This ruling makes me sad: Appeals Court says ‘Under God’ not a prayer
It doesn’t really matter if it’s a prayer or not. Why should people who don’t believe in God be forced to say it? I wouldn’t want to be forced to say “One nation without God.” I guess I could see a case for it if the pledge had always been that way, but the phrase was added in only a few decades ago. No reason we can’t just take it out.
Further reading:
The Pledge Under God
I’m sure you’re not the only Christian that wants that, of course, but you’re one of few. And one of even fewer than that that can actually get worked up about it at all. I do appreciate that, though. The scaremongers always like to make it out as though the atheists are somehow oppressing them, as if our meager little 1-2% of the population could do that. And of course their definition of “oppressed” is “not being allowed to oppress other people”. And the fact of the matter is, without good, levelheaded Christians to stick up for real freedom of religion, not just freedom to be whatever type of Christian you want, we’d be pretty bad off.
Anyway, the big proponents of “under God” like to say it shouldn’t be a big deal for everyone to say it, but I’m pretty sure they’d think differently if it was “under Allah” or “under our Earth Mother” or something.
No, you aren’t the only one. I’m with you.
Anyone else want to join matthew and me in objecting to this? Or shall we continue to reinforce the stereotype that Christians have no compassion and seek only to forceably convert others to our faith (or, if not actually convert, just make them say stuff they don’t mean)?
I dislike the idea of having that phrase in the pledge, but for a different reason.
I should say first of all that I’m not an American and have never lived there, though I like to consider myself a Christian.
I once had to read all the Presidential inaugural addresses (with the exception of the most recent one) for an assignment. One of the things that struck me was a recurring impression that America and its progress was somehow reflecting the divine will. I felt distinctly uncomfortable at this.
So, if having “under God” in the pledge reinforces the idea that American policy and action represents God’s will for the world, then I’m all in favour of having it removed.
I agree on this issue. The state and religion should be very separate. The pledge is religious and ignores the beliefs of many groups that don’t believe in any gods including atheists, agnostics, Buddhists and Taoists, to name but a few.
I also agree with Irihapeti, invoking “God” as sponsor of your nation or cause has lead to tragic historical results, recall “Gott Mit Uns”. It always makes your side feel that they are right and that crushing, subjugating or, yes torturing, anyone else is divinely inspired and anointed.
The original pledge (which, by the way, was written by a Baptist minister Francis Bellamy who was a Socialist) did NOT even contain “under God”. That phrase was added during the Red Scare of the 1950s.
As a Believer, I do not like it there either.
Only a year ago, I concluded the Pledge of Alleg. is remarkably inconsistent with the “democratic republic” that was founded 240 years ago. Adams and Jefferson would have joined hands in condemning it as fascist (to use a modern term). And the national flag made sense as a battle standard, but wasn’t developed as some kind of totem for allegiance! I love the Constitution and depend on the Bible — so I don’t recite the PoA anymore.
In consideration of all that, I agree with your premise, though not as a significant point in itself. Thanks for your thoughtful viewpoint and for the post.
I would go further than removing “under God.” I think that we shouldn’t even need to say the Pledge in the first place. It is unconstitutional and undemocratic to have children pledging to our country in schools. We should not brainwash them into belIeving in this country.
I realize that this is a hopeless dream, but that is how I think this should be.