A lot of Christians (and non-Christians) will say that those two words are not a big deal and people shouldn't make a big deal about them. While others will say that our country was founded on Christian principles and those that would take the words out would be unpatriotic. Both points of view would be wrong.
Those words are a big deal in many cases: you're atheist, you're agnostic, you're Christian but believe in the separation of Church and State, or perhaps you have a different religion. Public schools should not be a conduit for proselytizing. If the Pledge instead said, "We are one nation that denies God exists", people would raise holy hell. The irony seems to be lost on most, though.
Our founding fathers purposely kept references to God out of our constitution. Though the Right would have you believe Jesus himself blesses every move of our President.
I wonder how most flag-wavers would feel if they knew the original pledge: 1) Had no reference to God and 2) Was written by a socialist (that's too damn funny). From David Greenberg's article on Slate of a few years ago:
Given this tradition, it's not surprising that the original Pledge of Allegiance—meant as an expression of patriotism, not religious faith—also made no mention of God. The pledge was written in 1892 by the socialist Francis Bellamy, a cousin of the famous radical writer Edward Bellamy. He devised it for the popular magazine Youth's Companion on the occasion of the nation's first celebration of Columbus Day. Its wording omitted reference not only to God but also, interestingly, to the United States:
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"Under God" wasn't added to the pledge and "In God We Trust" wasn't added to paper money until the 1950's. At that time, it was more of a reaction to the great atheist threat, Communism.
Would we be saying that people weren't patriotic before the 1950's because those words weren't there? Of course not ... and we shouldn't be now.
23 comments:
This is something I never understood about the US, this whole pledge of allegiance thing. I understand whence it came and that it's a patriotic thing, but it always smacked of something a cult would do. Are most kids educated about it before they learn it, or do they brainwash you first and "explain" later?
I don't even like singing Oh Canada in schools here ("God keep our land/Glorious and free" etc.). They scrapped the bible reading and Lord's Prayer years ago, and good riddance, in my opinion.
Lots of pissed off repub Senators today because they couldn't get Roberts to say he'd vote against removing the pledge
Ron,
Last time I checked, kids aren't being required to burn the flag every day before class.
If "Under God" wasn't a big deal, then why was it added to our ideology in the midst of the cold war? It WAS a big deal because it was used as a symbolic way to show we were different from those godless commies. Well, now that the cold war is over and capitalism reigns supreme, can we at least be truthful? If the Pledge is easilly changed to fit current circumstances, might I suggest:
One Nation, Under Rupert Murdoch...
I might also suggest, for your listening pleasure, Jello Biafra's rewrite of the pledge Here's a link to the MP3
Keep in mind this was written in 1991
Why are people so hot and bothered by it now?
It makes me wonder why people weren't hot and bothered by it, then.
-or-
maybe people were bothered by it and I just don't know about it?
-or-
maybe it's just more appropriate today to make waves?
anyone got any answers?
Ron,
"These attention-starved atheists are starting to be as annoying as megawatt televangelists."
*deep sigh*
I totally agree.
I think people probably were bothered by it "then" but if they spoke up about it, they would have been blacklisted as "communists" during the McCarthy era - given that religiosity and anti-communism and patriotism were so strongly linked.
I also think that since the hijacking of the Republican party by thumpers has prompted new fears by those such as myself that we're headed toward a pseudo theocracy where those of us who do not believe in Jesus will be remanded to second-class citzens.
"...where those of us who do not believe in Jesus will be remanded to second-class citzens."
Wow, seriously? I didn't know people felt that way. Christians--like myself--have a similar fear. I feel like believing in Christ is becoming so unpopular to the people with the loudest voices, that we are raising a new generation of Christian-haters. I fear it will get to a point where we will be branded as wackos and subhuman compared to people with "a mind that can think for itself"
I think people believe that Christians are all brainwashed into thinking the same about everything and that we are less than leemars who will follow each other off a cliff.
There are so many stereotypes.
I guess we are alike in that we have common fears.
I certainly don't hate Christians ... I'm married to one. I think the point we are all trying to make is that our country shouldn't be ran in a matter that it is assumed that everyone has the same religious views. Like I said in the post, people would have a problem if the Pledge of Allegiance explicitly said there was not a God. So, why shouldn't there be a problem if it says the opposite?
