Pledging Under God! It’s optional or Just don’t say the words!

        

On the topic of the pledge and the flippant suggestion by religious as well as some agnostic Americans,
“You don’t have to say the words under god”, or suggesting that, "Saying the pledge is optional".
You don’t have to say it at all, speaks right to the issue that the pledge of allegiance has become invalid as a pledge we can all share. A pledge of allegiance should be something we can all recite with pride and unanimity.
So, which side is it that is being self-serving here?
Secular non-believers who’s only request is that divisive terminology not be included?
Or the religious who hold an unwavering position for an ideology for which they alone attribute value?A pledge of allegiance, or an oath that is supposed to actually hold real meaning is not something that we should be able to arbitrarily modify to fit our own individual worldview, by leaving out a section.Should the President elect at his inauguration, upon being sworn in to office, be allowed to adjust the sworn pledge / oath to the office of president in order to suit his own sensibilities? If the answer be no, what then does this have to say about the idea we can choose to leave words out of what is supposed to be our shared national, Pledge of Allegiance?

We as citizens do not have to and are in no way forced to say, “Under God” or for that matter the pledge. But also, there is nowhere that says that we must remove our hats or put our hands across our hearts when the national anthem is performed at public events.

If you are not offended by the decision of non believers to 'not speak, or say
"under God"
arbitrarily from the pledge; by the same token you should not be offended when someone does not remove their hat or stand during the national anthem. To do otherwise would be selective hypocrisy.
Or could it be in the case of the pledge, the religious actually do understand why non believer's choose not to recite the words. "under God" and don't care about whether or not the country is divided or indivisible, as long as the religious maintain the, "under God" mantra in the pledge.

To further this point;
I would submit if you are willing to allow the pledge to be arbitrarily altered by an individual in order to fit a particular life view; then by allowing this revision, by sanctioning this omission, you are admitting that there is something discordant and divisive with the wording of the pledge. God and religion are unarguably, without a doubt one of the most divisive ideologies humankind has ever had to deal with socially. Due to this well recognized fact, under God, coming just prior to the word, “indivisible” in the pledge should be recognized as contradictory and divisive by any reasonable persons.

The FACT that under god was inserted into the pledge in 1954 by Congress in the midst of the McCarthy era, during the cold war / red scare, in order to make a politically motivated religious statement that we as a nation are a “God” fearing and religious nation is historically accurate. This was done in order to make a clear statement to the world, the Soviet Union and the Kremlin, that the United States stands against the spread of non belief in deities, which Russia was advocating for at the time.
If there was anything the Soviets got right, it was not to mix religion into government.
However; do not even attempt to construe this as, I am implying the government should advocate in any way for restricting  religion in a free society. Freedom of and freedom from religion is paramount to a free society and is, in fact what the founding fathers true intention was upon forming the establishment clause. They just did not have the conviction to say, "freedom from religion" due to the current social reality concerning religious belief that existed at the time. In the same manner they ignored the statement that, "all men are created equal" and then they did not include blacks, women, or Indians.

Contrasting this historic fact, that under God was put in the pledge in 1954 specifically to identify America as a God  fearing nation, in this video clip shown below; 
Eric Rassbach deputy general counsel for the Beckett Fund at the September 4^th hearings in the Massachusetts Doe v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District makes a nervous if not flaccid attempt at convincing the judges, the term "under god" does not actually mean that we are a God fearing nation.

 The following is a transcribed quote from the video below.

Rassbach: Ahh, So first of all I don’t, I don’t think that ah, ah I do think that it’s ah there’s a, a misprision of, of fact here that is that the, the I don’t I don’t, believe that the pledge is, is making a religious claim about God or the existence of God or any number of ah, theological….”

Judge interrupts:  No it’s making a claim about the country that the country is a nation under God.

Rassbach: Right! And I, I guess what, what eh..

Judge: Your pledging allegiance to that, ah aspect!

Rassbach: Your pledging allegiance to the flag, and an as we as we put forth in our brief we actually believe the term under god is a, a legal a legal term of art (did he say art?) goes all the way back to the 1200’s that talks about the limitation on ah the government’s ability to take away rights. That is that we have a limited government.
Mr. Rassbach’s stuttering jerky delivery throughout this exchange makes the listener wonder if even he himself has actually swallowed his line of revisionary nonsense all the while praying this panel of judges would.

Furthering Mr. Rassbach’s digression into redefining the term, "under god", as a political philosophy, as opposed to a religious claim; while the judge is reading the following, Mr. Rassbach has a smile on his face that is very telling; in a snake oil salesman kind of way, hoping that the judges will accede to this vacuous interpretation.

The judge goes on to state that he saw from Mr. Rassbach court submitted document the explanation; “the term under god is used as, a matter of natural law from whence our rights are derived”.

 I would be interested in seeing the peer reviewed scientific studies done on this “matter of natural law” regarding where our rights are derived from.

