Slashdot Mirror

Clearly written in the Constitution.

And one of the posts below is absolutely correct, the Christian connotations were added in the 50's for Cold War propaganda as we were not "Godless Communists." IMHO, that change turned the Pledge into a prayer not something Patriotic. Our Founding Fathers would probably be sick to their stomachs if they knew of the influence of religion in our government...they would remember all to easily the unchecked power it threw around in England before people left to come to America.

This basic principle of freedom of religion is non-existent if you force Muslim children, Hindu children, Buddhist children, and all the rest to have to listen to a Christian prayer much less recite it. This is why Church and State are supposed to be separated! Government has no business forcing or influencing personal belief upon any of it's citizens. Make it Patriotic again and it might lose a majority of the backing to force it upon people.

Then again, why force people to recite it not like we have a huge wall around our country to force people to stay here and we need to build false security making people speak words that could be hollow to them...

I agree it's quite a balancing act that the government has to do, and I think in this case the best solution is to not mention religion at all. In the case of vouchers there's no choice but to deal with religion in some way because there are plenty of religious schools out there that give the same level of education as secular schools so there is a valid issue regarding vouchers. With the pledge, there's really no need to bring up religion either way.

you godless chink.

if I've got both sides of the argument straight.

Arguments for retaining the present "under God" pledge:
1) This issue isn't worth our time even considering.
2) Our "God" really encompasses all belief systems.
3) What's wrong with all you godless commies!

Arguments for reimplementing the original pledge:
1) It adheres to the Constitution's separation of church and state.
2) In its neutrality, it is fair to all belief systems.

Perhaps I missed something, but I've not heard a single pro "under God" argument that wasn't a shallow knee-jerk reaction. Here's a clue. If someone's so insecure about their belief system that loosing two words rattles their world, maybe they've got larger issues.

However, I'm not surprised at the resistence I've seen towards this inevitable reversal to the original pledge. Afterall, I can imagine how hard it must be to stand true to the political ideal of religious indifference when one believes so strongly in their "one true religion".

If X% of the population were Hindu, and Y% were atheist, then should we require the Christian majority to recite the pledge with "one nation under Vishnu" X% of the time and "one godless nation" Y% ? Or, does the majority get 100% ? Maybe that is why there is a first amendment.

And every congressional session since the time that phrase was hammered out has begun with the members joining together in prayer to the God of the Bible. This tradition, which dates back to continental congresses and even state colonial governments, was made official practice in the national legislature when Benjamin Franklin, whom many here allege to have been a Deist, made this motion:

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire cannot rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that, 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest."

"I therefore beg leave to move - that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."

- The Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787

"Service"! A religious service in the Capitol before each session?! He didn't even request that the service be non-sectarian. Today, the utterance of a vague, universalistic prayer at a football game is seen by some as unconstitutional! It really goes to show how this generation's perception is totally out of whack with the founders' intent.

George Washington, our first President, "Father of the Country," and general in the Revolutionary War, affirmed, "It is impossible to govern without God and the Bible." This is a belief that has held us together through thick and thin. It defines what an American is.

In his Farewell Address on 1796, President George Washington said,

"The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes."

This first leader of the country also said, "Do not let any one claim to be a true American if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics." He was not an extremist among Americans. I should point out that General Washington was elected unanimously to the presidency without contest. Nobody wanted to run against him. No secular faction rose up to oppose him. Nobody had any gripes about this man whom today would be railed against by the Left as being a radical right-wing religious fascist zealot Crusader (did I miss anything?). He was actually reluctant to take the office, but the country would not consider anyone else.

Here is the meaning of the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment as given by The Capitol: A Pictorial History (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979)

Faith in the transcendent, sovereign God was in the public philosophy - the American consensus. America's story opens with the first words of the Bible, 'In the beginning God . . .' We are truthfully one nation 'under God' and our

at least the most pressing crisis of the day, that of their nasty, godless relations to the south.

Yes, Isabella reluctantly bid Columbus set sail the day after the last of the Jews had [officially anyway] been expelled from Cordoba.

Just imagine; if Spain had decided that sending out ships to raid the spice islands was of higher priority than exterminating the Moors from Spain, how much different Europe and the world might be today, with a vital tradition of both Jewish and Moslem culture in the mediterranean.

Perhaps some argument can be made, that sending all our effort into exploration and discovery is a better strategy than beating up on our neighbors and solving other domestic disputes, but history seems to favor the latter.

No, I think that it does promote religion.

That being said, the government can't manage to avoid doing anything that might conceivably promote religion. E.g. it cannot discriminate against religious schools in limiting the scope of an otherwise generally applicable voucher program. It might be said that it promotes religion when it does that, but if it is of general applicability, it's likely less of a colorable discrimination in favor of than failing to extend it to them would be definate discrimination against.

