is silliness.
It doesn’t even pass a first order sanity check. How does adding “under God” to a grade school pledge “weed out commies” in the government or the entertainment industry or other McCarthy targets? And can’t the “commies” just say the words? It’s a dumb claim any way you look at it.
>>> it can be argued that Communism was
>>> on the mind of every person in Congress
>>> at that point.
It can be argued that possible intervention in Veitnam was on their minds as well.
Look, I AGREE with Phil on the Pledge, but our side HAS to be careful before we claim any scientific or truthful high ground and check all our own facts. And we completely have to avoid indulging in hyperbole.
September 28th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I always liked the Pledge of Allegiance time back when I was a kid. It gave me a great opportunity to disobey - just fold my arms and glare. Man, I love(d) disobeying.
They couldn’t even get me to say that thing by making me lead the class. Just let the time tick by as the teacher clears his throat.
I guess I’m lucky I never got in any real trouble for it.
September 28th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
>>As a European, I find the concept intolerable not because of the God >>reference, but because it is reminiscent of brainwashing and >>indoctrination in totalitarian states.
>>That is directly incompatible with freethinking people, which is what we >>want our children to become.
>>You might disagree of course.
I could not disagree more. I see how it would be something of an indoctrination situation if it were mandatory, and it obviously should be a choice. I do not know why anyone would choose not to, because if you dislike the US so much it’s not too hard to leave. (We don’t build walls to keep people in. Occasionally there are calls to build walls to keep people out, but there’s not much of an issue of citizens fleaing)
The pledge is not to the flag but rather to the republic (for which it stands). The republic which has “liberty and justice for all.” That is the American ideal, although in practice it has become something which is not always equally distributed.
The US had slavery. That was an abomination and an embarrassment. We went through a civil war, partially because of it. There were injustices against the natives and there has been officially sanctioned racism. There isn’t anymore. This is because of the Americans who would not tolerate it. It violates the ideals of “Liberty and Justice for all.”
The US might have gone to wars without good cause. George Bush has done things that go beyond what many consider the bounds of good government. And many citizens are ripping mad about that. They have expressed their anger and the next candidates for office had best well listen. [Bush was elected primarly because of the weakness of the opposing candidate]
I can understand why a European would feel that it is wrong to believe in having elegance to the nation’s ideals and principals it was supposedly founded on. Given that in Europe, few countries gaurentee fundimental freedoms in their founding documents. The British government can call for a ban on publishing articles critical of the royalty if they choose. In France, large portions of the government have been involved in knowingly distributing HIV tainted blood, to eliminate unwanteds like hemophiliacs.
In France, Belgium and the Netherlands, the opposition to a Nazi invasion was underwhelming, with top leaders quick to collaborate to save their skin. In Spain, a bloody civil war lead to a dictatorship. In many European countries there is an official state religion. In Germany, a country which has some of the darkest stains on its history, the government has made it illegal to say anything pro-nazi or to question history. It’s ironic that they think the way of stopping a tyrannical regime from coming back is by restricting basic freedoms of expression. A judge in Italy described raping a woman as “Very rude” but there remains question about whether or not it is a real crime…
Many countries in Europe have given up their rich history of sovereignty and self-rule to join in a federation which destroys their national identity. The extreme anti-nationalism and anti-patriotism seems strange to many Americans. Is there some sort of self-loathing? But when one looks at history it becomes very apparent where it comes from.
I’ve got no problem with the pledge. ‘Cept for the god part.
September 28th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
You are right, of course. But what is the connection to Astronomy and what difference does it make in the big picture. There are lots of injustices. Why choose this one?
September 28th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
>>> There seems to be a semantical argument
>>> over the identity of “Godâ€
It’s always been my understanding that when the Founding Father did use the word God, they were simply trying to get across the idea that there is a higher order. Higher than any kings and queens (who often claimed to be chosen by God) and higher than any government entity, even an elected one.
Most of the FF were Deists. Their god is a “God of Nature”- a dispassionate entity that didn’t concern itself with the everyday affairs of man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deists
They were also Evil Masons, but that’s another can of worms.
In the end, the power derives from the *governed*.
September 28th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
>>> You are right, of course.
Who are you talking to? Cut & paste a bit, son!
>>> But what is the connection to Astronomy
>>> and what difference does it make in the
>>> big picture.
I’ll handle this one, Phil.
