TheAgitator.com
Pledge
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003Gene Healy has a nice piece on the socialist origins of the Pledge of Allegiance.
I’ve written before, it’s not the “under God” part that troubles me, it’s the idea that we force kids to stand up and pledge their devotion to anything, God-like, agnostic, whatever. Allegiance to the state can’t be coerced. And free countries shouldn’t try.
What about “indivisible.” I’ve got a problem with that — that’s turning our nation into a god isn’t it?
I forgot that (of course) this idea is not original but as far as I know to Reformed theologian Douglas Wilson.
Indivisible: no more succession & civil war. Does not mean omnipotent, omipresent or omniscient. Nor for that matter invisible, indefatiguible (sp?).
I never much cared for compelling kids to say the pledge and I always left out the “under god” stuff when I was duly forced to comply. But I do think that teaching civic responsibility might as well be a part of a PUBLIC school education. It’s one of the few really good reasons to force all children to get edjumacated – that and an ability to read and count. Might as well have a pledge as part of one’s civics lesson – but does it have to be THAT pledge?
didn’t thomas dilorenzo write a book about this?
i think every communist and facist state has had some type of pledge.
“i think every communist and facist state has had some type of pledge.”
Probably. And if you can get to a picture of schholchildren reciting the pledge in the 20′ and 30’s, note that the hand is not over the heart, but rather in a “Nazi” salute. Eerie today . . .
BTW, I think the Supreme Court case is close to a slam dunk. The reason for the “under God” addition in the 50’s was specifically to “get at” those atheistic Communists, not some altruistic notion about how our country was divinely inspired. This would seem to me to be a transparent “establishment” of the (Judeo)-Christian God.
Peter Lindholm: The reason for the “under God” addition in the 50’s was specifically to “get at” those atheistic Communists, not some altruistic notion about how our country was divinely inspired.
Actually the founding fathers largely believed that our nation was divinely inspired (i.e. the will of â??Godâ?, or â??divine providenceâ? â?? Destiny).
In fact there is a phrase in national motto that essentially translates as:
Fate (or Divine Providence) favors (or blesses) our undertaking.
Yes but there were no prayers before the Constitutional Convention because Hamilton did not want to invoke “any outside influences.”
I donâ??t know â?¦ is Fate (or The Laws of Physics) an â??outsideâ? influence?
BTW â?? in my last post I said â??mottoâ? when I meant to say â??The Great Sealâ?.
Serpent:
My comment stands. I was not trying to reference the founding fathers or get into the debate about whether or not they were believers (different subject, different debate). I was referring to the fact that the “under God” insertion was specifically intended by politicians in the 1950’s to atagonize/slap-in-the-face “atheistic commies.” As devised, it clearly goes against the “establishment” clause because of the intent of the law. More cynically, it was politicians showing how “moral” they were rather than actually being moral (I am reminded of some of comedian Bill Hicks’ comments about how do-gooders trot out the ” . . . save the children, think of the children” lines when people want to impose their morality on others).
As an aside, imagine the uproar if President Kennedy had added “. . . and the virgin Mary” to the pledge. Protestants (especially the “Catholics are going to hell because they worship idols” believers)would have foamed at the mouth.
Those that seek to change the wording of the pledge are looking in the wrong section.
The last line should read:
With liberty and justice for all who can afford it.
Then it will be a little closer to the truth.
Peter Lindholm: My comment stands. I was not trying to reference the founding fathers or get into the debate about whether or not they were believers (different subject, different debate).
Fair enough.
Peter Lindholm: I was referring to the fact that the “under God” insertion was specifically intended by politicians in the 1950’s to antagonize/slap-in-the-face “atheistic commies.”
And what [b]exactly is wrong with that? Communist (Socialist) loathe everything that this country stands for, and there is nothing in the Constitution that says we have to give aid and comfort to our enemies. In fact, there is nothing that says we even have to be â??niceâ? to them.
Are you suggesting we â??turn the other cheekâ? when it comes to Commies?
Peter Lindholm: As devised, it clearly goes against the “establishment” clause because of the intent of the law.
I disagree. The insertion of the phrase â??One nation under â??Godâ??â? can in no way be construed as an attempt by congress to establish a national religion. If that is what you are contending then please elaborate as to which specific religion you believe congress was attempting to affirm? Mere references to the existence of â??Godâ? does not a â??religionâ? make. If that is what you are claiming than please explain why references to the non-existence of â??Godâ? donâ??t also constitute the establishment of a â??religionâ? (an Atheist Theocracy)?
Peter Lindholm: More cynically, it was politicians showing how “moral” they were rather than actually being moral (I am reminded of some of comedian Bill Hicks’ comments about how do-gooders trot out the ” . . . save the children, think of the children” lines when people want to impose their morality on others).
Well here you make a valid point. Kind of like that shot of Clinton walking out of church with a Bible under his arm?
Peter Lindholm: As an aside, imagine the uproar if President Kennedy had added “. . . and the virgin Mary” to the pledge. Protestants (especially the “Catholics are going to hell because they worship idols” believers) would have foamed at the mouth.
Which is precisely why they used a generic reference to â??Godâ? instead of a specific one (such as Allah, or Yahweh, or Amaterasu, or Jehovah, or Christ, or Vishnu, or Isis â?¦).
Just out of curiousity….how should the establishment clause really get interpretted?? Meaning, can the state acknowledge multiple religions under the umbrella of one God (monotheistic) ie. Christian, judeo-christian, muslim. And then not acknowledge religions with many Gods ie. Hinduism, paganism, etc. it seems to me that if the state is going to acknowledge any religion it should be recited more like “one nation under my God or my Gods”
Hinduism can be viewed as a monotheistic religion because according to Hinduism everything is ultimately an aspect of the Brahman (”God”).