'Under God'

[Shazam0]

Sunday, May 2, 2004

'Under God' - freedom, not religion

By Phil Lucas
Executive Editor

God has enemies in America. So does freedom. They are the same ones. The trick, if you oppose freedom, is to remove God from public discourse. That makes liberty an easier mark. If you can pull this off in the name of freedom itself, so much the better. Americans will never know what hit them.

The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in March to decide whether the words "under God" shall remain in the Pledge of Allegiance. A ruling is expected in summer.

Arguments were heard, as always, in a room in which the Ten Commandments are ensconced high upon the wall, which puts the justices, inconveniently, "under God" themselves. No matter. The Commandments are a relic among many others put there by an architect from long ago. This august body has tacitly banished these same Commandments from public places across the land.

Upon this surreal stage, the court pondered "under God," as in the line, "One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Many of us said those words on sleepy spring mornings, standing amongst our desks and books, hands over our hearts, facing dutifully toward the front. It became rote, just another ceremony of civil society.

It might surprise you to learn you were praying. That is one argument the court heard. The justices took it seriously, most of them too old to have ever said "under God" in school. They heard also that the pledge is an unconstitutional government-sponsored endorsement of religion.

Oh my.

If you love football, here’s hoping the government doesn’t sponsor the Super Bowl.

As usual the arguments have been diverted to religion, guaranteed to get everybody’s blood boiling.

A California man, Michael Newdow, brought this case. His daughter attends a school where the pledge is recited. An atheist, he sued. Simultaneously, he was fighting for custody of the child with the girl’s mother, a Christian. Newdow has issues in his life. His problems have now become ours. Did I mention he is a lawyer, too? Argued his own case.

Other lawyers support him, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a friend-ofthe-court brief.

As the name implies, the ACLU supports liberties, most spectacularly for drug dealers, pornographers and would-be terrorists, which, but for the grace of God, there go we all. So goes their reasoning, minus the God, of course.

Ever vigilant, the ACLU misses no opportunity to purge the country of relics of the past, such as the Boy Scouts, marriage and public references to God. They do it in the name of freedom. They label such things un-American and seek redress through federal courts, the branch of our government most out of touch with the people it serves.

Thomas Jefferson feared an imperial court. He called Supreme Court justices "bold speculators" on the nation’s patience, "secure for life," independent of the will of the people.

For good reason, it turns out.

To further stack the deck, Newdow asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself. Scalia had commented on the case in public.

Stung from criticism that he would not step down from a case involving hunting pal Dick Cheney, Scalia came down with a touch of propriety and acquiesced.

Evidently, it wasn’t contagious. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg remained. From 1973 to 1980 Ginsburg was general counsel of the ACLU. For six years she served on its board of directors.

Let’s see if we have this right. Scalia stays on a case involving his hunting pal, and he gets hammered. Ginsburg stays on a case in which her pals at the ACLU have a dog in the fight, and she tiptoes through the tulips.

Good thing for the country she’s impartial.

Scalia should take two aspirin and report to work. The court has long passed any shame over appearances.

The justices will agonize the details of this case: when "under God" was added to the pledge, the intent of that addition, the tea leaves of religion and the phases of the moon.

Meanwhile, Americans, 90 percent of whom want the words to stay, can consider the big picture, such as whether it is time to amend Article III of the Constitution with term limits for the federal judiciary.

Americans might also consider the real meaning of God in our form of government, the flip side of "In God We Trust," which is, "In Men We Don’t."

In our government, God is an idea, the central concept upon which the whole country is built. God makes possible our overarching concept of liberty, meaning the entire nation is, indeed, "under God."

God, not men, endows individual liberty and other natural rights. Men form governments to secure those liberties. When government fails to do so, we may alter or abolish it. We have that right. We have that obligation. An individual does not even have the power to give away his own liberty. It is "unalienable."

Don’t take my word for it. Read the first two paragraphs of The Declaration of Independence. That old architect Jefferson wrote it. It lays out the political philosophy upon which the nation was founded and our Constitution written.