It’s not just an astronomy blog. It also handles anti-science and religious encroachment into places it does not belong.
>>> There are lots of injustices. Why choose this one?
Well, I have to give you that one.
1. Students protest peacefully. Ideas are hashed abut on blogs. Everyone goes home safely at end of day.
2. Monks protest in Burma. The body count is still being tallied from government troops firing guns into an unarmed crowd.
September 28th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I remember talks about this in the Clinton years!
I do believe that this new pledge is, indeed, superior. It reflects our 21rst century view, acknowledging ourselves as one nation amongst the others on this planet.
I also feel a big of nostaliga, even if it is for an era I didn’t live in; it’s the Sixties man! The 60s are back!
September 28th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
I’d love to see Muslims clamoring for the right to substitute Allah for God whilst saying the pledge (and I’d fully support their right to do so).
September 28th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Sounds about right for Boulder… any excuse to protest, especialy when it lets them get out of class as well. Have you noticed yet that Boulder is a huge anti-smoking place, yet also a huge pro-legalization of marijuana place as well?
September 28th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
The Pledge as it was first written, made a lot more logical sense. When I was a kid, I always thought at “…one nation under God indivisible…” never made any sense.
On the other hand “…one nation indivisible…” makes perfect sense.
Sometimes the way the things used to be makes more sense than the way things are now.
September 28th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
I like the students alternative to “under God”
“I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes. And to the diversity, in which our nation stands, one nation, part of one planet, with liberty, freedom, choice and justice for all.â€
And those of you who take the BA to task saying that “under God” had nothing to do with Mcathyism or communism are dead wrong. Probably you are just too young to remember the 50s.
By the way as a non-Ameriecan it seems extremely dumb to pledge allegience to a rectangle of cloth, whatever it stands for. If you want to pledge, pledge the reaity not the symbol. Pledging symbols just gives idiot politicians excuses to try and put people in jail for expressing what is their right under the constitution.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Michael: “You’re trying to imply causation with only correlation.”
You’re absolutely right. But then the moon was nearly full and I felt a little whoozy.
drbuzz0: “because if you dislike the US so much it’s not too hard to leave. (We don’t build walls to keep people in. Occasionally there are calls to build walls to keep people out, but there’s not much of an issue of citizens fleaing)”
I beg to differ. You are required to have a passport now to leave the country, even if its to go to Canada or Mexico. Any other country, and you would need to book passage on a plane, which of course requires money. And while technically we don’t keep people from leaving, all countries reserve the right to keep you out. So if you have no place to go, then you are in essense trapped.
drbuzz0: “The pledge is not to the flag but rather to the republic”
Excuse me? The pledge reads:
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands”
Note the use of the word “and”.
The Civil War wasn’t fought over slaves. IMHO, the emmanicipation proclamation was an attempt to undercut the South’s economy by removing its labor force.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I agree with Salor. I heard that from a lot of sources.
You know, baby steps. If you approach someone with an open hand rather than a fist, you can make a change.
Why not just propose this: “the cold war is over, time to put the Pledge back to the way it was”. That stands a better chance of succeeding.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I think in comparison to other cultures, we have a whole lot more separation of church and state. If this little thing is all we have to complain about, we should be thankful and grateful.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
I used to live very near Boulder and spent a lot of time on the CU campus. I miss it for reasons such as students like these.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
What we need is more God, and less editorials of this type.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
>>> And those of you who take the BA to task saying
>>> that “under God†had nothing to do with Mcathyism or
>>> communism are dead wrong.
Back that up. This is a skeptical place. Cite a reference. All the info I have indicates it was a minimal influence. If that is incorrect, please show me otherwise.
Anyway, strawman argument. I said the idea that it was used to “weed out commies” is ridiculous, and I already granted to Bill perhaps it was on the mind of the member of the KofC who approached Congress.
>>> Probably you are just too young to remember the 50s.
You know nothing about me. I could suggest you are too old to remember clearly.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
“Back that up. This is a skeptical place. Cite a reference. All the info I have indicates it was a minimal influence. If that is incorrect, please show me otherwise.”
