Skip to main content

One Nation, Independent of God

Apologies in advance for any drop in the quality of writing -- this will be my first post in a couple of weeks.

I've been reviewing my religious views of late, and am leaning more towards agnostic than atheist (some readers will remember a few posts outlining ardent atheism over the past two years). But I leave my religion (or lack thereof) at the door for this post, and I request before you read further that you try to do the same.

The Pledge of Allegiance, in its original form, read:

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

There were minor changes made in the 1920s --"my flag" was eventually changed to "the flag of the United States of America"--but in 1954, the age of McCarthyism (mind you, it was only two years later that, in an effort to further distance ourselves from "the godless communists", the national motto was made "In God We Trust"), two words were added that completely twisted the pledge: "Under God".

Ignoring the personal offense I take from President Eisenhower's statement on the matter (which says, in part, that the addition would highlight "the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man"), I see this as being extremely dangerous.

Keep in mind that the First Amendment, stating that Congress would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", was adopted in 1791.

Keep in mind that President Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, supporting with "sovereign reverence" the First Amendment's "wall of separation between church and state", was written in 1802.

Keep in mind that the Treaty of Tripoli, explicitly pointing out that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion", was ratified by the Senate unanimously in 1797.

As you mull that over, tell me something. Given the 150-plus year gap between the establishment and initial clarification of secularism in our government, and the use of blatantly theistic diction in a pledge to the very symbol of our liberty, who do you think has seniority in the matter?

Glad to be back.

Comments

Bowly said…
The controversy for me is not the "under God" distraction. It's the fact that we're indoctrinating children to mindlessly recite loyalty oaths to the state. Imagine my lack of surprise when I learned it was written by a Baptist minister who lost his pulpit because of his socialist beliefs. Never mind the fact that children are not mentally developed enough to truly understand what an oath is (do we let children get married?).

While I'm on the subject, "The Star Spangled Banner" sucks as a national anthem. It's dull, and the range is an octave and a fifth--well outside the range of the average person. It's hard to believe that the melody began as a drinking song.
Anonymous said…
Bowly:

A valid point, I take much more issue with combining a pledge to state and church at the same time than simply pledging to the state. Perhaps I'm biased.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?