Jefferson’s use of the words God and Creator included "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination," according to his autobiography. We don’t need an autobiography to figure that out. He wrote the Declaration in English.

This concept of a Creator was a revolutionary idea in the government of men. It made freedom unassailable and unalienable, even by religion, even by government, because what men cannot give, men cannot take away. Liberty is guaranteed by God.

If this idea makes you squirm, or if you oppose it, with what or whom do you propose to replace it?

Like the Declaration and Constitution, God and liberty cannot be halved, lest we lose both. It’s not about religion. It’s about freedom. If you think otherwise, you have taken the bait.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Pendragon]

Sounds like alot of right leaning militia hokey to me. As I understand it, the original text by the founding fathers had no mention of it, being the result of cheap politics and the cold war instead. Putting it back to how it was intended to be I find hard to consider unamerican or unpatriotic.

[Renault]

I understand the author's point about God being a conceptual entity via which, through its outside nature, it grants and guarantees the elements that the US government is built upon.

However, while it is interesting to think about, I do not think the point is necessarily correct, nor is it applicable to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Personally, I don't have a real problem with the term "God" being in our founding documents. Legally speaking, it is an ornamental term. For some it affirms their belief in a God, but for those who don't hold such beliefs, it doesn't matter, thankfully.

The Pledge, however, is indoctrinal in nature. It has no bearing on education, and is, in fact, anti-educational in the sense that it encourages a child's unquestioning allegiance rather than any kind of logical thought process. Putting the phrase "Under God" in there exacerbates the issue by making it a Nationalistic Meal-Deal with a side of Religion Fries.

At any rate, I think there are worse problems to think about, when it comes to education, relgion and government.

[deathbyfire]

well the hole thing abotu the under god thing in the pledgs is bullshit to begine with beign a athiest i just refused to stand up and say it.
yeah i got in trouble had to talk to the assistant princable(in highscholl when i was 17) don't know why it had to come to that she asked why i refused to say teh pledge to suport you cintry show patriatism adn shit liek that. i basicaly told her to go fuck her self but in a nicer way

i said that there are better ways to show suport for you contry than saying bogus words adn that i had no problem with it expet for sayign one nation undergod becasue i don't belive there is one and i retain the rights as a american nto to say that adn to belive in what ever i want to.

then becasue this was takgin so long and i was getting pissed i felt liek having fun i said i could say it but i would change it a bit. this is what i offerd.

" one nation, under teh great saint lucifer, with liberty adn justice for all"

eheh i still remember teh look she gave me it was hilarious. then she said no you can jsut sit there and say nothing
a more peace way of keepign my rights than sueing the school. man that school hated me.
goes onlong the same reson when i eat dinner with my family at large mels adn my 2 consine(very chrsitain) want to say a praier seeing as they are 10adn 8 we amuse them (though most of my family on my moms side is christain they don't say prayers or shit like that) so while they say there shit i am thinkign i thank my mom(or whoever made it) for workign hard for money to buy this food blah blah blah adn crap liek that
the whole point with these lawsuits in money peopel jsut want money and thats it if htey didn't want money than they would do what i did find a more peacefull way of not havin got say it.

he i still thnk what i did to all those stupid people that come to your door to try and get you to go to their chuch to go away adn leave us alone was great. i told tehm i wasn't interested in goging becasue i was a athiest(thiknig that would be enough, it wasn't) then they asked well why- now here is were i coudl have chosen to say the truth or lie adn entertain myself. i chose to entertain myself-what i said was well to tell you the truth i am gettign fed up of all you peopel coming to my door adn buttign into my life so i said fuck it i am gogin to be a athiest. now that coudl have been avided if you guys didn't keep comming to my door and buging me now leave me alone adn i go make my plan to prove to teh world that god doesn't exsite adn that jesus was just high on somehtign.. then i closed teh door. now after aobut dogin that 5 or so more times they stoped comming adn its been over a year since they have come to my door

see there are alot mroe ways to get people not to bother you about religion adn shit without taking it to court

[Fionn MacCool]

The original Pledge of Allegiance, although written by a socialist Baptist minister in 1892, did not include the words 'under God'. Those words were added in 1954, the McCarthy era, after a heated campaign by the Knights of Columbus.