It's not easy to maintain the balance of neither favoring nor _disfavoring_ religion.

But America == democracy so if the majority wants God in the government and in public areas then shutup about it. Congressmen pray all the time before meetings and no one has a problem with it. For some reason some school systems have problems with kids leading their OWN prayer within the school. This is a free world. Kids can pray anywhere and anytime they want. Where is the freedom of religion in that? Well? It's little people like you that are somehow able to persuade courts to make landmark decisions instead of letting the public vote on it when the majority still wants it.

You have a wacked out view of bringing God into the situation. He is a headstone just like a father is to his family. It does not hurt that he is there. If you think having a public acceptance of God is bad then you have bigger issues to solve in your "personal and political world" outside the rest of society. It's always amazing to me how a Godless society is defended by people like you. He helps our personal lives and yet for some reason having a public acceptance of him is somehow disrespectful of ourselves? What's the difference between acceptance in public and in private? If anyone is disrespected it's Him because people like you are afraid of letting other people know you accept him. And no, the issue isn't making an active attempt to let other people know God is your God but it doesn't mean you should be afraid to admit it either. Terrorists don't have any problem letting us know they respect Allah. Are you ashamed of God?

Indeed. Are you denying that the change that inserted "under god" into the pledge respected an establishment of religion, especially in light of what the people responsible for the change said at the time?

Don't get me wrong; the government has absolutely no right to prevent people from worshipping any god or gods that they choose. But it cannot promote religion in any way. I don't see how any one can honestly claim that that an official government pledge that claims that a god exists and that this country is subject to said god does not promote religion.

Eric Bamberg
Atheist

The idea that the Constitution includes something referring to "Separation of Church and State" is somewhat false.

The Constitution was written by our primarily Christian forefathers and is founded upon Judao-Christian beliefs and morals. The founders and settlers of this country were primarily persecuted Christians and as such the Declaration of Independence, Common Law of the time, and the Constitution were all founded upon the beliefs, both moral and religious, of the same.

The purpose of the First Amendment is two fold (for this discussion we're not including free speech, etc., only the religious parts) and was written for specific reasons. The framers and founders had just fought a war with a country and king that forced religion down their throats. England had established a State church (the Church of England), and anyone who said or did anything against that church was, to some extent (and often to a severe extent), persecuted. Europe had a long history of religious wars. Therefore the Constitution was written to prevent this from happening again in this new country. The Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a State run or sanctioned church - the establishment clause. However, the framers were Christians (primarily) and as such believed in religious freedom.

This belief in religious freedom brings us to the second purpose of the First Amendment: It guarantees the freedom to partake or not to partake in any religion as each individual sees fit - the free exercise clause. In other words, the government will neither shove religion of any kind down the throats of the People, nor will it prohibit religion of any kind from the people, however that religious freedom is not absolute.

Therefore, constitutionally, the government can pass no law that either supports nor denies any religion. On the contrary, the government must, constitutionally, avoid involvement in religion. That said, should the morals that this country was built upon be removed from government as well, because after all they are based upon religious morals? If those morals are removed, where does that leave us as a country? If one person wants to say "...under God...", should that person be prohibited, and if another wants to leave it out, should they be prohibited? Both cases are a violation of the First Amendment, of not only the establishment clause, but also of the freedom of exercise clause and the free speech clause.

PGA

P.S. - While writing this I noticed a post by someone claiming that most of the early settlers were godless, etc. First of all, the reference in the Pledge and the most of the discussion involves God, not god. There is a big difference. Second, most of the early settlers were Christians, not heathens.

Well, it might work better to post all of the relevant parts of the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Which means, basically, that the government shall not promote religion, but nor shall it impair religion. The best way for government to accomplish this is to stay the hell away from religious matters, and not to discriminate on behalf of any religion (establishment) or against any religion (free exercise).

Seperation of church and state is a decent way to describe this.

But there's certainly no need for anyone to make a pledge like this anyway - the US isn't a feudal society requiring an oath of fealty to participate, as much as the current Presidential dynasty and Attorney General might like. It's a modern democracy - come buy a house or rent an apartment or sleep under a bridge, and understand that if you break the laws you might get thrown in jail. All the rest of it's decoration imposed by Congress and the bureaucracies. Most of my ancestors got here before the current government did, but the one or two latecomers still arrived before the potato famine, and there wasn't any of that nonsense needed, though later on you probably had to register with some county or town clerk if you wanted to vote.

