rjamestaylor's Journal: Under God

Recently I changed my .sig to reflect my appreciation for the phrase "Under God" in the US pledge of allegience. The .sig read:

I'll stop pledging "Under God" when they pry it from my cold, dead lips.

Remove "Under God" and I rescind my pledge

I've received a bit of response and will post some of it here (and add commentary eventually).

A post from susano_otter :

Regarding your sig: do you really believe that the phrase "one nation, under God", accurately describes the country you're pledging your allegiance to? Or is the pledge for you simply an expression of an ideal state that we may all aspire to, even if it has yet to be established?

My response:

Do you believe subscribing to a lesser ideal will help the the state of our Republic?

When I gave my wedding vows I did not hesitate to pledge my allegience to an imperfect person (as an imperfect person). Nor did I consider that we were imperfect. Rather, I was honoring the covenant of marriage.

When St. Paul called the wayward church in Corinth "the church of God which is at Corinth" was he forgetting that they were divided, litigious, adulterous, gluttonous, etc.? No, but he spoke concerning something higher than their condition: he spoke concerning their position.

Regardless if we live like it or not, whether we believe it or not, we are a nation under God's sovereignty. Saying we are a nation under God is not a reflection of our condition, but of our position.

An email from aaron thorn:

No one said that you're not allowed to go on blathering about your American god. What you do in private is your own business. Why should anyone else have to pledge alegance to your silly god anyway?

Just curious-

A post from SubtleNuance:

So, you are an advocate of oppressive non-secular states?

PLease, I invite you to join the rest of us here in modern reality. Cast away your boogie-men and think for yourself.

You chide me for not agreeing with your point of view and then admonish me to "think for myself" -- which is it?

Lest we offend...

[neocon]

Another thing worth noting about the removal of `under God' from the pledge: central to this removal is the claim that because our constitution protects us from government telling us what to believe, it is unacceptable to present a model of what we consider civic virtue to be -- that if someone is an atheist, having them even hear the words `under God' imposes on their right not to believe in God.

Okay, then what? Do we really have the right not to hear something because we do not have to believe it? If we do, then the rest of the pledge is in trouble too -- shall we take out the words `one nation .... indivisible' as disagreeing with the beliefs of racial seperatists? The words `with liberty and justice for all' as offensive to those whose cultures do not believe in these ideals? Where do we stop? Is `for which it stands' a problem for the disabled?

Re:Lest we offend...

[neocon]

Where in the Constitution is there's a clause preventing the establishment of beliefs regarding the acceptability of slavery?

Um, hello? Start with the rights of free speech and the press, and move on to the rights of free assembly and the right to petition the government for change. We are not talking about what the law says you can practice here (a thugee could not invoke freedom of religion as a defense for acts of ritual murder, for example), we are talking about what you may believe. If you are suggesting that the Constitution gives government the right to tell people what to believe, you'd better go ahead and provide a cite for that claim.

And that's where the ninth circuit's ruling (which is almost certainly about to be overturned) is so wrong. It takes this right not to be told what to believe, and expresses it as a right not to hear other people say things that you don't believe in. And as mentioned, if there were such a right, then the pledge would be in trouble for a lot more than `under God'.

And if you think 'stands' is a problem for the disabled, I'll be glad to buy you a dictionary.

Buy yourself one instead, and look up the word `humor'.

Re:Lest we offend...

[neocon]

No, I would argue that the government choosing to reflect the will of the population in adding the words `under God' to the pledge of allegiance has nothing to do with what the founders intended in authoring the first ammendment.

To repeat, being free from having any religion imposed on you does not mean being free from hearing other students who do believe in God say the words `under God', just as your (free speech) right to not say `liberty and justice for all' if you don't believe in that does not grant you a right not to hear others say these words. If anyone were to attempt to force you to say the pledge, this would be a violation of your free speech rights with or without the words `under God'.

Re:Lest we offend...

[neocon]

You would be pretty hard pressed to demonstrate that the founders intended it to mean anything of the sort -- including religious language in official acts (such as the recognition of Sunday as a holiday for electoral purposes in the Constitution itself or the invocation spoken at the opening of each session of the Supreme Court) is not an `establishment' of religion.

If you have any doubt of this, note that one of the first official acts of Congress after the passage of the Bill of Rights was the declaration of a national day of prayer...

Re:Lest we offend...

[rjamestaylor]

Question: has does the use of the word "God" establish religion? It is a common word to people of every background yet means very different things to nearly each one. This doesn't declare which "god" or even define the idea of God. It simply states we are a nation under God.

Are you also intent upon removing the daily prayer before each session of Congress? The swearing in of the President with hand upon the Bible (the Protestant Christian Bible, by the way)? Are you going to argue that the prayer given before each Supreme Court session be stricken?

These vestiges of faith are representative of the people of this country. However, they do not establish a religion.

Rather, this country is established upon a foundation of God affirming people of many religions. That there are atheits in our midst is a sign of our plurality in accepting those opposed to our viewpoints ('our' being the theist majority). Perhaps the atheists need to remember that plurality goes both directions.

If one does not believe in God, what harm is caused by an ambiguous and undefined reference to an unnamed deity? Rather, the harm is in the strife to atheize the State to appease a few with a social agenda.