Responding to Pledge of Allegiance Issue

[Quixote1818]

The following is a letter I sent to a local Talk Radio show about the phrase "Under God" in the pledge of Allegiance. Note: I pretended to be a Republican because I think it's the best way to get them to think. If they think the criticism is coming from their own party they are much more likely to listen to what you have to say. Just a trick I learned from Tom Paine who used the Bible to build support for the American Revolution even though he thought it was bunk. Anyone wanting to write Pat about this issue can write him at this address: [e-mail]


Hey Pat,

You might want to read this. James Madison wrote the first Amendment and this is his summary of what it meant. Madison was a disciple of Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Virginia Bill for Religious freedom. Jefferson refereed to the first Amendment as "The Separation of Church and State" while this is never stated in the Constitution it's widely accepted by most constitutional scholars to be true even the Supreme Court agrees that the Separation of Church and State is the basic idea of the first Amendment.

In James Madison's summary of the First Amendment he wrote: Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).


Also, Jefferson and most of the founders were free thinkers and were guided more strongly by reason than any spiritual belief. Below is a summary of Jefferson's religious beliefs, which were much like many of the founders:

In the book Jefferson and Religion by Eugene R. Sheridan, Jefferson's beliefs are summed up in this way: “Jefferson's demythologized version of Christianity, like so many other aspects of his life and thought, resists easy historical categories. It was anti-Trinitarian in its concept of God, Christian in its acceptance of the morality of Jesus, skeptical in its rejection of biblical revelation and church dogma, deistic in its conviction that the clergy had deliberately corrupted the pure doctrines of Jesus to serve their selfish purposes, rationalistic in its assumption that human reason was the only valid source of religious truth, and humanistic in its equation of religion with morality. In the end Jefferson probably best described his peculiarly eclectic faith when he observed of himself: “I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.”

My gut feeling is that Jefferson would be against anything that made part of the country feel like second class citizens but that's just my opinion. I think TJ would be against anything that stated the Government endorsed the belief in God when so many if its citizens do not believe this. How can we be indivisible if some of us believe we are under God and many do not? The Pledge of Allegiance contradicts it's self when the word God is introduced.

Buy the way, Barry Goldwater who started the Conservative movement that we see flourishing today despised the Religious Right. He called them lunatics! The real conservative stance on this is that the Government should stay out of our lives EVEN when it comes to religion. I don't need the Government to tell me how to be religious, thank you very much! I am so sick of how the Religious right has hijacked my Republican Party and because of this I am now registered as an Independent. So Pat, if you claim to be a true conservative you better think about why you think the Government needs to tell you what to think? That's not being a true conservative but being a whip that kowtows to the Religious Right because you are afraid of loosing listeners. Show some guts Pat and stick up for the true conservative "Barry Goldwater" wing of the Republican Party. The PURE conservatives who believe the Government should stay out of our lives as much as possible and most importantly when it comes to religion and God.

[BrotherBuzz]

1. A little off topic, but...

Soon after that September tragedy in 2001, my son was visited by the American Legion in his 1st grade class so they could do their flag thingy. This is his version, and I find no reason to correct him.

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under GUARD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[smirkymonkey]

2. Good angle and good point...

I am bookmarking for future reference. I am sure there are also sensible people on the right who oppose the hijacking of their party by the religious lunatic fringe.

[Quixote1818]

4. Thanks, I got most of my points from a firing line debate

It had Barry Lynn, Allen Dershiwits (sp) etc., up against Bill Buckley and some others. The Left absolutely tore up the Right in that Debate! It was a beautiful thing! http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/programView.php?programID=1412#

[gumby]

3. I'm really tired of wingnuts "shoving the pledge down my throat"

Isn't that what the wingnuts (Christofascists) always complain about; that "liberals" are always shoving something down their throats or waving something in their faces.

That lying scum "media critic" Bernie Goldberg uses this phrase all the time.

Well, now I'm really tired of it. Get the f--k out of my face. Take your "under god" and take flush it already.

I have begun to remain seated whenever that stupidity is forced on me. I refuse to participate any longer.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[underseasurveyor]

7. That's fine if that's what you want and it makes you happy.

I won't say it because that's what I want and it makes me happy. And the best part? I don't have to say it. Ain't a free country where religion is a choice, a grand thing! :-)
Don't be offended if I do happen to say something else in replace of the word god.
It's a free country right:smoke:

[hobbit709]

6. Under God

The original pledge, written in 1892 did not have "under God" in it. It was added in 1954 during the "red under every bed" years. so 62 years without it and only 50 with it. so all during WWII it didn't have those two words in it and the US survived just fine.

