Take the Pledge Quiz!1. The Pledge of Allegiance dates from—
2. It was written by—
3. The phrase "one Nation, under God"—
4. It was suggested by—
Bonus question: 5. When was "in God we Trust" made the National Motto, and what was the original National Motto? All done? Good. The answers to questions 1 through 4 are all "c". Surprised? Nevertheless, it's true. The original Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist clergyman in 1892, and had no mention of "God" in it. In 1954, the Catholic organization the Knights of Columbus, lobbied President Eisenhower to add the words "under God" to the Pledge. The Knights of Columbus convinced the Foreign Legion (many of whom had served Eisenhower when he was Commander of the Allied Forces) to lend their support for adding those two words. Eisenhower was convinced to agree (possibly from political motivations) and had the wording of the Pledge changed. The bonus question? In 1956, President Eisenhower replaced the National Motto "E Plurbus, Unum" ("Out of Many, One") with "In God we Trust". "E Plurbus, Unum" was the original National Motto, agreed upon between Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. It is a perversion of government that a motto that united American citizens of all faiths (as well as those without any faith) for 180 years, was replaced 46 years ago by a motto that divides its citizens. THE RECENT "UNPLEASANTNESS" A physician in Sacramento, California named Michael Newdow recently filed a federal lawsuit to ban the use of the phrase "(one nation,) under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge is usually required for all students to memorize and recite, in most schools across the US. Dr. Newdow argued that, requiring students to profess belief in a god is contrary to the Constitutional separation between religion and the State. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Dr. Newdow and ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance—as currently used—is unconstitutional. The outcome of their decision is currently on hold. Why would Dr. Newdow-a man with not only a MD, but a law degree-file suit against the Government? Because he is the father of a daughter in grade school, a daughter with no belief in a god, who is required to memorize and recite the Pledge of Allegiance; a pledge that contradicts her freedom. Since filing the lawsuit on behalf of his daughter, Dr. Newdow has received many telephone calls and letters seething with hate, and numerous death threats. It seems that god-fearing people are not above using hatred and violence in defense of their beliefs. Of course, the crux of the matter is not belief, but law. Politicians, ever vigilant about appearing to be safeguarding the wishes of the voters, have lined up against Dr. Newdow and the 9th Circuit Court in a public relations campaign that they cannot loose. Unfortunately, in their zeal to curry the favor of the Bible Belt voters, they have spread lies about the US and its history as a "nation under God". They portray Dr. Newdow as being positively anti-American, and contrary to the principles under which the United States was formed. In a move of remarkable cowardice, the US Congress unanimously voted to condemn the Court's decision that the Pledge's reference to gods is unconstitutional. The White House likewise characterized the Court's ruling as "ridiculous" and vowed to overturn it. Various politicians expressed outrage at the Court's "ungodly actions" and said that it jeopardized other American conventions that employ references to deities, such as swearing in citizens with "So help me, God", or the use of "In God we Trust" on money. Senator Kit Bond of Missouri complained "Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves" from the notion of "God" being removed from the Pledge, and added "What is next? Will the courts now strip 'So help me God' from the pledge taken by new presidents? This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok." Contrary to popular belief (and apparently unbeknownst to Senator Bond) the words "(one Nation), under God" are not to be found in the Constitution, nor are they a legacy of the American Revolution. They were added less than 50 years ago, during the Cold War—a period when communists were generally regarded as "godless" and thus, anti-American. Requiring students to recite the Pledge, with its new, theistic update, was thought to protect against incipient communism in America. But if "In God we Trust", "one Nation, under God" and "…so help me, God" are products of the McCartheyist mentality of the 1950s, why should so many people be so emphatic about retaining them? After all, 50-odd years is not long enough for something to become such a fiercely defended "tradition". It may be useful to bear in mind that more than 90% of all Americans profess to have some level of belief in a god. This is by far the highest proportion of any "first world" country. One might think that such a high percentage of devoutness would produce the most virtuous of nations, but that is hardly the case. In fact, the US also has the highest violent crime rate of all "first