My reading of the history is that “under God” was put there by Ike under the influence of his pastor Docherty (who was oiginally Scottish, he also went back thee to die, so you have Scotland to thank for the under god bit), Docherty wanted under god to separate the US from Godless Russsia (one of the few countries where you could be prosecuted for damaging a flag by the way). This was at the height of the cold war, anti communism ad Mcarthysim. I hope you will find the links below sufficient references.
http://www.slate.com/?id=2067499
http://www.faithandpolicy.org/pledge.html
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/142/story_14271_1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_MacPherson_Docherty
http://books.google.com/books?id=dXZjg1jF0IEC&pg=RA6-PA10&lpg=RA6-PA10&dq=rev+george+m+docherty&source=web&ots=rk3t6eqLoH&sig=7pw32fGCxVn56rOjRhxhe4Csx-Ihttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4DC1E3AF937A3575AC0A96E948260
September 28th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
“Many other groups joined in the campaign. One was the Washington Pilgrimage group (now known as the Religious Heritage of America group)-a patriotic-religious group founded in 1951-began promoting this addition. In 1952, the Reverend Dr. George M. Docherty, pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, DC, preached in favor of adding “under God” to the Pledge. His point was that a Soviet atheist could easily recite the Pledge without compunction by substituting the “Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics” for the “United States.”"
http://history.vineyard.net/pdgech8.htm
“Dr. John W. Baer and his wife, Mary Baer, have been researching the history of the Pledge of Allegiance for the last 20 years. Dr. Baer is a retired economist and Mary Baer is a research librarian. His Pledge of Allegiance book is footnote number one in the written US Supreme Court decision of Elk Grove School District v. Michael Newdow, June 14, 2004.”
September 28th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
The Christian majority will fight tooth and nail to keep all references to God in the pledge and everywhere else in government that they can, so I’ve always thought that secular America should instead push for changing the God references to Gods (plural) to cover polytheists like Hindu’s and Pagans as well as Christians. Only then would the Christians push to remove the references.
September 28th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Yuk: The Civil war was not about slavery but it was caused by the deep cultural and political divisions which caused the south to feel alienated and culturally distinct from the north. Amoungst these issues was slavery, one of the most devisive. No, it was not the official reason for the war.
September 28th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
drbuzz0: I understand that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. What I stated was:
“The Civil War wasn’t fought over slaves. IMHO, the emmanicipation proclamation was an attempt to undercut the South’s economy by removing its labor force.”
The big political issue was that of succession. The South, because of the deep cultural and political divisions, wanted to succeed from the Union. The North said no. If the North had said, “okay, go ahead”, we wouldn’t have had a Civil War.
September 28th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
@Todd,
So, the students who object to the recitation of the pledge should just “go outside” while it’s being done? And of course, the ridicule they would then receive is their fault, certainly not the fault of the “Christians” (Pharisses) who get such a thrill out of praying in public…
September 28th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
For pity’s sake, *I’m* the one who said it was Docherty in the first place!
>>> Docherty wanted under god to separate the
>>> US from Godless Russsia
Yes, because he was a very religious person, and not because of McCarthy. You are trying to find cause and effect between two effects from a bigger, more central cause.
And I’ll try *this* ONE more time:
How does adding “under God” to a schoolhouse pledge “weed out” Communists in government and industry?
September 28th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Are other Astronomers “on board” and in agreement with this? I did not know this was a big science issue.
I can understand getting the creationists out of the classroom. But at what point do we say our energies are better spent elsewhere?
This seems to be something that someone can argue as being a matter of culture and history. For example, in Texas the kids have a pledge to Texas in addition to the USA. How would Phil like to see that changed?
This global pledge is amusing. As in, opposed to NOT pledging to the planet.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
I know why don’t we just skip the whole pledge of alliance crap in public schools and have the government officials cite a pledge to the people. The government is our servants not the othe way around.
September 28th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Here’s my issue with this. Had they just taken out “under God,” I wouldn’t have any issue with what they were doing, but read their version of the pledge:
Looking beyond the horrible grammar, it shows complete misunderstanding of our country. First of all, our constitutional rights do not come from the flag, but they come from what appears to be a little known document known as “The Constitution.” Furthermore, the whole concept of “diversity” goes against the whole concept of a nation united under a common identity. Obviously, to these students, the concept of the great “melting pot” is lost to them. Lastly, what did they mean with “choice”? Choice of what? Ultimately, it just appears that they were just trying to act like the “trolls” in forums, in that they deliberately changed the pledge in order to inflame and to incite.
Should the pledge be recited every day in school? Probably not, I think that instead the students should be given a proper education about the history of this country and how we have come from a small nation of revolutionaries and have survived for well over 200 years. I’m willing to bet that those kids probably don’t have a passing knowledge of basic historical events in this country, and much less a deep understanding of what it means to be an American. To me, that is the real pity.
