one nation, under god, indecisive

One Nation Under God Indecisive
by Joseph C. Hinson
July 6, 2002

Is it just me or does it seem that some people have a low opinion of God? They think they need to mandate that children in school pledge allegiance to "one nation, under God, indivisible." As if that somehow makes America a better place to live. Some, however, have likened it to an indoctrination. Kids are either made to recite the Pledge or do not know that it is their right not to recite it. As everyone knows, you can't really be a patriotic citizen without God.

In that light, much is being made of the recent decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Much of what is being said is simply not true. "What's next?" Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., asked Thursday. "Will our courts, in their zeal to abolish all religious faith from public arenas, outlaw 'God Bless America' too?" This is the kind of fear mongering that is going on. First of all, no court is trying to "abolish" any religious faith. Secondly, the ruling did not find the Pledge as a whole unconstitutional. It found that the words "under God" violated the separation of church and state doctrine. But it sounds better for the other side if they say the court found the entire Pledge unconstitutional. Never mind that it's a lie.

The Attorney General, who has never let the Constitution get in the way of his way of governing much less be a concern at all said, "The Justice Department will defend the ability of our nation's children to pledge allegiance to the American flag, by requesting a hearing en banc by the full 9th Circuit."

Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., who opposed the resolution, said that although he believes the pledge in schools should be found constitutional, the issue is best left to the courts. "The only thing worse than the decision is the spectacle of members of the United States House of Representatives putting aside discussion of prescription drugs for Medicare to take up this resolution," Scott said. Both houses of Congress start each working day with the pledge, but typically only a few lawmakers are in the chambers to recite it. But that's not the point. The Congress was able to get on national television by appealing to the masses. It's beside from the point that the masses are wrong on this. It'll get them a free advertisement. "We are one nation under God," said Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D. "We affirmed that today as Americans, not as Republicans or Democrats, and we did so proudly," Also that day, the collected came out opposing crime.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., Al Gore's running mate in the last presidential election and a potential 2004 presidential candidate himself, called for a constitutional amendment to make sure the words stay in the pledge.
"There may have been a more senseless, ridiculous decision issued by a court at some time, but I don't remember it," Lieberman said.

Governor Bob Holden of Missouri just signed a bill that requires the pledge to be recited at least once a week in public schools. "This is a symbolic gesture that we as a state believe in the Pledge of Allegiance and its values and that we hold those values dear to our heart," Holden said. "I think that court decision will be overturned." Note that the bill requires the Pledge be recited once a week.

Judge Alfred Goodwin said he and concurring Judge Stephen Reinhardt believe the 2-1 decision last week by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was consistent with a long line of church-school rulings from the nation's highest court. Goodwin said the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which calls for the separation of church and state, has been used by the Supreme Court to bar a host of religious activity in schools -- including clergy-led prayers at graduations and student-led prayers at school sporting events.

Finally! Something we can all get behind! Now if only he and Johnnie Asscrotch would get behind the Constitution.

President Bush holds his hand on over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag before speaking at an Independence Day salute to veterans at the Jackson County Courthouse in Ripley, W.Va., Thursday, July 4, 2002. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

A Short History of the Pledge

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. About the Pledge, Bellamy is quoted as saying, "It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution... with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people... The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?"

In 1892, Bellamy was a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. In this role, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his Pledge of Allegiance.

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer. Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

(This section relied heavily on The Pledge of Allegiance: A Short History.)

Anyone remember the Constitution? I didn't think so.

Now I am far from a qualified authority of the Constitution. In fact, most people are. Of course, this never stops them from telling us what the Founding Fathers meant when they put it together all those years ago. But one thing that I find odd is that more people think pledging some sort of blind allegiance to a piece of flag is more important that learning about the Constitution, studying it, and understanding it. No, it's more important that "under God" be placed in there than it is to find out -- and to teach the children -- what this country was founded on in the first place.

I don't believe that this country was founded on Christianity. Some people run in circles, screaming and shouting that, indeed, it was. I don't particularly think it is important to this discussion. I think that the country was founded on religious freedom. If you want to worship God, that's great. By all means do so. But don't think that God needs you to make school children memorize a pledge that briefly mentions Him. Don't think He needs you to place the Ten Commandments in school or to make prayer mandatory in schools. God can do fine on his own. Likewise, unbelievers will probably not be swayed by such ignorant shows in the first place. Quick. How many of you reading this have converted to God because you recited the Pledge in school? How many of you have changed your wicked ways because you saw a posting of the Ten Commandments on your way to the bathroom with a pack of smokes?

Frankly, I think Christians must believe we are all a bunch of stupid, brain dead robots to think that any of this is actually going to work. You hear a lot nowdays about how nothing is as good as it was in the old days. Children are less innocent and we live in a much more complex world now. That may or may not be true. But all of this has happened, apparently, since the "under God" part was put in the Pledge back in the 50s. A lot of good that did.

Christians, not to mention Congressmen, John Ashcroft and the President have protested with an abundance of rhetoric and emotion the June 26 ruling, but their words are decidely lacking in cold, hard facts. Looking at the ruling without the bluster and balogna, one would find that it is solidly grounded in the Constitution. The First Amendment clearly states that the government shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, any religion. When Congress added "under God," they did exactly that.

Having "under God" in the Pledge has a clear implication -- that you must believe in and worship God to be a good patriot. This means atheists can't be good patriots. Of course, this argument isn't going to win a lot of support. The believers don't care what the atheists think. I personally think that bringing the atheists angle into the debate only clouds the issue. I have said it before and I will say it again -- leave God out of the public schools. Once you allow the line between of church and state to blur, you allow others to teach your child what God to believe in, what God to worship. As the parent of two small children, I know that it is my job to give my boy and girl the tools they need to decide for themselves how much religion they want. Certainly we will teach them as we see fit. And that's how it should be. Keep God and government separate.

In conclusion, much of the media as well as the aforementioned members of the government has shown a despicable willingness to spread misconception over this court case. It is not and will never be illegal to add "under God" to the pledge. But to do so in a school and then to make the recitation of it mandatory is and should be. Likewise, the Pledge itself is not unconstitutional. It is the 1954 act that added the phrase in question that is unconstitutional. The media has failed to clarify that the original pledge did not contain the phrase; in fact, the pledge was not even specific to the United States of America or its flag. As we have seen time and time again, facts need not get in the way when a politician is making a point or a biased journalist is staring down a deadline.

to my next rant (when posted)
My Rants and Raves
The Joseph C. Hinson Home Page