Should "under God" be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance

'Under God, indivisible..." didn't bother me in school. It was the 'liberty and justice for all' part I choked on, eventually leading me to not saying the pledge at all. We caught no flack, the militants who remained defiantly seated. We were ignored by faculty.

Ros wrote:


There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees anybody the right to be 'comfortable'. Children are indoctrinated with all manner of notions in the classroom and no doubt for many, some of these notions are uncomfortable. For a reference to God to be deemed unacceptable may be as uncomfortable for the religious child as saying 'under God' is to the non believing child. But whether or not the phrase 'under God' is in the Pledge is in no way an establishment of religion or a denial of the free exercise thereof.

I have no problem if the phrase is made optional or is made flexible to allow for another name for a deity or is dropped altogether. I would concede that as a courtesy, but I will not agree that it is properly a constitutional matter.

Is the pledge compulsive? I honestly don't know. I had a couple of teachers who ignored it, and nothing ever happened.

If the daily recitation of the pledge of allegiance is made mandatory by the federal government, however, I think it is very much a constitutional issue, since the constitution is what delineates the powers of the government. I also happen to think it absolutely absurd if the federal government is virtually compelling children to pledge their allegiance to a nationalistic symbol. Can't say I really care how the court rules on this one -- though I am prepared to be alarmed by the basis on which the decision is made. Precedents can be set in odd places...

Get a grip Foxfyre, it is entirely reasonable to have a problem with the indoctrination of children, which is exactly what one encounters when children are required to pledge alleigance before they are old enough to know what the verb "to pledge" means, or have any lue what alleigance is.

Seig heil, Bubba . . .

Edgar and I are the same age, and I remember the change too. I was a believer then and it didn't bother me at the time.

But, sometime later...

The pledge reminds me of loyalty oaths. I signed one of those when I worked for my state university. I remember that the requirement was considered controversial at the time, and don't know if it is still in place. I am loyal to my country, but the signing part was strange.

As years passed I became more aware of the coercion that occurs in daily life regarding expectations of religious expression. It particularly bothers me at City Council meetings and City Design Review Board meetings. If one is presenting a matter to the council or review board, non moving lips at certain parts of the pledge (not to say total silence) could affect a vote.... if not at that meeting, perhaps at another meeting.. memories are long.

I remember being at a design review board meeting with clients who were Americans of Asian descent. I have no idea what their individual religions were, but there is a chance that they didn't share a christian upbringing. Not only did we stand for the pledge, with its 'under god' phrase, there was a roomful of bowed heads when the head of the committee recited a prayer to Jesus Christ to enlighten the judgement of the review board that evening.

I would have at the least written letters the next day, but did not want to cause trouble in the coming year or two for my clients. A judgement call for sure, as I am still angry about it.

In that case we were all grownups. With children, who are so very peer oriented, I feel it is very coercive, the under god part, and the whole daily recitation of the pledge.

I do want children to love their country, to appreciate what it has stood for, or tried to, or should have, and should in the future, as eoe says, stand for and work for liberty and justice for all.

Foxfyre,

Comfortability is not the issue. The issue is separation of church and state.

Putting pressure of any kind on kids to participate in a religious expression is clearly a problem in our secular democracy. The problem is underlined by the number of us who were sent to office for refusing to comply.

What makes me more upset about the pledge is that very few people - children or adult think about what it means. It is an empty ritual.

True patriotism goes much deeper. It surprises me that the very people who would have kids mechanically quote "Liberty and Justice for all" are the very people who would deny the basic right of marriage to people.

Let's save uncomfortability for the issues that we need to address in our pluralistic democratic society, like sexual education with AIDS prevention and homosexual civil rights.

These are all things that make people uncomfortable, but are not religous mandates.

These are the issues that when we deal with will make us a better nation with healthier kids.

I respect and admire real patriotism. Real patriotism is based on the core of our values - liberty, dignity, justice.

I despise empty Patriotism which is nothing more than mindless nationalism, self-interest and empty slogans.

I wrote "Seig heil" above precisely because of the loyalty oath issue. When Hitler implemented his plan to take complete control of the German state, he used the technique of requiring members of the armed forces to first pledge an oath of alleigance to the state, and then moved to an oath of alleigance to him personally.

