"Under God"

It is fascinating to me how people who believe in god can not understand how offensive it is to non believers to be told that it is no big deal to have "under god" in the pledge. Try reciting the pledge with "one nation under contrive superstition" this might give the religious community a perspective similar to that of nonbelievers.

Ian
Plymouth

As a Hanover resident with five grandchildren in the school system I am familiar with the issues. I am delighted with the commentary hosted by Laura Knoy and with the general tenor of the responses. I'd be most satisfied with a return to the 1920's version, with the 'dirigible' restored absent the fear-filled reaction to the threat of communism and its echoes of Senator McCarthy and his 'isms'.

Granted there is a majority of citizens who profess to religious belief. I'm pleased to have them refresh their belief at home or in church, and not in school.

Michael Mayor

Mention of the references to 'the Creator' in the Declaration of Independence in this discussion was out of context. Jeffereson did indeed use these words, and much of the morals he expressed came from his religion. But the Declaration is a historical document, and its mention of the Creator should be taught in the historical context. I, as an aethist, would never suggest we stop referencing religion in our schools from a historical context - so much of history is highly influenced by religion - and your guest is taking this to an illogical conclusion when he asks if it is inappropriate to talk about the Declaration and the questions that would arise.

But 'under god' in the Pledge is an entirely different context. In this context, thee words express a belief, and is not a historical reference.

Here are a few thoughts to be considered when addressing the Pledge of Allegiance issue:

1.)Should Americans be made to feel more comfortable?
Should we remove the Pledge or change the Pledge?

Comments regarding Q1:

Remove the Pledge-
Because we are a free people, pledging an allegiance to any country may cause some American citizens to become uncomfortable and thereby
simply removing the pledge for all, Americans can break with tradition and practice a free version of the pledge in their own homes if they desire.
This solution frees the schools to concentrate more on educational issues and society to deal with other pressing problems.

Change the Pledge-
Changing the pledge as demonstrated by the controversy of this issue solves nothing and only continues to establish a polarizing issue that generates
sales of air time, papers and ratings.

2.)What do we want a pledge to accomplish as a nation?
National Unity? or a Societal Benchmark?

Comments regarding Q2:

National Unity-
We can all agree that when it comes time to defend this country we want national unity but do Americans want national unity beyond that these days?

Americans today are free to practice their individuality almost to a fault, everything in today’s society promotes “floating your own boat and doing all the things to it and with it that you want” but as Americans will we decide that a pledge promotes unity for us? We have to ask ourselves as Americans, is the Pledge of Allegiance in the Interest of the people, for the people and by the people? or is it a Pledge of the government for the government and by the government?

Societal Benchmark-
The Pledge of Allegiance today is being used as a fulcrum by diverse groups to reflect its own “individuality” and thus creating a validation or making its mark of the individual group upon American society and its norms.
When our forefathers created this country they set “Societal Benchmarks” or acceptable boundaries of societal norms by including Godly principles into the Constitutional framework of this great nation. In the 1700’s Honor, Principle, Dignity and Liberty were values placed above “Individuality”, maybe the focus should be to Honor the higher intensions of our forefathers and not squander our freedoms, tradition and culture for our own “Individuality” to be reflected.

3.)Do we want to change what America was? Move to other countries and change their traditions and culture too?

Comments regarding Q3:

Traditions and Cultures-

Traditions and Cultures are what make our world a diverse and interesting environment in which to live. Is it right to go to another culture and change it for the few? No!

In conclusion, our country should use the gifts of democracy of our forefathers to solve this issue so it reflects the majority of the people but we must consider that we will set a precedence that may cause us to lose what gave birth to what’s left of America’s traditions and cultures.

Sincerely,

John D.

I wanted to call in this morning, but was unable to do so. I feel that this is a battle (changing the pledge to the original, or keeping "God" in) that cannot be won. Perhaps an alternative wording in the pledge might appease all sides. I propose substituting "of many faiths" for "under God". To me, this provides an acknowledgement of the "melting pot" that America is, and would recognize that one of the greatest strengths that the United States possesses is it's belief that all are welcome, and that all who pledge, regardless of faith (yes, even the faith that God does not exist) stand together in pride and unity. Do I believe in God? No. Do I believe in faith? Absolutely. Thanks for your time.
Kaari

Of course "under God" doesn't belong in the Pledge. It's a rather ambiguous phrase, for one thing. Does it simply mean something like "God willing", "by the Grace of God", or even just "under heaven = under the stars?" If so, it really doesn't mean anything at all. On the other hand, it has the ring of "under the King", which means a whole lot more and implies subservience to some unquestioned authority, no doubt that embodied in someone's interpretation of the scripture du jour.

If folks are concerned with making the Pledge more understandable to children, we might consider "one nation under Santa Claus" – they'd get that, for sure, and it would call for the same unquestioning belief as does the original. It would have the additional merit of being an age-appropriate appeal to Mammon, the other great American god (OK, yes, my tongue is firmly imbedded in my cheek – duh!).

To a certain extent the "under God" phrase is something of a red herring, because the Pledge itself is a rather poor substitute for genuine education about the virtues of our country. It started out as indoctrination about the permanence of the Union after the Civil War, and as a way of getting new immigrants to salute the right flag (and a Sig-Heil salute at that). Now it's just a sleepy mumble at the beginning of the day that very few think about as they recite. A free society shouldn't have to bolster patriotism with a pledge, which is just a promise to act without thinking.

It's quite true, as was pointed out by a caller today, that the Supreme Court decided in 1943 that no one can be forced to recite the Pledge. What wasn't mentioned was the tremendous blunder that the court had committed three years earlier, and which it was seeking to rectify: originally only Jehovah's Witnesses were declared exempt, since they had objected on religious grounds. This led to a nationwide series of patriotic pogroms against the Witnesses, including beatings and at least one castration. Now we're all free to abstain, if we choose; pretty hard to lynch a whole nation.

To return to "under God": the bottom line is that that part of the Pledge violates the establishment clause of the Constitution and it shouldn't be there, if there continues to be a there there.