Defending the Pledge and God
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.
Comments
What amazes me is that NOT ONE AMERICAN I have spoken to about the “under god” issue is aware of when those two silly words were added to the pledge, or that the original pledge was secular. Unfortunately, many Americans continue to buy into the 1950s, post-WW2, cold war, god is good and da commies is bad, capitalist party line. Americans need to grow up, get educated, and stop being a threat to freedom and world peace. We will very soon no longer be qualified to lead the world in anything except money, and that will eventually slip away as other nations become wealthy.
The pledge with a reference to god is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and should be rejected by those of us who value pluralism and liberty for ALL, not just members of the majority race/faith.
RELIGION IS FAIRY TALES FOR GROWNUPS (AND GROWNUPS SHOULD KNOW BETTER)
KEEP YOUR FAITH OUT OF MY LIFE, MY LAWS, AND MY CONSTITUTION
Dave the Wave
Very well said.
We will very soon no longer be qualified to lead the world in anything except money
Nope not even that….as of today
Yes, our house of cards financial system is in trouble. I’m starting to worry about bread lines and the like, here in the good ole’ U.S. of A.
And Dave’s right - that “under god” nonsense is pure McCarthyism, still alive after 50+ years. Sad.
The Pledge should be changed back to its original form.
To sit here and read that people are willing to nit-pick the two words “under god” is mind blowing. Now i’m not a christian but I am religious and I seem to be seeing a much larger picture than others. While you focus on a statement that if were just left alone and accepted, (Its not like you can’t get up in the morning because those two words are such a horrible part of society.),and start putting the focus on the things that do matter, we might become a little more tolerable as a society. So I guess my question is why can’t people just leave it alone? We are the most hated country in the world. Why do we constantly look for reasons to hate ourselves?
Would you say the same if the two words were “Under Jesus”? Why or why not?
Would you say the same if the two words were dropped and “white” were inserted before “nation”? That’s just one word, now. So, why or why not?
I’m sorry, but how is opposition to the insertion of “under God” an expression of hate towards anyone? On the other hand, attempting to define patriotism along such religious lines does suggest a level of animus towards those who do not share the necessary religious beliefs, so why not pose this question towards defenders of “under God”?
Indeed, I have to ask why you seem to think that it’s secularists and atheists who should just “live with it” and not others who should “live without it.”
Well lets face the facts. Its not that way. If the words “under god” were put in during or after ww2 then we have to look at the mindset of the people during that time. During traumatic experiences people sometimes look for something spiritual. Not put this psycological fact into the mix and we can understand why at a time of horrible tragedy things could change. Almost filling a hole for certain soldiers and families. Now I cant tell you one way or the other, because I don’t know, but I doubt people in the aftermath of the war were too concerned about these two words, more than the fact that they were still free to speak them.
When it comes to the hate you mentioned I can see how the difference in opinion leads to feelings of animosity towards one another. My belief is not yours so what you say cant be right. This is what were faced with in this debate. My question is why do people keep trying to make it sound so horrible on both sides. We should all just live with it because its obvious that the endless court battles and legal junk resolves in even more hatred towards all involved. We have bigger things on our plate that people should be focusing on. You’ve got to at least admit that.
Of course it’s not. I didn’t say it was. This is thought experiment to determine is your position is based on principles you apply consistently and fairly.
So can you answer the questions?
You don’t seem to know when exactly the words were added, which undermines the quality of your conclusion about it.
The words were in fact added in 1956, well after World War II was over. The addition of this phrase had absolutely nothing to do with WWII or with any traumas experienced during it.
In reality, the words were added in order to proclaim America as a God-fearing nation in contrast to the atheist Soviet Union. It was, very specifically, a rejection of secular atheism in favor of religious, Christian theism.
That is of course always possible in just about any disagreement, but you shouldn’t presume that it will happen or has happened without clear evidence.
For atheists, “under God” can sound like “under Jesus” may to non-Christian theists and “one White Nation” may to non-whites.
This is why I asked you those questions: do you treat bigotry and discrimination towards atheists like you would treat analogous bigotry and discrimination towards non-Christain theists and non-whites. If so, then at least you’re consistent; if not, then that suggests that your position derives in part from animus towards atheists on your own part.
Is it your position that no one should ever make challenges towards anything they think is unjust because that will lead to “endless court battles and legal junk” with “more hatred towards all involved”? If not, what is the threshold you have for when people should stand up to what their perceive as injustice and when should they just roll over and accept injustice done to them in order to avoid more hard feelings on others’ part?
The fact that there are other things to focus on doesn’t justifying ignoring this one. In point of fact, though, having this sort of bigotry against atheists written into the Pledge of Allegiance which is recited by children and adults every day for decades on end cannot possibly have no effect on people’s perception of atheists. If indeed things like this are part of what indoctrinates people into thinking that atheists cannot be patriotic or moral, then there are few issues that are more important for atheists.
Are you an atheist yourself? If not, don’t think you think it might be a bit presumptuous to tell atheists what should and should not be important for them?