God in the Pledge of Allegiance..

[Jack]

Insisting on eliminating God from the pledge is a form of religious persecution.

So was putting it in the pledge in 1954 an act of christian oppression?

[RickSp]

Quote by: rhod01 They were both very authoritarian in government, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Are we referring to the same Jefferson and Washington?

[Fonceai]

Quote by: RickSp You obviously have no idea what "establishment" means. Whatever.

I do know what it means. Admit that on this point you can't argue that Atheism is an establishment of religion. It isn't. Therefore, citing SoCaS does not apply.

Quote by: Kamehameha So you think that it is ok because it only offends theistical minorities?

Your very statement is contradictory. If those minorities are "theistical" then they are not offended by the inclusion of the word God.

Quote by: Kamehameha I actually know several logically thinking Christians that believe in a completely secular government.

Now you know one more. I also think any religious reference should be eliminated from government. I don't think you should have to swear "so help me God" or swear on a Bible in court. And I do think that the way SoCaS is worded, that gov't has to either say all or none in religious issues, is correct. Completely secular.

Quote by: Isherwood So was putting it in the pledge in 1954 an act of christian oppression?

In short, I think it was Theistic oppression.

To elaborate, I think it was an attempt to put something in the pledge so anti-Communist that a truly loyal Communist that somehow "threatened" the U.S. gov't wouldn't be able to say the words.

It was unfair to patriotic Americans who did not believe in God.

But now that it's there, and has been there for going on three generations, it isn't possible to remove it.

[Jack]

it isn't possible to remove it.

Nothing's impossible when dealing with humans, even politicians. If the action was well enough explained so as to make sense to the majority of Americans, it could be removed. Maybe a conservative desire to return to an earlier, simpler government. Not all radical decisions are made by radicals.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Fonceai Buddhism? Check this... Is Buddhism a religion? It's short, and gets right to the point. They believe in the concept of God.

From wikipedia:
"Buddhist cosmology recognizes various levels and types of gods, but none of these gods is considered the creator of the world or of the human race."

Buddhism does recognise the existence of Gods (again, notice the pleural and subsequent incompatibility with the pledge). However, they do not believe that there is an omnipotent creator and therefore the phrase "under God" does not apply to their religion.

Quote by: Fonceai Hinduism? It still acknowledges their belief in deities.

In the case of Hinduism, the fact that they worship multiple Gods is crucial. The pledge specifically states God in the singular and hence is not applicable to Hinduism.

Quote by: Fonceai I do know what it means. Admit that on this point you can't argue that Atheism is an establishment of religion. It isn't. Therefore, citing SoCaS does not apply.

Nobody was claiming that Atheism is an establishment of religion. However, placing a reference to God in the pledge certainly is an establishment of religion. Rick's point (which you failed to address) was that the 1st amendment was with regards to any establishment or religion; not the preferential treatment of one religion over another.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Isherwood Nothing's impossible when dealing with humans, even politicians.

I do agree with you that if it were explained why it was initially put in, people would be more open to seeing it removed.

@Bacon

The plural Gods is not contradictory to the pledge at all. You want it to be, but it really isn't. It's an acknowledgement of theism, poly or mono, in order to annoy Communists.

Quote by: Bacon Guy Rick's point (which you failed to address) was that the 1st amendment was with regards to any establishment or religion; not the preferential treatment of one religion over another.

Actually, no. You're dead wrong.

That section regarding the separation of church and state is a specific reference to avoiding events like the British religious persecution and the Spanish Inquisition.

I addressed his point correctly, accurately, and flawlessly.

He misquoted the section of the amendment, then tried to imply that Atheism was included in that section's consideration.

I corrected his misquotation, then showed why Atheism does not classify as an establishment of religion, and why suppressing Atheism is not preventing free expression of Atheism, if that's the tack he chose to take.

[samsara15]

I don't think a nation of supposedly free people should have a loyalty oath. In any case, repeating the oath doesn't make anyone any more or less loyal. A traitor obviously would not hesitate to say the oath. So what does the oath accomplish? It's just a form of coercion.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: The Architect Do you think the word "god" should stay in the Pledge. Its been that way for years, I'm fine with it. What about you guys??