Mr. Rassbach? Would it not be more accurate to say, supernatural laws? Therein lies the rub.view the full video here:

While there could be a great deal of philosophical debate over the subject of "natural law" is/being what determines moral guidelines and that the claim the words, "under god" have any significance or relevance to this claim are vague; if not completely vapid.
Let's just say, "one nation, under natural law, indivisible", at least this would be an attempt to disguise the claim as secular.
Or could it be, this actually is not the most important intent to this message in the pledge?

That being the idea of where morals come from?

Why are we identifying in the pledge where morals come from.
How is this relevant?
After all, the claim natural laws create and bind rules of moral behavior is highly debatable. NO! Not even close...Nice try!
The intent and message "under God" sends, is to lay claim that a god exists.
The insertion of under god in my opinion has in fact bastardized the pledge.
Meaning that it has lowered in condition or worth, and debases it's value.

It runs in direct opposition to the Establishment Clause, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
While the insertion of this into our pledge is not a law, it is clearly a congressional endorsement to the respect of a religious claim. Even in Mr. Rassbach's imaginative way "under god" implies a legal term defining that we get our rights from natural law,
well, this in itself is an arguable philosophy and has no business in a secular pledge.

The Supreme Court of the United States has adjudicated extensively on the Establishment Clause and has found that the intent of the founders goes beyond mere law, that it recognizes a separation of church and state, and was intended to do far more than merely prohibit the establishment of a state religion.
The insertion of a religious ideology such as, being “Under God”, no matter which god, into  a formally adopted Pledge of Allegiance by congress in 1945 is clearly a violation of the Establishment Clause.

The fact that a majority of the people of the United States, including the very liberal US 9th Circuit court of Appeals in San Francisco CA have not come to this same conclusion is in my opinion a demonstration to the US government’s failure to protect a growing minority of non believers from the religious pinnings of a majority rule.

The United States has a long history of overcoming this same type of arbitrary majority rules mandate, both socially and politically imposed injustices.

1. The founders not having the fortitude to do away with slavery even though stated that all men are created equal in the Constitution of the US.

2. 1787 even going so far as to create the Three Fifths Compromise in Article 1 Section 2 the population of slaves and Indians would be counted as 3/5 of a person.

3. Indian affairs.

4. Women’s rights.

5. Civil rights.

6. Gay rights.

AND now..failing to respect and support, secular ,humanist, non-believers, atheists constitutional right; to be recognized as US citizen patriots who do not holding supernatural beliefs.

Fact: This nation has a citizenship of 20% or more and still growing base of non religious, non believers. This exemplifies that this inclusion of, under god, does in fact discriminate against a significant portion of the population.  
Never should justice or what is a human right be determined solely by majority rule.

Because of two words in The Pledge of Allegiance, we have a controversy, a division in this country.  I will repeat the pledge should be representative of ALL this nations’ citizens.

I feel that this pledge in the current form is not one that myself or the 20%+ other secular Americans should be asked to merely “just leave out” those two divisive and servile words, “Under God” which ironically precede the word, “indivisible”.
I do not live under a god nor do I accept that morals are a result of natural laws or of the commands of a god. It is more than any secular American citizen should be asked to do, and that is; to shut up and accept it.

If The Pledge of Allegiance is ever to mean anything to ALL Americans, the insertion of those two words, "under God" should, will, and must be removed. So once again we can be one nation indivisible.If you like this article please share by using the links below, Google+ or FB, etc. Also please leave a comment below. This all helps with Google search ratings. Thanks!

The Human Cost of Belief

To my Christian Face Book friends, if I have any left!   

I, am an anti theist!

    I have had friends new and old who have unfriended me because of our differences in belief. Yes I make my position openly apparent. It is at least as important to me to create a world where reason and truth are the primary goals, as it is for the believer to spread and confirm their own investment in their own delusion, .. er I mean belief. What "actually" is truth, matters to me. I don't feel believers feel as strongly about what is "actually" true. I, am willing to risk their imposed threat of eternal hell damnation. Although that is not actually a consideration for me, I use it only to make the point.
    Actually, hell, in my opinion would be living for an eternity worshipping a needy, jealous, narcissistic deity, who loves to play mind games with the human race. But that is another issue.

    This schism causes rifts not only between close friends and family members but fellow Americans and humans who do not know each other, in politics. This is due to the undeniable fact that believers have chosen to believe in an ideology based entirely on faith and the writings of a 2600 year old book! Believers have been taught and accept, in the case of Christian religion, faith in Jesus is the truth, the path, the light and the way. This is merely indoctrination poetry.
Faith is not a pathway to what is true!

“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” Christopher Hitchens.

        We do not use faith in our daily lives to make normal daily decisions, or at least we attempt to use the best knowledge available to make our decisions. Buying a car, where to go to school, what food to eat, when it is safe to cross the road, who we should marry. Why is it; that with one of the most important universal questions we can choose to ask, an answer is accepted upon faith and a culturally driven ideology?

At a time before science, we searched for answers to comfort ourselves. Humans made decisions by observing their surroundings and applying an answer which seemed to them reasonable. Natural events had answers created from an ignorance of the physics of nature. Storms, volcanic eruptions, good crops, bad crops, comets in the sky, droughts, were all credited to one god or another. In an attempt to understand the world around us we felt at ease being able to credit with willful ignorance, a pretentious knowledge which was untested and unverified. Lightning came from the clouds; hence Zeus was angry. Demeter was the Greek goddess of a good harvest. You can Google just about any natural phenomena and somewhere in history a god or goddess will be given credit. The source of the word hurricane is taken from the Mayan God Huracan.

