I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG,
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.
ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE,
WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
Many people are coming out and speaking about the separation of Church and State and they want to banish God from our society. I, for one, cannot sit by and allow this to happen without doing what I can to speak out against this atrocity. As this is the case with most injustices that are done in the world, they are able to thrive because good people do not speak out against them. I will not go to my reward guilty of that charge, but will depart someday with the knowledge that I have tried to tell people the truth.
Most of the Americans who are my age or older were taught the Pledge of Allegiance in grade school, and we recited it every morning as we covered our heart with our right hand. The recitation was part of every day life and we all accepted it gladly. Of course, when we were kids it was just something that we did and it was a routine. There was no question about reciting it and to be honest, nobody ever really explained what we were saying. To me it was no different from saying the Boy Scout Creed or even swearing some secret oath when we had our little clubs as kids in our neighborhoods. However, as I got older, the pledge began to take on new meanings.
The Pledge that we learned in school, was taught so that we said it as it was written as I you have just read. It must be noted here, that there is no comma between the words, one Nation, and Under God. It is recited as one, continuous sentence.
Now there have been numerous questions in recent years, as to whether God, should be allowed in the Pledge. Those in the atheist camp say that by using God in the Pledge, children are forced to pledge to God, whom they see as the Jewish and Christian God. One particular individual, an attorney from California has been battling this in the courts for a few years. His contention is that he does not want his daughter indoctrinated in the ways of God. His ex-wife and daughter are both believers in Jesus, and the daughter has repeatedly said that she likes to recite the Pledge.
Therefore, we have one man who is fighting against the Pledge in the guise that he is doing it for his offspring, but he is really doing it for himself, and the deed is his and his alone. Obviously, this man has no shame if he feels that it is okay to hide behind the skirt of a little girl to enforce his opinion.
Now, since this whole thing has started, there has not been one religious person from any religion who has come out against the Pledge, at least not publicly. That is because when any person from any religion says the Pledge, they think of their own gods and they give credit to them. Therefore, when a Muslim says the Pledge, they think of Allah, a Buddhist thinks of the Buddhist God, the Hindu thinks of a certain God and so on and so forth. Therefore, it would seem that only the Atheist has a problem with the Pledge as it stands today.
The interesting point to reflect on is that God is not a God that pressures people to love Him. As long as a nation accepts Him and loves Him, He will stick around like a faithful friend. He will protect that people or nation and will cause them to prosper, but if a people or nation spurn Him, and demand that He leave, He will oblige them and grant them their wishes. Do not expect the blessings to remain when the author of blessings is, expelled.
A certain portion of the Pledge declares that the United States is one nation. That means that every one in the nation will be of one accord, with one purpose and dedicated to a common goal. For most of the history of this nation, that was the case. Of course, there were times where there was strife. We are humans living in a fallen world and we have to expect some problems from time to time. Through those bad times, the people were for the most part, moral, God-fearing people.
Many of us here had ancestors hail from many parts of Europe. There were Protestants, Catholics and yes, some agnostics. They were people, whom probably, had they stayed in Europe would have been at odds with each other. The Danes, being for the most part a Protestant nation, did not care for the Germans or Poles who were Catholic. Germans seem to think of Austrians as being somewhat inferior to them. Those in Northern Europe did not have any affection for the Italians, who were thought to be inferior because of the darkness of their skin.
What brought them all together so that I can stand here now and write and have you read this article? It was the cause of a common dream, to be American and to prosper under a new way of thinking of things, a new order of society; one built on the equality of everyone; and you know what? It worked well above my ancestor’s wildest imagination!
Another aspect of “one nation,” that must be explored is that we have to realize that the United States is a UNION. I am not speaking of a socialistic order of workers, like what is found in many cities in the United Sates, but a union of states. When the United States first started out it was comprised of thirteen individual mini nations, and these, were commonly referred to as the “Colonies.” Each Colony was sovereign and an entity unto itself. Most of the Colonies had their own currency and their own political way of doing business. When the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, representatives of every Colony signed it. After we won our independence we had to draw up something to keep the Union cohesive, and it was a painful process. Before the Constitution existed, a document attempted to do this, called the Articles of Confederation.
