Defending the Pledge and God

As I have noted more than once, people who defend the Pledge of Allegiance — either generally or the inclusion of "under God" specifically — tend to do so in a way that only ends up providing good reasons to disagree with them. I’m not sure if this is because they are ignorant of the issues or simply don’t care and hope that their readers are the ignorant ones. Either way, though, it suggests that one of the best ways to argue against retaining "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is to encourage apologists to write and talk as much as possible.

A couple of years ago, Betty Montgomery wrote:

This pledge is recited daily by millions of school children and others, but it is more than just a statement to be mindlessly repeated without thought or reflection. The Pledge of Allegiance teaches our children at an early age the importance of patriotism to the United States.

Source: Internet Infidels

Well, then, maybe it shouldn’t be required of children to recite it mindlessly and without thought or reflection? If Betty Montgomery and others are really just concerned with teaching the importance of patriotism, how does defending "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance help them accomplish that goal?

The phrase "under God" emphasizes another principle of importance to our founding fathers. It is a simple statement of faith and hope for many people of all cultures and faiths.

It’s nice of Betty Montgomery to explain so clearly why the phrase “under God” is unconstitutional. As a statement of faith (specifically, a statement of religious faith in the existence of a particular sort of deity that has a particular sort of relationship with America), it’s obviously not something that the government has the authority to endorse or promote.

It wouldn’t matter how many religions might find it acceptable, it remains outside the boundaries of legitimate government practice. Moreover, Betty Montgomery is simply wrong to say that a political expression of religious faith in a particular god is a statement of "faith" or "hope" for people in all cultures and all religions. The idea that America is "under God" is contrary to the religious beliefs of others, not just contrary to the secularism of American government.

The concept of a higher power has a rightful and recurring place in our nation's history.

Not, however, in our government — as I stated above, it’s not in the government’s authority to endorse belief in any sort of higher power, much less a specific higher power with whom we Americans are suppose to have a specific relationship. Belief in this particular god with these particular qualities does have a place in America's history — and not always a very good place, given how much harm has been caused by religious nationalism — a but having place in a nation’s history does not mean that the government should be encouraging people today to accept it.

Phrases such as "under God" and "With God all things are possible" simply provide a positive message about our nation, our state, our past and our future -- all while respectfully acknowledging a sentiment that people of all faiths can embrace.

Actually, no, they aren’t sentiments that people of all faiths embrace. This is a “pious lie“ spread by theocrats in order to justify their attempts to get the government to promote their religion. Moreover, they are far more than just as “positive message.” As Betty Montgomery herself readily admits, they are statements of faith. As such, they have no place in government — much less in affirmations of patriotism. They are only defended by theocrats, whether open theocrats or closeted theocrats.