September 28th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
@Wayne
Let me acknowledge that my comments about the “imperial presidency” were a bit hyperbolic. I was having a stressful day and got carried away. I do feel, however, that this current administration has gone much further in attempting to subvert the fundamental separation of powers than any previously in my lifetime. I am sure they feel quite justified in doing so, as they obviously believe they are simply returning us to a “true balance.” I happen to disagree with them on that point rather strongly.
In the end, I am still very happy to live in a place where this kind of discussion/argument can take place freely (at least for a while yet) without anyone fearing that late night “knock on the door.”
September 28th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Michael: “How does adding “under God†to a schoolhouse pledge “weed out†Communists in government and industry?”
Answer: It doesn’t. It is an example of political postering which had ill effects for the nation in general. But the conservatives can claim it as a win! Meanwhile, Jefferson is rolling in his grave.
Desmothenes: “Looking beyond the horrible grammar, it shows complete misunderstanding of our country.”
Yes. And I completely agree about giving our kids a better education about the history and workings of our nation.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
My parents never let me recite the pledge as kid, informing my teachers that under no uncertain terms was I supposed to join in. This is because my parents are devout Muslims. They did not merely object to the idea of the words “under God” but were put off by the idea of people facing a flag with their hands over their hearts. Muslims have a similar concept of God, but it seemed too much to them like an act of state worship and idolatry.
To this day I find the whole idea of the Pledge a pointless exercise is in insipid droneism. Why make promises to a symbolic piece of fabric? What if I don’t like the color scheme? I’ve voted in every election since I was eighteen (admittedly not that long ago), I believe I’ve sufficiently established how I feel about this country. Even then there is no law requiring displays of patriotism, and when there is, I’ll probably be in jail for civil disobedience.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Not sure if this was meant seriously, but just in case it was…
Next time you’re in Europe, go to an international soccer match and then tell me that our national identities have been destroyed. National pride is as strong as it has ever been, and people would still fight tooth and claw to defend their country and the liberties that they enjoy.
Really, the only practical differences the EC has made on most people’s lives is that (except for the UK) we no longer have to exchange currencies every time we go abroad and the customs checks have been all but dropped at most borders. The national governments still make the vast majority of the laws and policy decisions that affect people’s lives, and the economic cooperation has opened up new markets to businesses as they seek to expand into new markets.
Internal immigration might be becoming a bigger issue now that Eastern Europe has joined the community, but it’s still a minor headache compared with current the US problems.
Really, phrases like “extreme anti-nationalism and anti-patriotism” prove that you really don’t know the first thing about how Europeans think. If anything, all you are seeing is a reaction to the hyperpatriotism (and hyperparanoia) that’s been emanating from the neocons and their supporters ever since Bush and this cronies decided to invade Iraq.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
But the reason the South wanted to secede in the first place was over the issue of slavery. If you examine the Confederate Constitution (and, I think, many of those of the individual states in the Confederacy) then the only significant difference between them and the Constitution was the enshrinement of slavery as a protected act.
Sure there were (and still are) political and cultural differences but to call slavery a side issue is simply not accurate. It was the major catalyst that brought about the conflict.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Fantastic. Thanks for this article BA. Im glad the little astronomer has such a great school system to look forward too.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Clarification (maybe it was posted earlier, I didn’t read all the replies), but no school in the United forces students to recite the pledge of allegiance. It’s often recited over the PA system but it was ruled unconstitutional to make students recite it or punish them for choosing not to.
I think it’s pointless to have the words “under God” in the pledge, but at some point you have to pick your battles. The pledge of allegiance doesn’t really mean anything and having the word God in it doesn’t make us a theocracy. If you’re opposed to it just ignore the pledge and let the crazy religious right have their chant…
September 28th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Itty Bitty nitpick: It’s secession, not “succession”. Unless we’re talking about the Civil War that preceded the Umayyad dynasty in the Middle East. If so, my bad.
Somewhat larger nitpick: It was about slavery, and people who say otherwise are usually falling for their own kind of political correctness (these are also generally the same people who seem to think PC is a one-way street). It was not necessarily about freeing the slaves per se. It was about the authority of the federal government to determine the rights of a state to be a slave state, and this was around the same time the US was sending ships to the African coast to stop slavers, and the punishment prescribed for Americans involved in the trade was death. There’s plenty of evidence it was about slavery. Especially when you consider the incendiary role of one John Brown and his Pottawatomie Massacre.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Yahweh, Yahweh, Yahweh… go ahead and stone me! Oh, wait…I’m already stoned, man! Shrooms are cool!