It was a loosely knit collection of clauses for the new government. The trouble was that this document gave some states more rights than it did others, so the founding fathers sought a new document; one that would make everyone totally equal under the law. Because of that, we have the Constitution. Might I add, this too was signed by members of each state in the new nation.
One might argue that we have not always been one nation during our history. Well, that is true at times, especially during the Civil War, when the Union was fragmented.
When we study what the phrase “under God” means, we first must examine which God we are talking about. There are many gods around. Every culture has their deity that they pray to and trust in; some have many gods.
It might be of interest to note, that Congress did not officially recognize the Pledge of Allegiance until 1942, and the words, “under God,” were not inserted, until 1954. What was the state of our nation and who was our nation’s God in 1954?
During the 1950’s, our nation experienced a surge in economic growth; it was a period of great prosperity. This is the time when the term, “The American Dream,” came into reality. If you watch the 50’s show, “Leave It to Beaver,” you can get an idea of what society was like back in that time. You had the man that went out and made a good living. You had a wife who stayed home and attended to the children, the home, and her husband’s needs. You had two or more children and they were healthy and on the road to being well educated.
Most of the diseases that had plagued our ancestors had been either tamed or obliterated and the life span here in the States was growing rapidly. There was a lot to be thankful to God for. However, what does it mean to be under God? To some, it might conjure up thoughts of being under the oppressive thumb of a tyrannical deity, who just wants to oppress us and grind our old bones into dust once we die. Unfortunately, that is the thought that many have these days. Instead of seeing him as a loving father figure, they see him as a ruthless authoritarian with no feelings.
Indivisible; what does that mean? It means that if our nation is one nation, being one people made up from many others, and one land mass made up of several states; and we are under God; meaning that we submit to the will and authority of God; we will be indivisible, not to be divided. With liberty and justice for all; and I am amused by this last portion of the Pledge of Allegiance. I cannot think of a time when there has been liberty and justice for all. We have come close many times, but we never truly hit the mark. For too many years, there was little liberty and no justice for blacks in most of the country, especially in the south. Ask the congregants of three synagogues that were fire-bombed in Sacramento a decade ago, and see how they feel about liberty and justice.
I wrote this article because I am a patriotic American and a Mason. I was born free and I will die free. It hurts me a great deal to see what my beloved country has become. During the years of my lifetime I’ve seen the United States go from a God fearing, caring nation, to a self centered godless society. I think we have slid into a chasm from which we will not be able to extricate ourselves. Our society has in effect told God to “get lost.” Not a person to stay where He is not welcomed, He has obliged our request. He won’t come back unless we become humble and contrite in spirit.
This certainly can happen, but I believe that it will only happen after this nation has gone through a time of great distress.
I sincerely hope no one becomes offended by what I wrote in this article. I cannot apologize for how you feel.
Sometimes correction is a hard pill to swallow, but like most medications, it does not taste good, but it promotes healing if taken faithfully as prescribed.
We are, after all, “One Nation Under God”.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Hiram Abiff
The Widow’s Son
"No man has ever knelt at our altar of Obligation an arose the same man."
************************ click comment tab below to leave one! ********************
good job and amen
ReplyDeleteThe government's addition of the words "under God" to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 was a mistake, which should be corrected. Under our Constitution, the government has no business calling on its citizens to voice affirmation of a god in any circumstances, let alone in the very pledge the government prescribes for affirming allegiance to the country. The unnecessary insertion of an affirmation of a god in the pledge puts atheists and other nonbelievers in a Catch 22: Either recite the pledge with rank hypocrisy or accept exclusion from one of the basic rituals of citizenship enjoyed by all other citizens. The government has no business forcing citizens to this choice on religious grounds.
ReplyDeleteThe First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to transform our secular government into some form of religion-government partnership should be resisted by every patriot.
Dear "Doug",
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. They are very well taken.
Adding the words, "under God," was following the precedent established by Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address. At the end of this Address, Lincoln said, "this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that, government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." (Lincoln inserted the words, "under God," extemporaneously, for they do not appear in his written draft.)