[hansberrym]

8. The Pledge of Allegiance is not at odds with the Establishment

Clause of the First Amendment, nor James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance", nor Thomas Jeffersons "A Virginia Bill for Religious Freedom", nor the concept of unalienable rights that has been with us since the Declaration of Independence.

It is the absurdly broad interpretation of the Establishment Clause urged by Mr. Newdou that is at odds with the texts and historical facts. Would Mr Newdou argue with a straight face that Jefferson's Bill For Religious Freedom, which ensured religious freedom and forbade the establishment of religion, was itself a violation of the Establishment Clause because it stated that "Almighty God" was the source of our rights? (Note that TJ actually wrote legislation that contained a Government endorsed the belief in God, contrary to the arguments made in the original post)

From 1776 to 1785, Jefferson worked to have legislation enacted to forbid the establishment of religion in Virginia. Madison also worked to have this legislation passed, and just a few years later Madison initiated the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution.

It is absurd to hold that the Establishment Clause of the US COnstitution is something completely different than what Madison and Jefferson wrote, and what the Courts have relied on since Everson vs. Board of Education (1947) as the best evidence as to the meaning of the establishment clause. If Jefferson is not to be relied on for the meaning of the establishment clause, what then of the "Wall of Separation" doctrine?


http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
Thomas Jefferson, 1786

Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power...




Try this mind experiment:
Suppose next month the legislature of the state of Virginia were to pass Thomas Jefferson's "Virginia Bill for Religious Freedom" in its original language. Would the courts would rule it unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause? Suppose the same were done with Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance?





http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/remon.html
James Madison Memorial and Remonstrance -1785

To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia
A Memorial and Remonstrance

We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,


1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.....







And let's not forget this one:
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

[gumby]

10. That looks like something from Wall Builders? /

[Quixote1818]

11. You make some good points and you could be technically right however

Here is what changed my mind:

Jefferson said:

"No man be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor ... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief ... All men be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and ... the same in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
-- Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers

I think the words molested, and burdened apply exactly to things like "under god" in the pledge. Also, the word "diminish" apples exactly to what happens to Atheists when they are in a room where everyone says "under god" and they are the only person who does not say this. What if an Atheist has to lead a class in the pledge or teach a class the pledge? How can he/she in his right mind teach something that goes against his/her own conscience? It basically turns the non-believers into second class citizens and that bothers me.

[Quixote1818]

15. Some other things to consider

Jefferson often used the word God or Natures God in his writings because he knew it was the only way to get his bills through. In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence he left out absolutely any references to God and others wrote it in. It's one thing for a document to say God but it's a whole different ball game when you start making children say these things when they have not developed the ability to decide if their is a God of if their is not a God. I can live with 200 year old documents referring to God but what is clear to me is that Jefferson did not ever want a person to be put in the position of feeling like they had to say something that went against their own conscience and religious beliefs. When that starts happening then we are no longer free to be who were are. That's the difference here and it's a big difference.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Quixote1818]

12. I think kids should say the pledge as well but leave out "under god".

[skygazer]

13. I don't just object to the "under god"

I object to the idea that in a free country we should be expected to pledge our allegiance at all, particularly to a flag or any other symbol.

An oath of allegiance is something one would expect in a totalitarian regime, not a free society. Why in the world should we need to make public oaths of our fealty?

[Quixote1818]

16. Thats a good point. Any government that feels it needs to make it's

citizens pledge allegiance needs to consider what it's doing wrong. If a country is doing right then their is no need for such a thing and when it's doing wrong then why should anyone be compelled to pledge allegiance to something that is wrong? The whole thing is really ridiculous when you think about it.

[lawladyprof]

14. Consistent with conservative ideas

About the Establishment Clause. Currently, the courts use three tests to determine if a law or governmental policy or practice violates the Establishment Clause violates the Establishment Clause; the Lemon test (does it (law, policy, or practice) have a secular purpose (can have a religious purpose but MUST have a nonreligious purpose)?, does it advance or inhibit religion?, and does it entangle government with religion (this latter is fairly moribund)?; the Endorsement test (is the government sending a message to nonbelievers that they are second class citizens and do nonbelievers receive such a message?); and finally coercion analysis (self-evident).

Conservatives would like to eliminate all but coercion analysis and then define coercion as narrowly as possible. Getting out-of-school suspension for refusing to say the Pledge counts as coercion. Anything less is not coercion.

I believe the phrase "under God" in the Pledge fails both the Lemon and the Endorsement tests.

And see Justice Souter's wonderful dissent in Aquillard (I think it was) where he writes, "Government cannot be predicated on the principle that all people are created equal, when IT asserts that God prefers some above others (emphasis added)." Pretty close to an exact quote although I may be a hair off as I am writing from memory.