I, for one, am in favor of their removal. I favor a strict adherence to the separation of church and state. That means NO reference to the Judeo-Christian god attached to ANY government activity, publication or venue. NO prayers in school, or in congress for that matter; NO Ten Commandments in courtrooms; NO oaths sworn with one hand on a bible (why not the Koran, the Torah or the Tibetan Book of the Dead for that matter?).

It does not take much of a survey of history to discover the harm done whenever religion and politics are mixed. Our Founding Fathers recognised the danger over 200 years ago and took definite steps to mitigate it. Let us continue the historically unprecedented struggle to keep these unholy bedfellows apart.

[Shazam0]

I have no issues with the term under god in our allegeance. btw it was President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1954 who made it officially part of our pledge of allegeince. I have no issues with our leaders and judges appealing to thier creator for guidence. Forcing others is another topic. For instance prayers in schools. dbf is correct to reject this display of forcing theology upon him. I'd hate to have someone force me to 'believe' in something i didnt.

[Golda]

I, for one, really like God. I think He's good and kind and loving, and that humanity is to blame for screwing up the earth. If we are to be a nation and our choices are to be under God, Man or Nothing, I choose God.

[Deemer Reeves]

Someone from across the Pond sticking an Oar in.

living in a country where religion and politics are inextricably linked, the Queen being the head of state and also the head of the church of England, I don't really see what your objection to the two being bedfellows is. While organised religion is somthing I abhor, I will readily concede the fact that the influence and involvment of the Church in our political system has often been a calming one, helping see that politicans do not lose sight of the people that they serve. Of course, they were also responsible for encouraging the goverment to start some of the bloodiest wars in history, but I think they've stopped that now

We have no oath of allegiance, although with the current large influx of migrants from the old eastern bloc countries coming to live here its under active consideration. In a court of law you do not have to swear an oath on the bible unless you wish to do so. You may swear to tell the truth on the Koran etc. Your personal beliefs and wishes are respected. School assemblys are multi-faith in areas with large multi-ethnic make-ups. I presume the USA is the same.

Can't you use the original Oath, if you wish to?. If you prefer the second, then use that. I presume you can chose which you want to use. If someone is trying to take away your right to choose, then maybe its time to stand up and be counted. That is the problem in the U.K. The silent majority stay silent and suffer, while the vocal minority are listened to and pampered.......but as DBF says, its not about the words, its about what you do to show your love and alleigance towards your Country.

[Alstair]

I'll just say this. If you live in the United States and don't like the way things are. Get the F*** out. You have that freedom too so stop wasting our tax dollars complaining. Just leave.

[Sansake^]

Actually I believe that the seperation of Church (capital "C" and not to be confused with God) and State is intended to prevent a State sanctioned religion, not religion in general and certainly not God. It is intended that the State not enter my home and announce that "We the people" officially recognize only The Church of America (or whatever) and that I am not, therefore, allowed to openly practice Islam.

It is not intended to force the government to refute or even refuse to recognize the fact that we are a predominately Christian nation, founded on Christian values, by a Christian people.

I was in late Junior or early Senior High School when the Pledge of Alligiance became "optional". Being the openly rebellious folks that most teenagers are, almost every one of my classmates opted not to say it (without, I'm sure, any real clue as to why). I was, of course, the one who got in trouble. Being one of only three folks still saying the Pledge, it was easy for the powers that be to make out what I'd actually been saying for years. "I pledge alligiance, to the flag of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And to the Republic for which it once stood...."

At the time, I left out the "One Nation, under God" part myself because, I reasoned, if God were watching and truly cared about our Constitution, The Confederacy would have won the war.