As long as those who wish to edit out with silence, or quietly edit in their own deity, are allowed the freedom to do so, it doesn't bother me that much... personally. It doesn't belong there. Whose God? What about those faiths who find just using God's name offensive, or use a different moniker? What flavor of God are we refering to? Seems to be so bland, if I were a Fundie, I'd find it as offensive as some atheists, more liberal theists, deists and agnostics.

We are not a "Christian" nation, although one could argue we are a nation of Christians, for now... although that statistic may be changing as you read this rant. This is an important distinction. Once we decide we are a Christian nation then why bother voting? We would be, petty much by definition, a theocracy. Maybe some folks out there like that idea, I say "no thanks." Most theocracies, by their very nature, are oppressive when you're not the same flavor theist favored by those in power.

[Kamehameha34]

Fon, I didn't intend for you to respond to my wording of "theistical minorities"..

[Fonceai]

Meh, okay.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Fonceai The plural Gods is not contradictory to the pledge at all. You want it to be, but it really isn't. It's an acknowledgement of theism, poly or mono, in order to annoy Communists.

Hindus believe that they are under many Gods. The pledge states that they are under one God. That is a direct contradiction to their beliefs. What part of that don’t you agree with?

And Buddhists don’t believe that they are under any Gods at all. Contradictory to the pledge.

And what if I were to start a religion in which Gods do not exist in any form? Contradictory to the pledge.

Quote by: Fonceai Actually, no. You're dead wrong. That section regarding the separation of church and state is a specific reference to avoiding events like the British religious persecution and the Spanish Inquisition. I addressed his point correctly, accurately, and flawlessly. He misquoted the section of the amendment, then tried to imply that Atheism was included in that section's consideration.

The misquote was irrelevant. The implication was not that atheists were a specifically protected group, but that anything regarding establishment of religion is prohibited by the constitution. This means that the government does not involve itself in the enforcement, moderation or promotion of religious beliefs of any sort. To have any reference to religion in the pledge is unconstitutional, since it is promoting religious belief. The fact that you think it is not promoting one religion over any other is irrelevant. It is the promotion of religion and is therefore unconstitutional.

[Fonceai]

And if you bothered to comprehend what you read before you choose to argue, you would find that I made a point to write, in response to Isherwood and even earlier, that I would have been opposed to putting "under God" in the pledge.

It's amazing how some people, you in this case, choose to ignore the parts where someone agrees with you.

The other thing you seem to miss is the wording of the pledge itself, which I too forgot until just now.

"...one nation, under God, indivisible..."

The inclusion of "under God" implies that we have "divine support" in this country.

That's all.

Regardless of what my personal opinion is about the presence of those words in the pledge, I still hold that removing those words will trigger a very adamant response from the majority of the country.

[Osborn F Enready]

The word "God", has no place in our pledge of allegiance.

Why?

A Short History by Dr. John W. Baer Copyright 1992 by Dr. John W. Baer See also Pledge Questions and Answers Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex. The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston. In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.' His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ] Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.' In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored. In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer. Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there. What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge: It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people... The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future? Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...

For more information about the history of the Pledge, be sure to also read the three online chapters of The Pledge of Allegiance, A Centennial History, 1892 - 1992 by Dr. Baer:

The Youth's Companion's Pledge
American Socialists and Reformers
For answers to frequently asked questions about the Pledge and/or for a book order form for this six chapter book, please see Pledge Questions and Answers

[Fonceai]

Always nice to see someone post a link, then the entire article in the link, and not saying anything of their own. Par for the course from you, Osborn.

Why do you find that article to be relevant?

[gallo]

Quote by: Fonceai Separation of Church and State means no preference is shown to a specific religion.

Limited, and therefore incorrect, thinking.

Quote by: Fonceai The concept of God, the word in its neutral form, is a perfect example of church and state. It shows no preference to any one religion.

But it does show a preference toward religion in general.

Quote by: Fonceai Atheism is not included in SoCaS.

Yes, it is.

Quote by: Fonceai Quote by: RickSp The language is clear, "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion.." Not "no law benefitting a specific religion". "No law regarding the establishment of religion." Period. First of all, you misquoted...

Although his quote is incorrect, his meaning is much closer to the intent of the Establishment Clause.

Quote by: Fonceai You are basing your argument off a gross misquotation.

And you are basing yours "off a" gross misunderstanding.

