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)

Definition: Ceremonial Deism

Ceremonial Deism - A legal term meaning that "Under God" in the pledge and "In God We Trust" on our money are ceremonial deism. *waves arms* LEGAL!

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.