September 29th, 2007 at 12:50 am
>”I pledge Alliegence to the Blue Marble, that I may defend it and all it’s creatures with all my heart and soul and make desisions that will benefit the planet as a whole.”
This sounds ok to me, except for the soul
part. Anatomy never proved to me that I had a soul. So is this thing the piece that gets raptured for the christians? Just
wondering.
September 29th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Oh, and to Selina Morse way up at the top of the comments. “Allah” is not specific. It is simply the Arabic word for the monotheistic God.
At this point I’m just being an Arabic grammar geek (yes, there are a few of us out there). Arab Jews and Christians use the same word. It stems from the Arab word for a God, ilah (it comes from the common Semitic root that supplies Hebrew and Aramaic with “eli”). It then uses the definitive article “Al-” meaning “the” and it turns into “The God”. It is interesting to note that it is one of the very few Arabic words that has no inherent gender. It also has an inherent grammatical resistance to pluralization due to it being definite.
This is also why I don’t buy books from people who write “Allah” was just the biggest idol in the Ka’aba, and neither should you. Criticisms of Islam are fine and dandy, but I like it when historical and linguistic accuracy to go with it.
September 29th, 2007 at 1:24 am
Putting “under God” before “indivisible” IS dividing the “One Nation.”
We atheists and free thinkers argue that the words are offensive and simply untrue to those who don’t believe in God, and so should be removed. What’s the Christians’ reasoning that the words should stay? Because it’s no big deal? Because kids can just not say the words? That stance isn’t worth fighting for. If it offends a sizable group of people, remove it. Even though you believe in God, you must see that many people don’t. If someone insisted on inserting “evolved from amino acids” instead, I would be against that too. (Though, admittedly, not as vehemently. ;))
Some have said we should pick our battles. I agree, and the PoA has always irked me, as has the “In God We Trust” on every single piece of American currency. I think it only ads to America’s reputation of primitive thinking.
September 29th, 2007 at 2:17 am
If it’s any consolation, I would bet that a large section of the American public, when asked, would not be able to say what was written on their currency without looking first.
Court rulings in favor of keeping these mentions of God in public places, like money, the pledge, government buildings etc. usually cite their reason that they are just a rote mentions of a generic deity, nothing more. I.E. They only allow the quotes to stay specifically because they are not considered very religious in the first place. Of course, those who want it there are quite happy with these rulings in spite of the fact that most of them reduce these sayings to little more than generic pablum.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:34 am
I just wonder how those who say “love it or leave it” can be so anti-soviet.
That’s the USSR’s old position, albeit slightly softer. “Love it, or we kill you” just doesn’t have the same ring to it anymore, I guess.
And the fascists that ran Nazi Germany and fascist Italy absolutely *loved* their loyalty oaths, especially for the young ones. It is SO much easier to get the kiddies to do your bidding when you first convince them that you have some higher authority, that the State is always right.
“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”
“I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!”
“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith…. We need believing people.”
“The public education movement has also been an anti-Christian movement… We can change education…if you put Christian principles in and Christian pedagogy in. In three years, you would totally revolutionize education…”
You have ten seconds to figure out which of those are NOT Hitler quotes! Go!
September 29th, 2007 at 4:31 am
To drbuzz0:
You don’t seem know a great deal about Europe and your views on it’s history and culture heritage seem very shallow, have you ever been outside USA?
A country surrendering to spare the population from battles, that will ultimately be lost due to the overwhelming strength of the opposing forces, seem wise to me.
September 29th, 2007 at 4:54 am
Todd,
The laws against the stuff you claim comes from the 10 commandments pre-date your biblical commandments by thousands of years, as a few have pointed out.
To say every president has claimed to be a Christian is, well sir, wrong, as their own words state:
The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wished to know more of this raging three headed beast-like god, one only need to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him, they are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites - Thomas Jefferson, 3rd u S president
Jefferson actually said quite a few things about Christianity, none of them complimentary, as you’ll read soon enough.