Quote by: Fonceai The point SoCaS is that gov't can't show bias for or against one religion compared to another.

Again incorrect because of misunderstanding of the meaning of the words.
Buddhism?

Quote by: Fonceai Atheism is not an "establishment of religion".

True. But not the meaning of the phrase "...respecting an establishment of religion."

Quote by: Fonceai Therefore, Atheism is not regarded in SoCaS.

So, according to you, Americans do not have the right to not worship some deity?

Quote by: Fonceai Quote by: RickSp You obviously have no idea what "establishment" means. Whatever. I do know what it means.

The meaning you are using is incorrect.

Quote by: Fonceai Admit that on this point you can't argue that Atheism is an establishment of religion. It isn't. Therefore, citing SoCaS does not apply.

But I don't think that he is arguing that atheism is an establishment of religion. You are raising a straw man, perhaps because you fail to understand what the 1st Amendment means.

Quote by: Fonceai I don't think you should have to swear "so help me God" or swear on a Bible in court.

But you don't have to. What country do you live in? In my country, the 1st Amendment forbids that I be required to take an oath, use the Bible, or the words "...so help me God." in court or elsewhere.

Quote by: Fonceai Actually, no. You're dead wrong.

Actually, he's not. He is much more correct than you.

Quote by: Fonceai I addressed his point correctly, accurately, and flawlessly.

Unless you consider misunderstanding to be a flaw.

Quote by: Fonceai He misquoted the section of the amendment, then tried to imply that Atheism was included in that section's consideration.

He did more than try to imply that atheism is included. He is correct.

Quote by: Fonceai I corrected his misquotation, then showed why Atheism does not classify as an establishment of religion, and why suppressing Atheism is not preventing free expression of Atheism, if that's the tack he chose to take.

But he didn't take that tack. The tack that he did correctly take is that you fail to understand the meaning of the phrase "...an establishment of religion." He is correct.

Some pertinent sections from Emanuel, Stephen L. Constitutional Law 2005. Aspen Publishers, New York. 756 pages.

The main purpose of the Establishment Clause is to prevent the government from endorsing or supporting religion.

...the government must stay out of the business of religion,...

Congress cannot establish an "official religion of the United States".

The above is, by the way, the meaning of "...an establishment of religion..." It does not refer to one of the "established" churches. The Establishment Clause forbids Congress from passing laws that would establish religion.

In general, the Establishment Clause forbids government favor of one religion over another, as well as favor of religion for non-religion. Thus, atheists are also protected by the 1st Amendment in that they cannot be required to worship. The concept that the Establishment Clause only applies to established churches is exceedingly narrow and incorrect. The Supreme Court has always interpreted the meaning more broadly. For example, the Court has said that three things must all be true of laws: 1) they must have a secular legislative purpose, 2) the primary effect must not be to advance religion, 3) they may not foster excessive governmental entanglement with religion.

By the way, I refer you to Article II, clause 8 of the Constitution where you will find the text of the only oath or affirmation of office specified in the Constitution. You will note that it does not include the words, "so help me God." Also note that the President may affirm rather than swear.

Also note that in Article VI, clause 3 that it says, "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." This is the only mention of religion in the Constitution and was the reason that the Christian Churches objected to the ratification of the document as "godless." In other words, not based on christian principles.

From my experience, courts do not use the Bible and do not use the words "so help me God" in administering the oath to jurors. Jurors may also opt to affirm rather than swear. I have known others who refused the Bible when presented, and refused to say "so help me god." The court was happy to accommodate since the legal concept of perjury has nothing to do with god or the Bible.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: RickSp Will someone, anyone explain to me why we need a loyalty oath in a free society in the first place?

Heh:) ...I'm with you. I've always found the pledge to be a little...off. I don't say it. It's weird to me to declare my undying loyalty and love to a piece of cloth. It has occurred to me in the past that that is kinda like idolatry.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: Always nice to see someone post a link, then the entire article in the link, and not saying anything of their own. Par for the course from you, Osborn.

I say:
As are your derogatory comments toward me, which are becoming tiring, simply because YOU don't like my posting format.

Fonceai said: Why do you find that article to be relevant?

I say:
What is speaks of directly, which is the history of the pledge, why it was created, and why the WRITER wouldn't have supported the word God being in it.