In 1952, the Reverend Dr. George M. Docherty, pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, DC, preached in favor of adding "under God" to the Pledge. His point was that a Soviet atheist could easily recite the Pledge without compunction, by substituting the "Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics" for the United States.
Info obtained from "Under God and Other Questions About the Pledge. Dr. John Baer
Again, thank-you for your comments.
Hiram
First off let's be clear... nowhere in the constitution of the United States do the words separation of church and state appear. The implication does, but the 1st amend says the govt will NOT ESTABLISH a national religion. (paraphrasing) Your catch-22 applies both ways: do we agree with the less than 3% or so that are atheist or agree with the 95% that believe in deity?
ReplyDeleteI understand your intent, but don't believe your hyperbolific claim that our govt is in any danger of becoming a religious partnership by ANY stretch of the imagination. Open your eyes my friend. Evidence shows just the opposite. God is being slowly wiped from the public square, which should make you happy.
It is getting to the point that if you are a religious person please do not run for any govt office unless you are pure as the driven snow & have NEVER done wrong, basically Christ or GOD himself. You will be ridiculed for breaking faith.
Read your history carefully, our founding fathers were for the most part religious men, and wise also. They had no trouble in having an opening prayer before congress began.
It is an issue that is dying because our religious beliefs are vanishing, so don't worry my friend it'll happen soon enough and you won't even need a law to do it. But I will ad that those wise men also had no problem putting "In God We Trust" on our currency.
Anyway good comment "Doug". And Hiram.. I enjoyed the topic. I'll leave with this tidbit. . .
"They're no atheist in foxholes."
Michael Retherford
Past Master
Linwood Lodge #567
Hiram,
ReplyDeleteI understand that Mr. Docherty justified his proposal partly on the claim--controversial as it is--that Lincoln extemporaneously added the words "under God" to his Gettysburg Address. His "point" about a Soviet atheist left me wondering what is the point: Who cares whether a Soviet atheist could recite a similar pledge about the Soviet Union? I guess you had to be there, i.e., in the midst of the Red scare, to think something of that sort matters one wit. When I first read Docherty's sermon a few months ago, I was interested to learn that, contrary to the claims of some who try to "secularize" the phrase "under God," he did not intend it as merely a reference to our nation's religious history or tradition, but rather as a pliable reference to a god suitable for "every religious faith." I was also appalled to learn that he specifically considered how such a revised pledge would work for atheist citizens and simply dismissed them as "spiritual parasites" who "fall[] short of the American ideal of life"--as if he would know. What Mr. Docherty says in his sermon is compelling evidence why "under God" does NOT belong in the pledge of allegiance.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteThe phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause of the Constitution. The absence of the phrase in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression the words appeared there and later learned of their mistake. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
James Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to "[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government." Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that old habits die hard and that tendencies of citizens and politicians could and sometimes did lead them to entangle government and religion (e.g., "the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress" and "for the army and navy" and "[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts"), he considered the question whether these were "consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom" and responded: "In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion."
The catch 22 does NOT apply both ways. Theists can, and for years did, affirm their allegiance to the nation by reciting the original pledge sans any mention of god(s); nothing in that original pledge conflicts with their religious beliefs.
In discussing issues of separation of church and state, it is critical to avoid the all-too-common mistake of conflating the "public square" with "government." The principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square--far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views--publicly as well as privately. And in practice, there is plenty of religion out there in the public square; I see and hear of it daily on the street, on the radio, on the TV, on the internet, etc. The First Amendment's "establishment" clause constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion.
As for the difficulties of theists running for political office, I think you have it backwards. Politicians commonly find it useful or even necessary to proclaim their faith in order to garner votes. Few--very few--find the courage to acknowledge they are atheists, and doing so usually is not a smart political move in today's social climate. Polls put atheists at the bottom of the electability pile.
As you observe, many of the founding fathers were religious. So what? They drafted a Constitution that plainly establishes a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity) and says nothing substantive of god(s) or religion except in the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion.
Finally, note that these wise men did not put “In god we trust” on our money. The phrase was added to U.S. coins in 1864 and to dollar bills in 1957.