I understand that there are people in this country that do not believe in God. I understand also that there are those who do believe in God but do not want to serve Him, worship Him, or acknowlege Him.
There have been people that want to take the phrase "Under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Those that support the argument take the stance that they don't believe in God and should not therefore have to put themselves under something they do not believe in.
I, however, do believe in God and will not pledge Allegiance to any country that places itself above God.
So we have now argued ourselves into a pickle barrell.
Let's look at the primary argument for removing "Under God" from the Pledge: Separation of Church and State.
1) The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution.
This fact is an often mistaken one. The only time the word "religion" is found in the Constitution is in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
2) Why should Congress make now law represecting an establishment of religion?
Well, that's a darn good point. I contend that it is because no one should have religion forced upon them. And this (at least as I understand it) is the one argument that I understand and grant at least some credence to for removing the phrase "under God" from the pledge. I do not want someone to pledge to God who does not want to, and I beleive that God doesn't want that either.
3) What brought about "Separation of Church and State" anyway?
Back before the reformation and during the times of Martin Luther, it was not uncommon for heads of state to also be heads of the church in that area. This led to the corruption of power in both political and religious circles. So a separation of church from the state was meant not to prevent corruption of state by the church, but to prevent corruption of the church by the state.
I doubt little that I have resolved any of the arguments here. For those who fight to remove "under God" from the pledge, to you I say that I wish you well and if you want, you can hold your breath during those two words. I, however, will gladly pledge my allegience to one nation under God.
There have been people that want to take the phrase "Under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Those that support the argument take the stance that they don't believe in God and should not therefore have to put themselves under something they do not believe in.
I, however, do believe in God and will not pledge Allegiance to any country that places itself above God.
So we have now argued ourselves into a pickle barrell.
Let's look at the primary argument for removing "Under God" from the Pledge: Separation of Church and State.
1) The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution.
This fact is an often mistaken one. The only time the word "religion" is found in the Constitution is in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
2) Why should Congress make now law represecting an establishment of religion?
Well, that's a darn good point. I contend that it is because no one should have religion forced upon them. And this (at least as I understand it) is the one argument that I understand and grant at least some credence to for removing the phrase "under God" from the pledge. I do not want someone to pledge to God who does not want to, and I beleive that God doesn't want that either.
3) What brought about "Separation of Church and State" anyway?
Back before the reformation and during the times of Martin Luther, it was not uncommon for heads of state to also be heads of the church in that area. This led to the corruption of power in both political and religious circles. So a separation of church from the state was meant not to prevent corruption of state by the church, but to prevent corruption of the church by the state.
I doubt little that I have resolved any of the arguments here. For those who fight to remove "under God" from the pledge, to you I say that I wish you well and if you want, you can hold your breath during those two words. I, however, will gladly pledge my allegience to one nation under God.
Comments
A few things I think of every time the pledge debate rears its head...
I think the argument is something of an irrelevancy if one, like me, finds the very base concept of a nationalistic pledge of allegiance nothing less than creepy. Personally, I won't pledge allegiance to my country. I might consider pledging allegiance to the ideals I feel my country should embody, but not to the nation (or its proxy, the flag).
Semantics? Perhaps. But one should never underestimate the importance of semantics.
The pledge, as currently constructed (with or without God's inclusion) serves as a means of patting oneself on the back simply for being a citizen. It's a feel-good soliloquy that is just a bit too forgiving for my tastes...
"With liberty and justice for all?" Wow. I must have missed CNN the day that happened. Seriously, though, I will pledge allegiance to the idea that liberty and justice should be extended to all people. I won't pledge allegiance to a flag too often waved by those with no intention of ever making that happen.
More on point, I heard from some sort of reliable source that "under God" is a relatively recent addition and that the pledge as previously recited didn't contain it. I wonder if those who pledged pre-"under God" turned out to be lesser-quality citizens than those who learned with the "under God" in place?
Personally, I say junk the whole pledge altogether. If we must force legions of school children to stand at rapt attention every morning, looking up at a raggedy PA system and a mini-flag above the chalkboard, let's have them do something a bit less brown-shirty and a bit more valuable.
By the way, the VFW states that one is not to shoot five will reciting the pledge.
I'm a very religiously-minded, morally-concerned agnostic/atheist with really strong roots in Christianity, as well as lots of study and experience with Judaism, Bhuddism, Hinduism, etc.
You're thinking on this is very close to my own...I used to stop and start before and after the "under God" piece of the pledge...and now I've just embraced the whole pledge, altogether, realizing that I know exactly why people want to say under God in the pledge and that I share more concerns with people who feel strongly about its inclusion -- including the humility that is intended by having it there -- than what we disagree about...
It's seems kind of sad and foolish to me that we would get all hung up on trivial places where we disagree on that pledge rather than appreciate the fact the intent of the pledge, which is to recognize the significance of "republic for which it stands"...
Noone forces anyone to say the pledge or that phrase and it seems a pity to me the idea of removing the phrase and what it means to peole, as much as it seems a pity to me to remove the Ten Commandments from court buildings and forget the importantance of Judeo-Christian heritage in laying a moral and historical foundation for law...
Nice blog you have here:):)...
Ben