BTW, Laura, great mp3 of Jello. In college we listened to a lot of Dead Kennedy's and Jello's side projects with Al of Ministry.
I know YOU don't hate Christians. If you did...I wouldn't be posting on this blog.
;)
I hear what you're saying, I guess I just don't see how having God in the mix ruins things for Atheists. Just don't say the pledge or say the pledge but don't say THAT part.
If the country was founded on non-Christian values, then I'd understand if the pledge didn't include God or said something anti-God. Then this shoe would be on my foot.
Since it WAS founded on a Christian belief system and many of the founding fathers were, indeed, God-fearing leaders...it makes sense and it honors their memory to keep it.
I didn't know it was changed in the 50s but I don't see how that violates or changes who the founding fathers were or what they stood for.
But there's the rub. Many believe, me included, that it wasn't founded on Christian beliefs. They went out of their way to not include references to God. They were certainly more deist than theist, as it were. The Declaration of Independence spoke of "Nature's God" and "Laws of Nature". Jefferson was openly hostile to the writings of the bible. John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Paine, etc. all had problems with the bible or with the linking of church and state. Here's a pretty good article outlining some of their beliefs:
Faith of our Founding Fathers
"I just don't see how having God in the mix ruins things for Atheists."
It's the principle of the matter. Most of the citizens of this country live in small, fairly sheltered communities. I remember meeting people in college that were shocked to learn there were people that didn't celebrate Christmas. Think about someone living in a community like that, whose kid is being ridiculed by other children who hear their parents talk about how "weird" the Jones's are because they're Athiests or Buddhists or Muslims. It's the idea that somehow believing in God makes you a "Better" citizen than not that is promoted in the pledge.
It also has to do with the blind indoctrination of children. Adults are mature enough to know that it doesn't matter - kids aren't.
If you take Christians as a larger group, disregarding sectarian differences, they have a stranglehold on our culture. I can't fathom being a Christian in this society and feeling like an outcast. Now, when you throw denominations in there, I can see how an Evangelical living in a Catholic community can feel out of place - but in the big picture, imagine how a pagan or athiest or Hindu feels...
Rome had it right (before Constantine) - practice whatever religion you want as long as you pledge alliegence to your government. Keep them separate.
It also has to do with the blind indoctrination of children.
Is that what my husband and I are doing by taking our children to church and teaching them about God?
It's about dialouge isn't it?
My kids are introduced to things in school, like Japanese kitchen gods, and we talk about it. It's the same in an atheist's home. The pledge says," One Nation under God."
That doesn't mean everyone thinks that way...I just think all religions experience this--making a huge deal out of it doesn't make sense to me.
"I can't fathom being a Christian in this society and feeling like an outcast."
All I have to do to feel like an outcast in society is to go to San Fransisco. It's three hours away from me and it's the most liberal place I can think of. My sister lives there and one time we were driving around and there were these people on the street corner holding up John Kerry signs and my sister says out the window " You're preaching to the choir, guys!"
In my own community, I'm an outcast 5 minutes up the highway in a place called Nevada City.
It's retirement for the Yuppies and they aren't Christians.
"
Is that what my husband and I are doing by taking our children to church and teaching them about God?
"
Yes, in fact, you are indoctrinating your children, and that's OK. So is the atheist from California. So is the Hacidic (sp?) Jew, the Sunni Muslim, the Tibeten Buddhist, the and the Amish. But that's the point. They're your children. Freedom of and from religon doesn't mean that parents can't teach their children about whatever beliefs they may have. The establishment clause protects your right to do just that, because it keeps the government from endorsing any religous practice. If situations were reversed, and the pledge said "One nation, under Alah" (for instance), would you be OK with it?
There's a difference between teaching about something like Japanese Table Gods in a unit on comparative theology, and requiring childrent to recite something everyday.
"
All I have to do to feel like an outcast in society is to go to San Fransisco. It's three hours away from me and it's the most liberal place I can think of.
"
I live in Arizona. I feel like an outcast every day. It's not the constitution's intent to guarantee that you won't feel uncomfortable with what other people say or do.
You misunderstood my statements: By Blind indoctrination I meant that most people wouldn't think to talk to their kids about the pledge, first off. Secondly, my point was that it makes the assumption that everyone is pledging allegience to a "nation under god" - which automatically outcasts those nonbelievers.
