e-Claire

"God and Country"

The words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance presuppose belief in a god. There is no other interpretation. Some Americans, good men and women, do not believe in a god. Some believe in many. Some believe that the god in which they believe is not the same god in which their neighbors believe. That is the basis for this country -- it is no one's business but one's own to decide how the world is shaped, and, if applicable, by whom. It cannot be said that the government of this country is divinely appointed and, therefore, cannot be questioned or opposed. If I oppose, or support my government I am forced to do so by virtue of reason and fact -- things which are available for perception by everyone. There is no occult force behind the decisions made by my country which affect my life and my livelihood. A belief in a deity may well be a good basis for an individual life; on that it is not my place to comment. But it is a poor basis for a country as history has shown time and again. I support the removal of the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance because they give lie to the word which immediately follows; "indivisible."

1. You know, pre 1956 (I think that was the year.  May have been ‘54), it used to be “one nation indivisible”.  But Congress went ahead and divided the phrase to shove god (and offended my religious beliefs by including only one god) into it.  They claimed this somehow made the country safer from bad economic policies…

   Posted by Andrew Cory  on  10/14/03  at  12:42 PM

2. That change was made during the Eisenhower years—The Cold War, which I am beginning to realize felt to those living then a lot like Terrorism feels to us today.  Scary, un-understand-able, unpredictable, fighting for your life and all you believe in sort-of-thing.

   So it was a way to distinguish ourselves from the “god-less commonists.”

   Black-and-white is an appealing color scheme when all seems at risk.  Unfortunately, it has little bearing on objective reality and is rarely the most effective approach.

   Posted by Claire  on  10/14/03  at  01:53 PM

3. Let the folks offended by the mention of God prove there isn’t one. If they can, then all references to Her in our culture can be erased.

   Posted by Robin  on  10/15/03  at  04:24 AM

4. Thank you, Robin, for making my point.  It is no more the job of those who believe to prove existence than it is the job of those who do not to prove non-existence. 

   The whole discussion is immaterial to running a country, leads to divisions and squabbles over moot points, and corrodes the ability of people of differing opinions to work together.

   Erasing references within our culture to beliefs in deities is certainly not the issue [and would be a silly idea.] Basing our government on an assumption of someone else’s beliefs is the issue.  Basing a government on the assumption that everyone has the same beliefs is, at the least, exclusionary, and has the potential for tyranny.

   Posted by Claire  on  10/15/03  at  05:43 AM

5. Claire, I really like your comments on this subject.  It got me to thinking. I hope that people that read your comments will think it through and realize that your point is a well made point. Thank you. I will share your comments with many of my friends.

   Posted by Letty  on  10/16/03  at  01:10 AM

6. It’s one thing to argue that the words “under God” shouldn’t be in the Pledge, and another to erase 50 years of history by constitutionalizing this preference.  By way of comparison, the pre-1954 version to which Andrew refers (the existing one, minus “under God") was used for only 30 years, and enjoyed official status for only 12.

   Posted by Xrlq  on  10/16/03  at  10:15 AM

7. Thanks, Letty.  Please drop back by and let us know what thoughts have occurred to y’all.

   Posted by Claire  on  10/17/03  at  01:02 PM

8. This whole issue has been blown way out of proportion...I don’t give a flying crap either way personally...but philosophically, I don’t support reciting a loyalty pledge at all, any loyalty pledge.  I know it’s “voluntary.” But what young kid is going to feel comfortable refusing?  The pledge itself is unconstitutional.

   Posted by  on  10/18/03  at  10:07 PM

9. >>""voluntary." But what young kid is going to feel comfortable refusing?”
   I agree on that point—group pledges are no indicator of personal commitment.

   I think we need a better way to keep conscious of our ideals about country.

   Any suggestions?

   Posted by Claire  on  10/20/03  at  10:38 AM

<< Back to main