Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since the addition of the phrase “under God” in 1954, the pledge has been challenged repeatedly as a violation of the separation of church and state. In 2004, one case reached the Supreme Court, but ultimately failed, as have all previous challenges.
This one is challenging the compulsory recitation in the public schools as a violation of the equal rights laws of the state.
Should be quite interesting to watch this play out.
No matter what challenges or petition there are regards to removing "under God" in pledge and "In God We Trust" as our motto and on currency; it will remain the way it is due to the president and congress supporting it, as well as since 90% of Americans believe in God.
Like it or not, the United States is among the most religious western nations. President has argued that the government is not forbidden mentioning "God" in public because it is not solely representing one religion only.
No matter what challenges or petition there are regards to removing "under God" in pledge and "In God We Trust" as our motto and on currency; it will remain the way it is due to the president and congress supporting it, as well as since 90% of Americans believe in God.
It might get knocked out in this one state on a technicality, but I would not expect it to be long before someone appends a disclaimer to that state's equal rights law saying that "nothing in this provision shall be construed as a prohibition against recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools", and all the other states follow suit.
This is exactly why we need to break down the taboos against the slightest criticism or disagreement with religion, and the toxic relationship between religion and patriotism. Right now, knee-jerk insertions like the addition of "under God" and the terror of speaking against it means that once again, theist "thinking" gets a free, unquestioned and unimpeded ride. We are allowing the most specious and unsubstantiated thoughts humans can think go unquestioned and unchallenged -- we are not requiring them to even compete in the marketplace of ideas. If those ideas are so valid, they should have no problem holding their own. If someone asks, "why should we add 'under god' to the Pledge?", they need an answer other than "Uh ... because God!!"
This is one of the belt buckles worn by SS troopers in WW II. It is the same belt buckle that was worn by German soldiers in WW I.
"Gott mit uns" means "God is with us."
Americans making the same sort of claim or plea for divine backing are just as credible.
I think that President Lincoln had the best approach to this god-as-a-nationalist dynamic. He pointed out that both sides in the Civil War were claiming that God was on their side. Rather than that, Lincoln said, we must do what we think is right and hope that we are on God's side.
Having all schoolchildren stand up and recite a pledge of allegiance to the union every day is about the most '1984' thing in the world. I can't see how anyone doesn't see it as blatant fascism. Luckily it has lost all meaning. Kids don't know what it is about and adults did it when they were kids.
It might get knocked out in this one state on a technicality, but I would not expect it to be long before someone appends a disclaimer to that state's equal rights law saying that "nothing in this provision shall be construed as a prohibition against recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools", and all the other states follow suit.
This is exactly why we need to break down the taboos against the slightest criticism or disagreement with religion, and the toxic relationship between religion and patriotism. Right now, knee-jerk insertions like the addition of "under God" and the terror of speaking against it means that once again, theist "thinking" gets a free, unquestioned and unimpeded ride. We are allowing the most specious and unsubstantiated thoughts humans can think go unquestioned and unchallenged -- we are not requiring them to even compete in the marketplace of ideas. If those ideas are so valid, they should have no problem holding their own. If someone asks, "why should we add 'under god' to the Pledge?", they need an answer other than "Uh ... because God!!"
Mordant, I don't know how old you are but you hit the nail right squarely on the head. I am old enough to remember when the pledge was said before the "under god" was inserted. In my school, kids were taken out of their classrooms every morning and lined up in the hallways, faced the flag, recited the pledge of allegiance then marched back to the classroom. At first there was no "under god" then there was.
Believe it or not, many parents did not want those words. And they were theists who did not believe that god should be mentioned in a political statement. The pledge was okay, bringing god into it wasn't. My parents, conservative Jews, were amongst those. They told my sister and me to just be silent when those words were spoken and no one would see because they had eyes on the flag. That was true, we never got caught. There were Christian parents who did not want god in the pledge as well for the same reasons. I remember my parents discussing articles in the newspapers about it.