“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”
― Thomas Jefferson

Religion has had it purpose in human evolution. It served as a scaffold to create a system of order and control in a time when law and order was difficult if not near impossible to maintain. Murder, death, and rape wear rarely punished by the law of man. The threat of eternal damnation after your own death was a tool used by the church and rulers, the people in power in an attempt to control bad behavior. Religion has been and to some extent remains the means by which rulers, governments and the church control the masses. Evidenced by Sharia laws. This impalpable scaffold which humankind used to build a moral and decent civil foundation has seen it's time and it is now the time to kick the scaffold away. We are now a race of humans who have evolved our morality and continue to do so, know understand what it takes to maintain a just and free society.

Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion. Christopher Hitchens, God is not Great.

The continued effects of this religious system persevere in our modern era of scientific discovery and understanding.        
Why? Is it the threat of hell? Is it because of where you were born? Because your parents and authority figures told you so since the age of 5 that this religion is the correct one? You believe it makes sense and how else could this wonderful place exist? This is known as an argument from ignorance; well I don't know so it must be this, what else could it be?
What is wrong with, "I don't know?"
The technological and medical world we live in is directly credited to science. Science does not use faith to find answers. This has worked pretty well for us and it is fairly safe to say this will not change.

   There is no reason not to believe that when we die we are finished with life. Is the fear of no longer existing in the future any different than when we did not exist in the past?  Until it is rationally and empirically demonstrated that we continue on in some form after dying, I treat this life as my one and only chance to experience life. This life is not a stepping stone to a better place. This is it! Life is wonderful! Carpe diem!

    What I am trying to get at here is, old friends, new friends, neighbors and co workers, we have a rift between us because of these belief claims. It is YOUR decision to believe in something, an ideology, and openly and publicly assert it towards society.. with a total lack of evidence. My decision to not believe in your theological god, is no different to me than my reason not to believe in Zeus or Thor. I go one deity further. Your belief system threatens people who deny and question it honestly with eternal torment in a made up after life place known as hell. How do believer's reconcile living with that as a world view?
For the mere position of doubt and incredulity; Abrahamic beliefs assert that unless you abandon your reason and rationality to a belief supported by faith you are condemned to suffering an eternity in the afterlife. Now if this were a platform any politician ran on I wonder how that career would end up. Our ancestors in this country left England to escape this type of tyranny.
    Believers are compelled to think bad things of those non believers who approach the claim with skepticism. Recent polls of Christians suggest that atheists are the least trusted people in the country. Worse than rapists. This makes it kind of hard for us to be friends doesn't it?. You believe in something that creates dissension and hate towards non believers. Because of what you, believers, have decided to take on faith alone.

This comes at a cost for us all.

    I share the view a legendary composer artist posed to us in 1971.  The world would be a better place if we all believed that which has been demonstrated as true. No heaven; no hell. All people living for one another, for the day! You may say it's a dream. This is my dream as well.
Imagine!

On the subject of Civil Unions,

   People who choose to make a commitment to each other should be afforded the same rights as anyone else no matter of their gender.  BUT...I feel those in favor of extending equal rights to all should try to come in the back door on this one, pun intended. Tasteless I know!

   I have been married for 35 years. I was married at a town hall by the city mayor. A thoroughly secular setting. Never the less, marriage through the ages has been prominently a religious ceremony. What needs to happen is, government needs to get out of the marriage business. Any 2 legal adults of whatever gender should be able to enter into a government granted civil union in order to receive the benefits or equal status in the work place.

   Marriage should only be considered something which is performed in a religious or ceremonial context. Whether it is a Christian Church, a Jewish church,  a Islamic mosque, or a secular service done while bungee jumping. It should be relegated to being a ceremony which has a personal meaning only. If there is a church such as the Universal Unitarian Church who wishes to offer its services to a gay couple, great!

The term “marriage” which roots are; arguably I admit, strongly based in religious doctrine. The time may be here for the government not be using the term "marriage". What the government should administer are, civil union licenses. The government needs to get out of the marriage business. It is not the word “marriage” in which we should be fighting for, it is equal rights. By changing the focus from gays wanting to change what the term marriage is perceived as, we should be focusing on changing the status of how our government should license legal relationships.

If civil unions were made to be equal with the rights and privileges of what is currently called marriage there should no longer be an argument to call it a marriage.

I for one would have not a single issue with having a civil union license over a marriage license. You can call it whatever you want! After obtaining a civil union license, nobody can stop anyone from using the term married no more than they can stop us from using wife or husband or better half, or squeeze.

So I hope the point I am making is, I believe this is the means to change the established view that, marriage is not the institution which the government should be recognizing, it should be a secular concept which should be crafted to accept a human couple of any gender. Marriage! It's a word! Let's get over it and get to the root of the issue, equal rights for committed couples, any race, any gender.