Why should I expound with opinion, when facts do much better work of the quest intended, which is to DETERMINE if God should be in the pledge?

The answer is clearly no, it shouldn't, and it was clearly a move to "sway" public perception of God in all forms, when it was introduced in 1954.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Fonceai And if you bothered to comprehend what you read before you choose to argue, you would find that I made a point to write, in response to Isherwood and even earlier, that I would have been opposed to putting "under God" in the pledge.

I am aware of that and consequently never disputed it.

It's amazing how some people, you in this case, choose to ignore the parts where someone agrees with you.

Of course I ignore the parts we agree on. This is a debate forum and my posts are therefore relating to the issues on which we disagree. Other than inconsequential niceness, nothing is achieved by sitting around agreeing with each other. If you want to discuss something about which we both feel the same, feel free. But before we start licking each other's balls, how about we address the issues on which there is actually a debate?

Quote by: Fonceai The other thing you seem to miss is the wording of the pledge itself, which I too forgot until just now. "...one nation, under God, indivisible..." The inclusion of "under God" implies that we have "divine support" in this country. That's all.

Whatever you feel it implies, it is still unconstitutional.

Quote by: Fonceai Regardless of what my personal opinion is about the presence of those words in the pledge, I still hold that removing those words will trigger a very adamant response from the majority of the country.

You're probably right. However, some of us think fairness, justness and upholding the values on which the US, and indeed the pledge itself, is based is more important than placating the hypocritical majority.

[underbear1]

If we are going to pledge our loyalty in God's name, it seems reasonable that the names of those Gods & Goddesses all be listed in the Pledge, otherwise it seems disrespectful to the diety(s).

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Gallo From my experience, courts do not use the Bible and do not use the words "so help me God" in administering the oath to jurors. Jurors may also opt to affirm rather than swear. I have known others who refused the Bible when presented, and refused to say "so help me god." The court was happy to accommodate since the legal concept of perjury has nothing to do with god or the Bible.

In New York State, they do. I will cede that it depends on the range of the court; Federal, State, etc. as to what they require.

Quote by: gallo The above is, by the way, the meaning of "...an establishment of religion..." It does not refer to one of the "established" churches.

No, you are wrong.

My wife is taking a course in School Law right now, and it makes it very clear as to what SoCaS means.

I'm sorry, but all of this disagreement is stupid because I read it directly from a Federal School Law textbook.

It's simple.

"respecting an establishment or religion" means that it can hold no religion higher than another; it can show no preference for.

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." means that it can hold no religion below another; it can show no preference against.

I can give you case upon case where the Supreme Court followed that exact line of reasoning.

Quote by: gallo The Establishment Clause forbids Congress from passing laws that would establish religion.

This is tied into to "respecting an establishment of religion". Passing laws based on a specific religious doctrine is akin to establishing a state religion. That's why Bush's speeches about Christian values are Constitutionally illegal.

Quote by: gallo But it does show a preference toward religion in general.

I've said that very same thing in the post from which you quoted me. Were you trying to cite disagreement or correct me on something which I already acknowledged and, in fact, said I thought shouldn't have been done?

Court Decisions - Newdow v. U.S. Congress (2002): Pledge of Allegiance, Under God

I happen to agree 100% with the reasoning behind this article.

To address the rest of your one-liner responses, consider the following points which I am making:

1. Adding "under God" to the pledge was unconstitutional because it added religion to the lives of Americans. It was wrong to do that.

2. Atheists cannot cite SoCaS to have "under God" removed from the pledge, because doing so would be a violation of SoCaS in the "opposite" direction.

3. From a legal perspective, it can be argued that "under God" respects established religions that have some concept of God/Gods. Therefore, Buddhists and Hindus cannot say "under God" violates their religion.

Also, even if the polytheistic or non-theistic religions had a valid case, the government can do nothing "respecting an establishment of religion" over another. They can't make changes just to make the Buddhists and Hindus happy.

---

Now, whether or not you like or even agree with what I am presenting, starting at point #1 and continuing to just above the ---, the fact remains that all of it is accurate according to the Constitution of the U.S.

Don't forget, just because I know and present the actual legitimate legal perspective doesn't mean I like it.

As I wrote, I don't think it should have been added in the first place. That's the reason w