This is an open, secular, pluralistic republic. The very notion of requiring children incapable of understanding what they pledge to make any pledge is antithetical to the concept of personal liberty.

But there is a guarantee of separation of church and state, which is what we are dealing with here.



This may be true, but in this country the law of the land clearly gives preference to the neutral (secular) position. If you want to disagree with the basic tenets of constitutional intent, then I would answer you differently. If that were the discussion, then I would begin to point out the virtues of a system such as ours which chooses to separate church and state. It's just a bit of a different discussion.

Ros writes:


It is only if you believe that reciting two words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegience constitutes an establishment of religion is there is anything in the U.S. Constitution that applies. There is no provision for 'separation of Church and State' in the Constitution. There is a statement that there will be no State religion and that freedom of religion will not be infringed.

I do not believe reciting "under God" in the Pledge of allegience constitutes establishment of religion or any kind of requirement to be religious. It might imply a consent to be religious and there is no constitutional provision against that.

Requirement of a city, state, or country, that its citizens pledge under God before participating in functions of that city, state, or country, is a dictum of religion by a secular entity. And tacky besides.

Correct. And I believe that it does. But the US Supreme Court may disagree with me. I guess we'll find out this summer.



This is a bit of a different discussion; interpreting the constitution. This particular discussion has been going on for a couple hundred years, and can be followed in documents originating with our founders. One document in particular by Thomas Jefferson, is the document which mentions the Wall of Separation between Church and State. It is upon this document and others, as well as new legal precidents, that the basis for constitutional interpretation derives.



I understand. I still disagree.

The rulings from the Supreme Court on these issues are always very interesting. In past examinations the court usually tries to determine the "intent" of the words in question ("In God we Trust", or "Under God"), and they usually rule a violation of the constitution if the intent of a particular phrase is determined to be a promotion of a religious idea. "In God we Trust" has always been considered a kind of historic coloquelism rather than a promotion. The difference here is that "Under God" was added specifically to counter the threat of "godless communists" and their way of life, and it is contained in a pledge, rather than in a non-binding form.

I become simply irritated by topics such as this in the news. Historically this is a Christian country. We are not "indoctrinating" children. I can tell you now that after 3rd grade I didn't even know what I was saying anymore. They are not being brain-washed. These people just want something to complain about. Why don't we remove "In God we trust" from coins? The song "God Bless America"... that's religious!!! We must get rid of that too. Give me a break.......

Ros writes:


Actually I think it isn't a different discussion as in this thread, the basis everybody uses for dropping "under God" from the Pledge is based on a 'constiutional' provision of separation of Church and State. There was no such provision I believe until Hugo Black incorporated Jefferson's metaphor of the "wall between Church and State" into an opinion: Everson v Board of Education 1947 and it has escalated from there.

In Connecticutt, the minority Danbury Baptists had supported Jefferson mostly because of his unfaltering commitment to religious liberty. When they were under seige from the much larger Congregationalists, Jefferson wrote to the Baptists:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ""make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"" thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

From other of my source material:
"Jefferson''s wall, according to (modern) conventional wisdom, represents a universal principle on the prudential and constitutional relationship between religion and the civil state. To the contrary, this wall had less to do with the separation between religion and all civil government than with the separation between federal and state governments on matters pertaining to religion (such as official proclamations of days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving). The ""wall of separation"" was a metaphoric construction of the First Amendment, which Jefferson time and again said imposed its restrictions on the federal government only (see, for example, Jefferson''s 1798 draft of the Kentucky Resolutions). In other words, the wall separated the federal regime on one side from state governments and religious authorities on the other."--Daniel L. Dreisbach.

I personally think Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he knew that the law now prohibited a moment of silence for prayer in the classroom or even anything as innocuous as the Ten Commandments from being hung on a classroom wall. He would certainly be horrified to think that the federal government was attempting to keep school children from reciting a simple "under God". That was never his intent or any of the other framers of the Constitution, even those purported to be athiest.

I am one who does not believe the Supreme Court is god and not ever to be questioned or challenged. Sometimes they do get it wrong.

You have got to be kidding. For God's sake, have you read them?