“The bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.” Abe Lincoln, 16th U.S. president
“I do not believe in the divinity of Christ, and there are many other of the postulated of the orthodox creed to which I cannot subscribe. William H Taft, 27th president
Having felt free to cite three presidents who clearly “made that claim” a claim which is correct according to the constitution, which if you’ll read you find in Article 4, section 4 the fact that we are a republic, guaranteeing each state of the union a republican form of government, defined as such:
republic:
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
Note Todd that it says “in which the SUPREME POWER rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.” NOT IN SOME GOD, but with the citizens.
Todd, the United States was founded as a secular representative republic, not a theocracy as you claim it is. Madison, a founding father and the 4th president said it quite well actually, “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
Your argument that because no president of congressman would make that claim, even though I have cited some who have, so we thus are a nation under a god is a flawed argument sir known as a non-sequitur, your (flawed, historically inaccurate) contention doesn’t support your (equally flawed and historically inaccurate) conclusion.
Todd, that is a rather twisted, if interesting attempt to turn the 1st amendment on its head, nice try, but it’s not going to work. Given what Madison said, “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” it is clear that the intent was to protect this republic FROM religion.
The first amendment contains two clauses governing church and state separation: the Establishment Clause, which guarantees the separation of religion and the government, and the Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits the government from interfering with people’s right to worship as they choose, or not to. These two principles protect our freedom to practice any religion - or no religion at all.
The Declaration of Independence was a “dirty letter” to King George, it did not establish this nation. It cited the reason why the colonies no longer wanted to be subject to the king’s rule. King George replied to it by sending more troops to suppress rebellion.
The constitution founded this nation sir, and it doesn’t mention any god, but does mention religion sir, it puts prohibitions on it. Article 6, “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” and in the aforementioned 1st amendment clauses.
Your attempt to spin the Deist’s god mentioned in the declaration into being your Christian god, is irrelevant, the Declaration of Independence isn’t this nation’s founding document.
Finally sir, you are right about something, we are not required to believe in a god, but wrong as to why. We are not required to believe in any god because we have, thanks to the 1st amendment you’ve attempted to turn on its head, a freedom of and FROM religion in this nation.
Since the constitution, the document that founded this secular republic doesn’t mention a god, and your Christian bible makes no mention of men governing themselves, the real principle upon which this republic was founded, how can you say this nation was founded “under god”? Please sir, cite any Biblical concepts, book, line, verse, that supports your claim sir.
I submit that if you’ll read your bible you’ll find nothing to support your claim, but you just might notice that the biblical form of government is a kingdom, and kings rule by “divine right” and once you’ve learned some American history you’ll realize that our founders denounced the “divine right of kings” in favor of self government and established this nation as a secular republic.
With all the respect I can muster for your posting sir, were I you, I’d be very careful about accusing others of being childish and only making themselves laughing stock, sir … very careful indeed
To save you the trouble of trying, as many Evangelical Christians in the past have, of telling us that, “All our founders were Christians,” here are but a few citations you should consider:
“The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of the clergy.” George Washington.
“The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion.” George Washington and John Adams in diplomatic message to Malta.
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of common law” Thomas Jefferson
“The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State” (Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432)
“That this would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it.” John Adams, founding father, 2nd president, letter to Jefferson
“In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own” Thomas Jefferson, our 3rd president
“Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry” Thomas Jefferson, statute for religious freedom
“The law for religious freedom… [has] put down the aristocracy of the clergy and restored to the citizen the freedom of the mind” Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. me 13:400
“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.” Thomas Jefferson, 3rd U.S. president
“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights… moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” Thomas Jefferson
“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights.” Thomas Jefferson
“Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” is absolutely essential in a free society” Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dansbury Baptist association Aug 2 1803
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence the act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist association, Jan 1 1802
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” James Madison, founding father, 4th president
“All national institutions of churches whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind and monopolize power and profit.” Thomas Paine
“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory and unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity.” Thomas Paine, founding father
“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.” Thomas Paine
Good luck Todd
September 29th, 2007 at 5:02 am
RvLeshrac
LOL, most of those are Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson. Hitler was a good Catholic boy, so I’d guess Jerry and Pat wouldn’t care much for him
September 29th, 2007 at 6:06 am
This is the closing summary of the ruling of the Third Circuit Court that struck down the “post-9/11″ law in PA requiring students to recite the Pledge:
The closing of the Third Circuit’s opinion expressed its belief “that most citizens of the United States willingly recite the Pledge of Allegiance a