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.
"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.
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 4th 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.
Eric Rassbach deputy general counsel for the Beckett Fund at the September 4th 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!
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.
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 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.
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!