Every individual can find situations where he/she is an outcast. I'm talking big picture, society at large. Society at large accepts your beliefs as "the norm".
But even on an individual level take the following:
-You get to swear in court on your own religious text.
-The custody of your children isn't threatened by your religious beliefs or practices.
-Judeo-Christian ethics regarding sexuality dominate over other ideologies.
-Non-Abrahamic followers are pretty much socially barred from high public offices.
-You can find a place to worship with almost everywhere you go.
-Your beliefs aren't regarded as "weird" by society at large.
-Your beliefs are treated as "sacred" while other religious stories of creation and cosmology such as the Greek "mythology" or Native American "Mythology" are relegated to the arenas of literature or anthropology.
Christian beliefs are regarded as "the norm" in this country and everyone else is "the other". That's what I mean by not feeling ostracized.
Oh, and Christian Holidays are the only ones recognized by the general workforce and public schools. Though I can request my holidays off without having to take vacation, it's not automatic.
I could go on, but I won't
I stand corrected on most of your points, Laura.
Well done. Seriously, I never thought of all those things you listed.
eric--
no, it's not BLIND indoctrinization, which is what Laura said.
Great discussion guys. That's why I like this group. All of you have a unique viewpoint and perspective that helps to really illuminate a lot of these issues. And we all do a fairly good job of not taking anything too personal.
The founding fathers founded the nation as a secular one for very practical reasons. The new nation was already a melting pot of numerous denominations and philospies. The most prominent of the founding fathers (Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Jay, Hamilton) were Diests who didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus, believed that God created the universe to a set of rules and principles and set it to work (like a Swiss, clock) and were more influenced by Free Masonry than religion. But you also had Athiests like Paine, Roman Catholics, Quakers, Protestants of every denomintion.
A secular government was the only way all these disperate people could co-exist.
This is why America's government was designed to be religiously neutral, and why it should remain that way.
There's actually a really great piece I read for my Social Inequality class about privilege that I think I'm going to post an exceprt from. It's very difficult for privileged groups to recognize their privileges. The article posed a lot of things I have access to/take for granted that I never thought of before. It's interesting to ponder those things.
I don't think it's blind indoctrination if someone discusses not only what but why. I don't think many people do that - especially when it comes to the Pledge. If you think about it, you're pledging allegience to a FLAG. I don't know about you, but as a kid I recited it without thinking about how absolutely silly that is.
As for government - yes, a secular government that does not seek to legislate for or against any religious values is what is needed to preserve diversity. I don't, however, think that can exist. Many seemingly "private" matters where religion might come into play do intereact with public sphere. It's a sticky situation.
Sadie Lou:
my appologies, I meant indoctrination, not blind indoctrination. Indoctrination has sinister overtones, but I meant no offense by it. My daughter is indoctrinated at Sunday school and preschool regularly, with my approval
I feel like believing in Christ is becoming so unpopular to the people with the loudest voices, that we are raising a new generation of Christian-haters. I fear it will get to a point where we will be branded as wackos and subhuman compared to people with "a mind that can think for itself"
I think people believe that Christians are all brainwashed into thinking the same about everything and that we are less than leemars who will follow each other off a cliff.
Unfortunately, your fears are founded. Just look at the public education system, the extremely liberal higher education system, almost the entire "liberal" media (that are supposed to be and often try to represent themselves as unbiased), and the overly liberal entertainment industry. More and more each of these systems has become bolder and bolder speaking out against Christianity.
They are attempting to indoctrinate people as well, but often the choice (if we have one) is to listen to it and object (thereby being marked by just what we are fearing), or ignore it entirely (often not possible) only to have it overtake us anyways because we haven't done anything about it.
When you look at the education systems the indoctrination is usually blind, almost always forced, and widely accepted. When someone seeks a balance to that they are criticised and rejected using the concept of seperation of church and state as an excuse.
"I meant indoctrination, not blind indoctrination. Indoctrination has sinister overtones, but I meant no offense by it. My daughter is indoctrinated at Sunday school and preschool regularly, with my approval"
Whew, i was getting a little nervous about where this line of thinking was going (supporting the above statement). Thank you for clarifying your view and the terms better. If you hadn't i probably would have and as i tend to go against what most people here think i don't know as it would have been taken as seriously.
Post a Comment