Slashdot Mirror

The original pledge was a simple, non-religous creation of a Baptist minister.

The story of Bellamy reminds me of Roger Williams (my alma mater). The guy was a minister but was forced out of Salem because of his diverse, new, and dangerous opinions" that questioned the Church.

No, it was put there by christian fundamentalists first during the Civil War on coins and then on paper money during the 50s to try and force the notion upon the nation that it was founded on christian principles (which it wasn't). Read and learn.

Funny how the Founding Fathers, those bastions of christendom that the American Taliban likes to claim, overlooked putting those words on currency when they had the opportunity to do so, no?

Also, as far as the Pledge of Allegiance is concerned, because we all know that will be your next comment, it was developed by a Baptist Minister so that all persons, regardless of their religious persuasion, could pledge their allegiance to both the flag and Republic in a neutral manner. For a more thorough discussion, see this.

To add a bit to the posters thoughts on the Pledge of Allegiance and Francis Bellamy, please consider this page which does a good job of outlining the history of the Pledge and its creators thoughts.

Here's a quick link on the rather convoluted history of the Pledge.

We have the Democrats to thank for that one.

No, you have the Republicans to thank, since they are the ones who allowed the "under God" reference to be added in 1954. Congress passed it, but Eisenhower should have vetoed it. Since try, thank you for trolling.

If you'd rather move to the Middle East and live under a fascist government where everyone was forced to practice one religion, then be my guest. Personally, I've been to the Middle East, and I hope that America never models its religious practices after those of any nation in that region. But please, move there if you feel your religious beliefs will be trampled on too much by returning the pledge of allegiance to it's original verbage. The issue at hand here is whether or not people should have the belief in God forced on them; since America was founded on the principle of religious freedom, then the pledge, in its current form, should be voluntary. Just because a student isn't comfortable saying "under God" doesn't mean that they don't "proudly believe in the country and the flag", rather that they don't want to have religion forced down their throats (like in the Middle East). The constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"; by forcing students to say "under God", IMHO, they are making laws respecting the establishment of religion.

It's the same issue with the 10 Commandments monument in Alabama -- not that it was displayed in public, but because it was displayed in a government building. Any citizen could put a 10 Commandments monument on their front lawn and there would be no issue; however, when a member of the government puts the monument in the foyer of one of their courthouses, that is indicative of sponsorship of the Christian religion, and that is wrong, since America is not solely a Christian nation.

"You know what the real reason for this is? Anally retentive pricks who have to have the world shaped their way"

I'll bet you'd feel differently if the phrase was "one nation, under Allah". Just a guess. But then I guess that might make you a hypocrite...

of course the original pledge (without 'under god') was written at the turn of the century by a christian-socialist minister .... the original "one nation, indivisible" was not liked in the South which is one reason why "under God" was snuck in to break it up

If you think that the government is telling you how to have a good relationship with your deity through the two words "under God," I would be interested in hearing the logic behind that belief. You've already made the assumption that the God referred to in the prepositional phrase "under God" is the same God that millions of Americans pay lip service to and yet refuse to associate with in any other way.

Actually, in 1954, Congress added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance (see this), and it is doubtful that everyone involved in that decision believed in any deity at all, much less the same God you're picturing the government as promoting. If you're worried that the government is promoting the God of the Bible, rest assured -- they aren't. Perhaps they were (collectively) when the two words were first added to the Pledge of Allegiance. Perhaps.

If you really want to know God, go to the source. Pick up a Bible, and make your own decision.

Pledge of Allegiance: One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all...

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty, equality and justice for all.

It is interesting, given that the founders of our country picked no bones about having no such separation. In fact, the Declaration of Independence talks about the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and of the need for its direct influence on manmade government.

Our currency carries our motto, "In God we Trust!"

Our pledge states that we are a nation indivisible "under God"

Is it moral and upright to take a growing child and pervert them in a way that doesn't allow them to live a normal life or not? And God's law says it isn't.

And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that
cometh out of man, in their sight...Then he [the Lord] said unto me, Lo, I
have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread
therewith. -Ezek. 4:12-15

It is disappointing that so many of the TV news accounts this evening ignore the 1954 amendment, and falsely state that the pledge has contained the "Under God" wording for more than a century.

I have always been uncomfortable -- at least since the seventh grade -- saying those two words. More recently, as someone educated in the law (yes, I am a lawyer) and as someone who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, I do not believe that our Constitution places our country "under God" but expressly separates church and state. There were earlier cases prohibiting schools from compelling students to recite the pledge or salute the flag if it conflicted with their religious beliefs (for example, some religious groups refuse to salute the flag because they view the flag as a "graven image" (false idol) prohibited by the Second Commandment).

This case, like the school prayer cases, revolved around the implied endorsement, pressure, and stigma involved when the pledge and its "under God" language are recited in public classrooms.

To be honest, I've never understood why anyone thinks it is appropriate to demand that school children (many of them non-citizens), pledge allegiance to the "flag," as this helps reinforce the belief that if someone is waving the flag, we must blindly follow them, and criticizing the flag-waver is somehow "un-American." Even in this "revolutionary" ruling, the court did not prohibit schools from having a flag-salute ceremony that includes reciting a "pledge of allegiance to the flag" without the "under God" language.

Unfortunately, there is little doubt among legal scholars, or in my mind, that an "en banc" panel of the 9th Circuit will reverse this ruling, or if they do not, then the U.S. Supreme Court will gladly reverse it. As my former Constitutional Law professor (Boalt Hall's Jesse Choper) said in several TV interviews today, the Supreme Court will certainly view this language as "too small" to be worth ruling invalid -- oddly enough, arguably consistent with the Court's repeated hints that in order for Congress to prohibit flag-burning, it must first decide if the flag will be the "one thing" that they will prohibit desecrating (and Congressmen have too many sacred cows that they won't sacrifice to that trivial issue).

The most disappointing thing about the "person on the street" interviews I saw on the news today, is that the questions posed by the newspersons were about "making it illegal for children to recite the pledge of allegiance," which is not what the ruling said. Why can't people understand the difference between censoring people who want to recite the pledge without state compulsion (free speech) and the state compelling someone to say something that they do not believe, in direct contradiction to the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses of the first amendment -- or regulating people's beliefs or speech (which is what Congress was really trying to do in 1954, to oppose the "Godless communists" and reinforce the widespread belief that you must believe in "the One God" to be a "real" American)?

Note that I have no objection that members of my local Rotary Club recite the pledge (including the "under God" language) and one of our members is asked to say a prayer each week -- I can respect the decision of the majority of a private club's members on these points, though that when we recited the pledge during a visit by two dozen guests from our Mexican "sister city," some of our guests were visibly uncomfortable. (For a year or more, our Rotary Club had a humorous running debate about how long the pause should be before "under God.") Some weeks, the prayer is expressly Christian, once it was explicitly Muslim, most weeks it is quite generic, and occasionally, it is a non-religious statement or "thought.")

On another list, someone wrote:
> The founders of this country -- or whoever -- were quite right not to include that phrase in the "Pledge of Allegiance" originally. <

The reference to "the founders" jarred me, because I had thought the Pledge of Allegiance was created after the civil war (hence the "indivisible" language).

Apparently, we were both wrong: according to "A Short History of the Pledge of Allegiance" ( http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.ht m ), the pledge was written (apparently by a Socialist, no less) in 1892. Of course, that's just what someone said on a web page. See also http://www.google.com/search?q=+history+%22pledge+ of+allegiance%22+under+God+indivisible