Do you know what "Under God" in the pledge is intended to convey?

According to the recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Newdow v. Rio Linda Unified School District, it means that we have a limited form of government. That's right, being "under God" means that our government is limited, it draws a stark contrast to those totalitarian theocracies which are not very limited forms of government. I know this doesn't make much sense, but the entire majority decision in question doesn't make a lot of sense. Apparently if you pass legislation which specifically adds two words which seem roughly religious and serving a religious purpose it's really about limited government.

Congressman Rabaut:

From the root of atheism stems the evil weed of communism and its branches of materialism and political dictatorship. Unless we are willing to affirm our belief in the existence of God and His creator-creature relation to man, we drop man himself to the significance of a grain of sand and open the floodgates to tyranny and oppression.

Congressman Bolton:

The significant import of our action today . . . is that we are officially recognizing once again this Nation’s adherence to our belief in a divine spirit, and that henceforth millions of our citizens will be acknowledging this belief every time they pledge allegiance to our flag.

 To put it bluntly, no judge familiar with the history of the Pledge could in good conscience believe, as today’s majority purports to do, that the words “under God” were inserted into the Pledge for any purpose other than an explicitly and predominantly religious one: “to recognize the power and the universality of God in our pledge of allegiance;” to “acknowledge the dependence of our people, and our Government upon the moral direction and the restraints of religion,” 100 Cong. Rec. 7590-91 (1954); and to indoctrinate schoolchildren in the belief that God exists, id. at 5915, 6919. Nor could any judge familiar with controlling Supreme Court precedent seriously deny that carrying out such an indoctrination in a public school classroom unconstitutionally forces many young children either to profess a religious belief antithetical to their personal views or to declare themselves through their silence or nonparticipation to be protesting nonbelievers, thereby subjecting themselves to hostility and ridicule.

Nope. Hogwash. According to the majority it means that we have a limited form of government. Yes, because "Under God" conveys to "Godless Communists" who are "Atheistic" and "Atheist Americans is a contradiction in terms" we are to take the fact that people who expressly said this added the words "Under God" to the pledge to convey how limited our government is.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/11/05-17257.pdf
You know, school is hard enough without being outed as an atheist by a silly recited pledge hijacked by religious fervor in the 1950s to force children to be told that their parents beliefs are wrong and that God and patriotism go hand in hand.

To recite the pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism

-- 9th Circuit decision in Newdow v. Elk Ridge

Portland School Drops Pledge For Odd Reason

Everything was fine until some pissy mother called the news. A Portland School changed the pledge and used a singing version of the preamble of the Constitution instead.

"I think that's what they should be doing - telling kids you should be pledging your allegiance to this country," said Reese. "This is a great country. You're here for a reason."

You're here because your parents had sex nine months before going to a hospital on US soil.

The pledge was instead replaced with a singing version of the preamble to the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That ain't half bad. Also, it is far more useful to know than the pledge.

KATU tried repeatedly to talk with Principal Pam Wilson but got no results. However, in an e-mail response to Reese's questions, she explained the pledge was removed "out of respect for the diversity of religious faiths."

Removed for what? Out of respect for the diversity of religious faiths? That doesn't even make any sense at all! What could possibly be considered religious in the Pledge? I mean seriously if you note that the Constitution was established to "insure domestic Tranquility" there's no way we could live within the spirit of that goal and force children to swear allegiance to values they do not hold. Certainly that couldn't happen so why would there be anything in the pledge anybody could object to? It is understandable that the Jehovah Witnesses objected to the idea of taking oaths but they lost that case (and won a later one on 1st amendment grounds of compelling speech).

As the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Newdow v. Elk Ridge noted "To recite the pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism" -- The fact is this entire issue is completely about religion.

From the mother who suggested that God is the reason the kids are in this country and should swear allegiance because "they're here for a reason" to the principal who removed it out of respect for "the diversity of religious faiths" it's all God God God. Why didn't the principle just remove the phrase "under God" from the pledge? That's the objectionable part! Because if she did that... she'd be fired. She'd be attacking God by bringing the school into compliance with the law (not really the law but a proper interpretation of the Constitution).