world" countries, as well as the highest level of drug use, the most weapons of mass destruction and the highest percentage of its citizens in prison. Apparently, claiming a belief in a god is not sufficient to produce good behavior. THE ORIGINAL PLEDGE The original Pledge dates from 1892. Francis Bellamy was an unorthodox Baptist minister with a socialist ideology. His cousin was the utopian socialist author Edward Bellamy, who wrote (among other books) the utopian novel "Looking Backward". When Bellamy wrote the pledge in 1892, it read "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Notice that the word "God" appears nowhere in the Pledge. While that may seem strange, considering it was written by a theist, one should remember that the US had, for about 120 years already, been a haven for people of different beliefs, and that the separation between religion and the government had been very carefully established by the Founding Fathers. There is a movement to restore the Pledge to its original wording. It has an informative website here.The Pledge had been changed once before. In 1924, the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution collaborated to change Bellamy's original text to read "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Why this was necessary is unknown, as there was no doubt in people's minds as to the country to which they were pledging allegiance. Bellamy protested against the changes to his words, but his arguments were ignored. One can imagine that he would be appalled by the efforts of a certain "right to life" group who is trying to change his words once again. This time, they want "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn." WHICH "GOD"? Conspicuously lacking in the discourse about the Pledge is the very real fact that, while the term "god" may not specifically refer to Yahweh (the monotheistic deity-construct of the Jews, Christians and Muslims), that certainly is the implication. Were the phrases in question changed to "one Nation, under Vishnu" or "in Zeus we Trust" or "So help me, Satan", it is unthinkable that they would receive the broad support among Americans that the phrases currently enjoy. And yet, the fact remains that the word "god", as used in these phrases, really implies the god of the Christians, Jews and Muslims, and not the gods of any other religions. Yahwehists are monotheists, which means that they are, in their way, a type of atheist. After all, they assert that all other gods are either "false gods", incarnations of their devil, or nonexistent. Have you ever heard a Yahwehist say "I believe in God (Yahweh) but maybe the gods of the Hindu pantheon exists too"? Of course not. Monotheism means that there can only be one god. Lack of belief in other gods makes people partial atheists. This doesn't even begin to address the fact that many good Americans simply have no belief in any gods, thus making them, by definition, "atheists". Why should people without belief in the Christian God be required to profess such belief? For the same reason that Christians would be offended if they were forced to express belief in the god Krishna. You can bet that, if any god-fearing Christians living in India were forced to profess belief in the divinity of Kali, the world Christian community would be up in arms. And yet, we expect the shoe to fit the other foot. PLEDGE OR BRAINWASHING? So, what is the purpose of the Pledge-of any pledge? When Bellamy wrote it in 1892, he intended for the Pledge to engender feelings of patriotism among young people. There is a somewhat disturbing illustration from the magazine The Youth's Companion, which Bellamy edited at the time, of a boy and girl reciting the Pledge, giving a "right arm salute". This salute is most closely associated with fascism, and specifically with the Nazi Party. 
There is indeed something a little fascistic about coercing young people to memorize and recite a slogan that professes allegiance to a nation. Are we to believe that, if such a pledge weren't taught, children would grow up to not value and defend their country? Isn't reciting the pledge just a form of brainwashing? There's a way to test this, at least in theory. Ask yourself if it would be a positive thing to teach children the following pledge: "I pledge allegiance to Allah, the One True God, and to the Prophet Mohammed who was his scribe—one nation, one people, one faith over the entire earth, by any means necessary." It is not difficult to imagine such a pledge being used in Islamic nations, to brainwash children into supporting the political and religious causes of their parents. Or, you could modify it slightly to fit Zionist ideology for the same results. There is a fine line between patriotism and nationalism, between religious devotion and intolerance. This is something that was well understood 227 years ago, when the United States was formed by men who knew the importance of freedom and equality. I'll give the last word to two of our Founding Fathers: "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience". "All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution." |