[Alstair]

Since when did the bible or the Christian or Jewish religions ever start advocating slavery and the degredation of an entire race.

I'm not really religious but I sure don't feel that the Confederation should have won the war. And I'm from the South. Hell as far as I'm concerned the Civil War was a waste of time, energy, resources, and human lives. The U.S. would attack a country now days that did what the South did to slaves back then.

[Shazam0]

I dont know... imagine how nice it would be to have the south not part of the US. you could like leave the country to go to disney world. that would be cool.

[Sansake^]

Since when did the bible or the Christian or Jewish religions ever start advocating slavery and the degredation of an entire race.

Ah, another product of the U.S. Public School system (don't get too offended, so was I). I am not talking about slavery and neither was either of the combatants at the beginning of the war. Slavery, in and of itself did not become an issue in that war until it (the war) was two years old and Lincoln needed to hang the Union hat on something which would keep England and/or France from declaring on the side of the Confederacy. Enter the Emancipation Proclamation and viola, ten years of history instantly changed. Suddenly, the whole thing's about slavery.

The U.S. would attack a country now days that did what the South did to slaves back then.

Unless of course it was a Central or South American regime which claimed to be Democratic and supported our views on Communism. I'd love to live in your world for just one day

[Alstair]

It also had to do with keeping cheap labor for growing cotton and tobacco. The cash crops and only real source of income for the South back then. What was that cheap source of labor, slaves.

And I didn't go to public school.

[Golda]

Actually the Seperation of Church and State is not in the Constitution at all. This phrase was written by liberal Supreme Court justices when interpreting. The portion of the Constitution it refers to is something like "Congress shall pass no law..." (that favors any religion or something like that. Giovernment has waaaaay overstepped its authority in putting any boundries at all on religion, religious practices in public places, government buildings or anything remotely like that. The intent of the Authors was to make sure that Govt was totally "hands off" when it comes to religion. It seems this liberal interpretation has made a way for Govt to do the opposite and start making laws and Justices to start handing out judgements that stifle and oppress religious freedoms in public places and on public airwaves.

[Shazam0]

Back it up Sansake. The Southern States left because they wanted to govern themselves, specifically they wanted to have slaves and the north didn't want them to. So in a way yes the war was started with no releation to slavery and it wasnt until Licoln gave his infamous Gettesburg address that the issue was turned to slavery and thus kept France and England from allying the South and coming to thier aid, and winning the war. But in reality the issue that the South wanted freedom govern themselves and the north wouldn't allow them to was slavery. And imho if those white rich plantation owners would've consceeded, if the generals would've just been willing to submit to the Law rather then rise up against it, if our political leaders in the South would've accepted thier countries views on slavery, and had been willing to just obey what the voice of our country through Congress/courts/and our president said about slavery then there would've been no civil war. I really dont want to reflect too much on this, because it makes my want those generals and political leaders to burn in hell. They caused the greatest killing our nation has ever seen. All because they turned tratorous. They rebelled against the nation they belonged to. If the same thing happend today we'd pull them out of thier castles and prosecute them as traiters. Because of the Souths greed my forefather fought and almost died in a war that was SO not necesary! Fortunetely my forefather was not killed, and later married and had children. bah!

[Shazam0]

I'm ok with not having the words 'in god we trust' on our coins, and with taking the term 'under god' out of our pledge. This isn't a big deal to me. I think it is a big deal to have government force us to practice a specific religion. Like has been said, the words 'in god we trust' and 'under god' are just that words. For those who believe in god these words have meaning, and for those who dont their meaning less. No one is forcing anything upon anyone with such phrases. Or are they?

[Sansake^]

Back it up Sansake. The Southern States left because they wanted to govern themselves, specifically they wanted to have slaves and the north didn't want them to.

