FWIW, I still don’t see why it is such a big deal to recite “Under God” when you announce the pledge of allegiance. If you don’t believe God (whatever God that is or isn’t), just don’t say it. Likewise, if you do believe in God, and the phrase is not included, just say it- civil disobedience. Don’t the courts have better things to do?
At any rate, at least this gives the left a new way to be patriotic- now they can avoid saying the pledge of allegiance, and remember, dissent is patriotic!
Gary Farber
I don’t imagine I have any points you’ve not heard before, so I don’t expect to convince you, but it’s very simple: government is supposed to make no law either encouraging or discouraging specific religious beliefs.
“Under God” violates numerous religious beliefs, and the belief of those who have no religious beliefs. If you are Hindu, it violates your beliefs. If you are Shinto, it violates your beliefs. If you are animist, it violates your beliefs. If you are atheist, it violates your beliefs. Etc.
Government has no business establishing any belief whatever, pro or con, about “God,” “Satan,” “Brahma,” “Jesus,” a burning bush, “Allah,” or any other religious belief, including atheism.
Simply do the mental exercise of saying “What’s the big deal about reciting ‘under Satan’?” or substituting any other religious iconage that violates your belief — or substituting “… and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, declaring there is no God…” and let me know if you think that should be recited in every school every morning.
This is something government should stay out of, to *protect* religious freedom. This seems to me, incidentally, entirely compatible with a conservative/libertarian perspective.
John Cole
I am rapidly becoming convinced that I write with the least clarity of any blogger in the blogosphere.
My point was that it was not manadatory for a child to recite “Under God” then, it is not mandatory for someone to exclude “Under God” now. As to why the pledge was changed in the 50’s is beyond me.
Either way this comes out in court, individuals will be able to recite what they want the way they want it.
I understand the objections on both sides, and this will sound supremely irresponsible, but I just don’t care about this issue right now.
Gary Farber
It’s surely not in the top 100 most important problems facing America, to be sure.
And there are plenty of weird reactions all around. I’m particularly vexed by all the people upset at the idea of saying the Pledge without “under God,” and would like them to explain why this is important. When they do, I disagree, because the only reason they can give is that it’s important for children and adults to pledge allegiance “under God,” about which I’ve already said what I think, above.
That many school superintendents are eliminating the Pledge, rather than have children say it without “under God,” rather speaks to my point, I think, as to what matters to them, and how uncalled for this is.
As for how “under God” was inserted by Congress in 1954, the record is entirely clear on this: it was to display of “piety” meant to distinguish the US from the Godless Communists; there is no mystery about this, and it makes entirely clear the religious intent. The Pledge had gotten on fine for decades without those two words.
Maguzza
John — I got to your blog via the Hillbilly Sophisticate who said you are also a West Virginian (I haven
Aakash
We will always be:
“One Nation, Under God”
Forever!