But as you stated the answer "Uh ... because God!!" prevailed. And there you have it.
...Believe it or not, many parents did not want those words. And they were theists who did not believe that god should be mentioned in a political statement. The pledge was okay, bringing god into it wasn't. My parents, conservative Jews, were amongst those. They told my sister and me to just be silent when those words were spoken and no one would see because they had eyes on the flag. That was true, we never got caught. There were Christian parents who did not want god in the pledge as well for the same reasons. I remember my parents discussing articles in the newspapers about it.
But as you stated the answer "Uh ... because God!!" prevailed. And there you have it.
I was in school also when it got added. I don't remember anyone objecting on the grounds of being atheist, but my best friend was one of the three Jews in the school system, and his parents - Conservative Jews, did not like it. And many Catholics objected. As you said, we just skipped those words during the pledge.
However, I think the time is near when we will have a Rightist government, and we will hear that every military move is being made because we have "God on our side."
Mordant, I don't know how old you are but you hit the nail right squarely on the head. I am old enough to remember when the pledge was said before the "under god" was inserted.
No, I'm a few years too young for that, it was changed in 1954 and I was born in 1957. But I always considered a compulsory parroting of patriotic pablum to be meaningless so I went through the motions along with everyone else, "under god" and all. It's not that I didn't like my country, or appreciate the sentiment, but instinctively, I knew that everyone was repeating words without real awareness or heart, and it felt like propaganda (which it was). For me at least it had the opposite of its intended effect. If American was inherently great then why did it need to go around trumpeting it from rooftops and brainwashing kids about it?
Years later, early in high school, I was under compulsion, via an assignment in English class, to write an entry in the American Legion Essay Contest, the topic being to the effect, "why I love America, the greatest nation on earth". Annoyed at this exercise, I deliberately wrote the most over the topic bit of jingoistic drivel I could conceive of. You could hear the military bands marching in the background when you read it. To my humiliation, it won third place at the state level. I made myself scarce when the time came to bus me down to the capital to read it. I was probably hiding under my pillow while someone was reading it on my behalf. At least it was an object lesson in the power of words and ideas, particularly when directed at the thoughtless.
My parents are both old enough to remember "under God" being put into the pledge (having been born in 1944 and 1946, respectively). My non-denominational Protestant mom (who went to public schools) thinks it's a good thing, and should be left in, and too bad to those of us (including her own kids) who disagree. My Catholic dad (who went to Catholic schools) thinks it should be taken back out, because it's inappropriate. (His older sister, a former nun, agrees with this stance.)
My siblings and I always found it odd that the parent with the more secular background is all for keeping it, but the parent with the more religious background is against it.
From an outsider's perspective, I think a lot of this seems to be from an era when war was an accepted norm, something just over the horizon and thus kids had to be groomed for military service; after all the entire western world was opposing communism from the USSR.
While we never had pledges to the flag or even flag raising ceremonies except at a military function and usually at a fair or sorts where the military may have carried out a demonstration. We did however have cadets which was voluntary and of course scouts and girl guides.
Here is my brother in cadet uniform circa 1954 while he was still at school. Learning marching, shooting with a .22 rifle and other things.
I never did this as by the time I got to HS, we were pretty much in a civil war.
As time has elapsed, the trend is towards peace but oddly enough, this mentality still prevails in the USA (so it seems)
It really goes to show what Hitler did regarding the Hitler youth, the Brits also did. Pic above when Zambia was still a colony.
Did you guys have anything like cadets at HS?
This tradition kind of reminds me of a joke of a woman that always cut off a third of a pot roast but when quizzed why replied her mother always did it this way. Upon investigating, this was the pat answer given by mother, grandmother and only when they got to great grandmother who was still alive, did they find the real reason, the part that was cut off was due to it being spoiled i.e. no refrigeration. (something to that effect)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