And as far as making kids affirm every day that they're going to obey some piece of cloth and the government that claims to own it, well, that was pretty silly back when that socialist minister Francis Bellamy wrote it and started promoting it, and it was an internationalist thing - he was pretty torqued in 1923 when it was Americanized, because that wasn't what he'd had in mind at all, and his daughter also objected in the 1950s when the Red Scare folks added "Under God" to add the trappings of religion to the evils of nationalism in opposition to those Godless Commies.

Its not a Pledge, its a Loyalty Oath. A dinosaur left over from the Macarthy era. Under God = anti Godless Communism. In the view of Macarthy and his followers, anyone refusing to publicly pledge loyalty to the Unted States of America was an enemy. Since communism is now defunct, the current crop of rightwingers uses Terrorism as its bogeyman. The rhetoric of the early 50's and the language of Ashcroft, Bush, et al. is very similar

The important constituational phrase is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The law they passed to change the pledge was just that. This is not rocket science; it is self-evident. Read what the President said when he signed the law if you have any doubts.

Your desperate attempt to link Atheism with the Soviet Union was particularly pathetic and would probably work better in a Christian discussion board than it does here.

Eric Bamberg
Atheist

In Soviet Russia, you are separated from the church.

A 22 word prayer, crafted by the New York State Board of Regents, was read aloud daily in public school classrooms. Student participation was voluntary. On June 25, 1962, the Court ruled the Regents' prayer unconstitutional.

In a public school, I cannot lead a group prayer, even voluntarily. Prayer must be seperate from the school. ... Despite what the all-knowing michael says, evidently after 0 minutes of research, there ARE LAWS AGAINST VOLUNTARY PRAYER.

The founders were very careful not to inject God into the discourse and founding principles, and to carefully protect the public from any hint of state mandated religion. After all, many had no respect for organized religion and Thomas Paine was, as Roosevelt said, "a dirty little atheist."

If you've ever read anything about the history of the time, you'd know that the country was founded by a collection of religious freaks and social rebels, both of whom objected to a 'state religion' as was the law under British Rule.

It was thanks to the recognition of the suffering of the Shakers and Puritans and Quakers and all the other freaks that ran from or were chased out by the Church of England that separation of church and state is enshrined in the constitution.

Reading the writings of our Founding Fathers you will find they tend to refer to "Nature has made" rather than "God has made," and often direct condemnations.

And while you pay lip service to the concept, it's a tortured argument to ascribe "freedom from religion" to objections about the pledge. Nobody is suggesting that religion be stripped from the public discourse, just as the "prayer in school" arguments are predicated on and propagated by bizarre and dissonant misrepresentation: anyone can pray in school, to any deity they want, but the teacher cannot force the children to pray nor by coercive pressure outcast a child. Evangelicals will never comprehend the reason for this, but more rational people will have little trouble seeing the parallel: if you're a devout Christian, would you want your children reciting satanic prayers? Do unto others...

Unfortunately the Christian fundamentalists choose to interpret their savior's guiding principle as "if I were a heathen, would I want an Evangelical to force me to see The Path and strip me of my culture - of course I would!"

The courts have been fairly good about this, they've never in any way blocked private expressions of religious fervor, nor have they blocked, for example, any student's private practice. What they've done is tread very carefully a fine line of blocking any actions which might be perceived as state sanction of a particular religion. This is entirely in keeping with what you claim to understand: freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

In the case of the paean to God in the pledge of allegiance, its nothing more than a bizarre anti-communist cold war brain fart has been loosed in our society by the Knights of Columbus, and it's stench has wafted from decade to decade. This is not the work of our Founding Fathers, but a modern insertion in 1954 by McCarthyites to emphasize a Christian distinction between us and the Godless Communists. It was ill conceived then and obsolete now.

By deleting it we will restore our Great Nation to the Guiding Principles of the Founding Fathers: Freedom OF Religion, and to the original intent of the pledge. Bellamy's own writings indicate he would have fought the insertion of a prayer into his pledge, which he fought to include an appeal to equality, unfortunately most state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagate

1954 Worried that orations used by "godless communists" sound similar to the Pledge of Allegiance, religious leaders lobby lawmakers to insert the words "under God" into the pledge. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, fearing an atomic war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, joins the chorus to put God into the pledge. Congress does what he asks, and the revised pledge reads: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Well, McCarthyism was pretty silly on a whole. Turned out communists weren't planning the overthrough of our 'wonderful capitalism.'
What's even funnier, is that now we have even MORE socialists/communists (yes, I know they are two seperate enteties, but they are both ideologically opposed to capitalism) than we did 50 years ago, but still no revolution (although some, myself included, wouldn't mind a nice revolution every now and again :)
When applying history to current events, I guess it's true that history repeats itself (Yes, I'm aluding to the fact that if america would pull it's empirialistic (sp) head out of it's ass, we wouldn't be having ANY problems in foriegn affairs)