First they take (forced Christian) prayer out of school, then they want to take "under God" out of the Pledge, and want to take "In God We Trust" off our money... yup. -- I'm often amazed at all the crap that gets churned up when unconstitutional laws get passed. Like the IRS being harassed and hounded by Scientologists who really wanted to be declared a religion so they could avoid taxes, investigations of churches overstepping the line when it comes to politics, and hanky-panky when it comes to getting non-Christian establishments under the same rules. -- All of those go away if Churches weren't given tax-free status. They should be taxed just like any other business. In fact, treating them differently is a pretty direct violation of the first amendment.

Way to ensure domestic tranquility.

I assume the song goes something like this.

(School House Rock)

Newdow, much hated, for so little.

The Non-Profits latest episode did had a great cite to a page about Michael Newdow.

Wow, the hate and utter stupidity of the average American is horrifically lacking.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=67117

--

* ""Under God" was added in the 1950's to combat the 'godless communists' - it's propaganda, and it SHOULD be removed."
* "For the deist and atheist who deny GOD and the Biblical foundation of the United States of America… they would do well to objectively consider the truth of the matter: For my brothers and sisters in Christ, please pray that GOD will pour out His Grace on those who are blind by choice. "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, is of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." - C.S. Lewis JOHN 3:16"
* "Take it out or not, I will ALWAYS, REPEAT ALWAYS, say ONE NATION UNDER GOD when I make the pledge."
* "Lil ole Newdow at it again eh? Not surprised. Anyway, the phrase which he bases his lawsuit on "seperation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution or in any Founding document. I agree with the comment that if Newdow doesn't like it here, well, go live somewhere else."
* "Why do they allow Michael to continue with his diatribe on this issue??? One nation under God. There can be no other way. Like it or not we are a Christian nation only by the grace of an Almighty God."

--

These are just taken one after another. These are tame (I chose them at random) but even that crap... tame.

Where you can shove ceremonial deism.

It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, and read:

A letter from Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, to Secretary Chase in 1861. The following letter is a copy of sent which was the direct cause of adding "In God We Trust" to our currency. I only bring this up because the arguments in favor of the coinage are going to be pretty clearly along the lines of "ceremonial deism" which is to say just little God comments that we do, ceremonially... like stamp and engrave on our money.

Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.

One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.

We need to put God on our money to save us from the ignominy of heathenism. We wouldn't want the future generations to believe us to be heathens, would you? What about the future heathens who like to be heathens? Jackass.

A quote worth quoting.

In the 9th Circuit decision in Newdow v. Elk Ridge a line stuck out that I think bears repeating:

To recite the pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism

The year was 1954, the place Washington D.C.

It was a different time, it was a simpler time. In 1954, in an act including the line: "the inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator." (Not a Creator, the Creator). The United States put forth a policy of forcing school children to declare, on a daily basis, that there, not only, exists one single monotheistic deity but that the location of said deity is generally upwards. And as they raised the flag playing "Onward Christian Soldier" they never once fathomed that their actions would be misconstrued as religious.

In other news, on the December 4th 2007, Dr. Rev. Michael Newdow finished oral arguments in the 9th circuit court for both the case against "under God" and the case against "In God We Trust". Prometheus Retold has a good couple links to his original case, including an MP3 of the arguments themselves. So the decision should be sometime in a few months and it should perhaps make the news at least the decision to knock down the "In God We Trust" on account of being new whereas the previous Elk Grove Cave already knocked down the "Under God" phrase and probably won't cause as much of an uproar... though we can always hope.

Colorado Students walk out at pledge...

Including the words "Under God" is clearly giving recognition to a monotheistic deity who is "above", this isn't permitted it is clearly a law "respecting an establishment of religion" and kudos to Michael Newdow in this respect.

Hell yeah. Some Colorado students finally take a stand.. That pledge is completely unconstitutional and having worked as a substitute teacher in the past I can attest to the fact that it's largely ignored and when it isn't it's just annoying. Most of the students don't even stand when it is even read, and when they do they don't bother to say the thing. And frankly, since nobody seems to care, it's unconstitutional to make them care (unconstitutional in a different way).

I believe that because West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette was decided on free speech grounds (the state has no right to compel speech) nobody has to recite the Pledge. And, as nobody is really upsetting class by nobody doing anything (and as standing up counts as speech)... I don't think students can be compelled to care if they don't and nobody minds that they don't.

In the Colorado case, I love the suggestion of holding it in the auditorium during lunch. I could think of nothing more optional or more useless.