Actually, the "North" had made no serious moves toward abolishing slavery but were well along that road. The Republican Party was created, more or less to run, Lincoln for President (himself not an abolitionist) but it was created from three groups which included the abolitionists. What the Federalists began to push was not the abolishing slavery where it already existed but that, should any territory wish to become a State, it would have to be free. Morally right, wrong, or indifferent, this was clearly beyond the Constitutionally legal power of the Federal Government to dictate. Is it a coincidence that seemingly only the slave holding States were incenced by this? Of course not. But the crux of the matter was, if they (the Federal Government) are so blatently and unabashedly willing to so completely overstep their bounds on this issue, how much longer before they are in my living room telling me what to eat for dinner? The core issue therefore, is State's rights, not slavery. The Federal Government then raised an army (also unconstitutional) in order to enforce it's authority to dictate these issues (not to free slaves). As Golda has (perhaps inadvertently) pointed out, after winning that war, they have been ramrodding this position and consolidating their power ever since.

And imho if those white rich plantation owners would've consceeded, if the generals would've just been willing to submit to the Law rather then rise up against it, if our political leaders in the South would've accepted thier countries views on slavery, and had been willing to just obey what the voice of our country through Congress/courts/and our president said about slavery then there would've been no civil war.

But this is just the point Shaz, they were legally (if not morally) in the right. America was designed as a loose confederacy of smaller countries (which we now call States and/or Commonwealths). It was designed to support a very weak Federal Government which would supply very limited common services to its member "Nations". (e.g. Robert E. Lee was asked to lead The Army of the Potomac but respectfully declined saying that he would go the way of his Country meaning Virginia, not the U.S.) When confronted with a handful of men who apparently wanted more for it, certain States opted to quit the club. They didn't declare war on the Federal Government, they just left. (Texas, unhappy with the rather vague wording of the Constitution in this regard, even had their right to suceed from the Union guaranteed to them in their State Charter so they were lied to twice <g>). America was not then what it is now and no longer resembles anything envisioned by the founding fathers.

Your Constitution was struck a grevious blow by the Federal Government, assaulted repeatedly over the next four or so years, pronounced dead and buried on April 9th, 1865 at Appomattix, VA., and they have been pissing on its grave ever since.

I suggest you go read (or re-read as the case may be) your Constitution and take an objective look at the Federal Government. Try not to forget (as we often do) that the Federal Government is not allowed to do anything not specifically forbidden it by the Constitution but, rather, is empowered to do only those things specifically allowed it.

How does any of this relate to my original post on this thread? It is my opinion that were this truly, "One Nation, under God" then this Nation (as defined by the Constitution upon which it was founded), would still exist. It does not.

[Cashel Kinnane]

Since when did the bible or the Christian or Jewish religions ever start advocating slavery and the degredation of an entire race.

Uh, do I need to bring up the relevant biblical passages? Jesus himself was to take the Assyrians to the sword, and there are passages explaining precisely how much the average female slave goes for on the open market. I'm just quibbling, though; your point stands that Christianity and Judaism certainly don't support slavery and racial subjugation in their present forms.

Regarding the issue at hand, I have a few fairly strong opinions on the matter (despite being Canadian ). Liberty includes the freedom to believe in whichever religion (or lack thereof) one chooses, and the founding fathers of the United States specifically separated Church and State to avoid sanctioning one religion over another.

As for these Christian pundits who insist everyone is being unreasonable in requesting 'In God We Trust' or 'One Nation Under God' or the Ten Commandments being removed from public or government sponsored displays, I ask them if they would so vehemently defend 'In Vishnu We Trust' appearing on every dollar bill, every child being forced to repeat 'One Nation Under Allah' each morning or the Wiccan Threefold Law appearing in courts and legal buildings across the country. If religions can truly be held as equal despite a preponderance of Christian symbolism throughout the government, then there really should be no difference if other religions were rotated in. If, however, Christians would find my suggested alternatives disagreeable, then they understand the 'unreasonable' position of non-Christians.

It's unpalatable to some, but if the government cannot equally support all religions, then it should support none. This isn't a challenging proposition; religion can still flourish in a country where the state ignores it, and that is the way it should be.

[redick]

But history has proven that the state can ignore most any religeon except Chritianity.