They set up a theocracy that would be at odds with our Constitution and our way of life.

The first three conflict directly with the first amendment. The fourth is an affront to both businesses and football fans. The sixth is routinely broken by our government.

The fith and seventh are unenforcable in a democracy. The tenth censures a core of the American way of life and a key appeal of the Bush reelection effort.

Not to mention the other laws that involve stoning women based on the suspicion of infidelity.

The Ten Commandments are far from innocuous. They are directly opposed to the American way of life.

I don't want them in my child's classroom.

I completely agree that we take "In Dog We Trust" off the coinage, i don't trust in anyone's favorite fairy tales, and resent as the citizen of a republic that this crap appears on the coinage. As for "God Bless America," i know of no one who contends it ought to be "gotten rid of," and would laugh at the notion. Singing that silly ditty, or believing that it has any meaning for those other than the superstitious is not only not necessaritly harmful, it is not required by the government. Just as soon as the government were to make it manadatory, i will being to shout very loudly indeed.

I would be happy to see all references to God removed from government buildings, money, the pledge, etc. As for the Constitution, it is evolving with the nation. It would be ridiculous to adhere to centuries old notions just for the sake of honoring "original intent."

ebrown writes:


Would they?
No. 1 - Put the most important first.
No. 2 - Don't put your faith in lifeless things.
No. 3 - Watch your mouth.
No. 4 - A day of rest is a good thing.
No. 5 - Respect your elders.
No. 6 - Don't murder.
No. 7 - Sleep with your own wife.
No. 8 - Don't steal.
No. 9 - Don't tell lies about people.
No. 10 - Don't be jealous of your neighbor.

This is against the American way of life? Not where I come from.

Taking your points:

1. This is to teach children that god is the most important thing--excuse me, but if that doesn't constitute an establishment of religion, you have definition of establishment sufficiently flexible as to be meaningless.

2. This is to teach children the concept that there are "false gods," and that there are, by inference, "true gods." It's a quick hop from there onto the slippery slope that leads to the indoctrination of the child about which gods are false, and which real, and how they can tell. You wanna government commission to determine those "facts," so that it can be reasonably presented to children as the consensus of opinion?

3. This is the third time in a row you've been willfully disingenuous. That commandent is not to take the lord thy (certainly not my) god's name in vain. What the hell right do you have to tell other people's children to watch their mouths? If you don't like to hear people "blaspheme," that's tough poop. It's none of your damned business how someone else's child speaks.

4. Here ya go again--a sabbath is a day of worshiping some putative deity. Characterizing it simply as a day of rest is pretty close to lying.

5. I'll respect those who earn it, elder or not. I say as much to any child with a clear conscience.

6. Nothing wrong with that.

7. School children don't have wives. You sure favor a wide open form of sex education for elementary school children if you intend to discuss the topic of sleeping with one's wife with them.

8. Nothing wrong with that. As with #6--it might be salutary to point out the extent to which society will attempt to put a hurtin' on ya if you transgress.

9. Nothing wrong with that.

10. Here you go again, coveting a neighbor's goods is not about jealousy. Envying your neighbor is not illegal, and it is human nature.


By my count, you've got three left: Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness--you know, the first problem you're going to have is that neither the children, nor very likely their teachers, know how to use the second person singular, and how to congugate the verbs appropriately.

Keep your superstitions to yourself, the rest of society isn't obliged to tolerate the imposition of your beliefs any more than you are obliged to accept that from anyone else.

Setanta writes:


Oh I do apologize. I didn't realize I had the power to impose my beliefs on somebody else. I thought I was expressing my opinion about an issue presented here, but if you are telling me that isn't appropriate here, so be it.

That is as equally disingenuous as your "ten commandments" claptrap. When you propose that it is reasonable to post that nonsense in schools, you are advocating the imposition of a set of beliefs on schoolchildren, the most impressionable among us. I didn't object to your statment of your opinion, i simply disagreed with vociferouly and with a great deal of self-evident contempt. Your argument is feeble and guileful--i have as much right to contend from what you've just written that you are telling me it is inappropriate for me to express my opinion as you do to make that ridiculous accusation of me. Your martyr ploy here is laughable.