Religion, The Pledge And American History : From December 1, 2004

[Trajan]

http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/dec/article009.html

Religion, The Pledge And American History

By Shane Roe
Dec. 1, 2004


There is a battle raging between those who feel that it’s acceptable to mention God occasionally, and those who feel that every reference to God should be eliminated from public display---or rather every good reference to God should be removed. Here is one example: the fight to remove the words “under God” from The Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge has been in existence for many years, but only in the last fifty, since 1954 to be exact, was this phrase added. President Dwight D. Eisenhower had the phrase added to the Pledge to show the difference between Americans, and the Communist regimes, like the Soviet Union who were basically god-less. The dictates of communism provide that no God exists, therefore no religion, and therefore, they are without God.

On the other hand, Eisenhower and others of his time believed that America was morally superior to that kind of thinking, and not just because of the others’ disbelief in God, but because America had been blessed in so many different ways---was prosperous economically, seemed to have happier citizens, religious persecution was basically non-existent, oppression of races was slowly beginning to go away---that those of a religious ethic could only assume that God had had a hand in it.

Now shift to modern times where the fight is to remove this phrase from the Pledge. I would ask these questions: It hasn’t hurt anybody in almost fifty years, why is it hurting them now? If the sensibilities of the few who feel oppressed are so offended, what about the sensibilities of the many who will be offended if and when the phrase is removed? My contention is this---that nobody is really offended by the phrase “under God” unless they allow themselves to be under the guise of hypersensitivity. In another case, county officials in Los Angeles County, allowed a small cross to be removed from the county seal in order to prevent an ACLU-led lawsuit. What did the cross symbolize? The seal was designed with several symbols of the history of L.A. County. Included on the seal were various symbols representative of the fishing industry, the oil industry, and other important historical influences of the area. The cross was symbolic of the early settlement of the region by Catholic missionaries. In no way was the cross on the seal endorsing Catholicism as the state religion, but merely noting its place historically.

Now, let’s contrast that with artwork displayed in public museums. I understand that there is in a major national museum (the Brooklyn Art Museum), a crude painting of Mary, the mother of Christ, with excrement thrown all over her. This is offensive to many people, yet where is the ACLU? Where are those who should just as readily complain about offenses against religion as they complain about alleged offenses in favor of religion? The answer seems clear: their agenda is to rid America of public displays of religion, a direct slap in the face of our nation’s Constitution. Fights have already brewed regarding the innocent singing of religious Christmas songs in schools. No more can the words to “Oh Little Town of Bethlehem”, “Silent Night” and many other peaceful carols, be heard in many publicly funded schools of America. Yet Halloween, associated with religion, and nowadays, all that’s secular and perverse about religion, is routinely played up in schools.

-snip-

[Malva Zebrina]

1. it does not hurt a soul

that is a believer to have the god removed from the secular government or any of it's arms.

There is NO persecution whatsoever to be observed in that action.

It is those who think that because they have the majority and therefore can lord it over the minority when it comes to a state approval of that religion as something the state must support over the others, that insist it, and it;s religion deserves to take precedence in all things governmental.

There have been many slogans addressed to foster that end. For instance, this is a "Christain Nation" and because they say it is, the government should bestow upon them extraordinary priveledges that encroach upon the Constitution.

None however, so far have ventured to ammend that document, to include a god but they do, in other ways, infiltrate so that their god is the recognized god of the United States.

It is religious arrogance.


Believers do NOT need a government church to practice their religion, although many would like to have it that way and cry persecution when someone objects to the attempted tyranny.

This angst, this martyrdom , this persecution complex, is an hysterical, but calculated, reaction. There is nothing admirable about whining how one is persecuted, when the entire country is at least 80 percent or more, Christian and practicing their religion as they see fit,and always have, freely, except that they are prohibited under the Constitution, from involving itself with the state or the state involving itself with it. Apparently, they are not willing to accept that, greedily wanting ever the more opportunities to practice religious tyranny over others.

Well, ain't that too bad.

.

--and that practice can be just as satisfying while done in the church or in the home and NOT in any public place, or forced upon go ernment symbols and songs, where that minority being protected, theoretically, contributes to it's upkeep and maintenance.

I am grateful that we do have the ACLU. They have proven to be a beacon in the dark for protecting the separation of church and state and the rights of all Americans , and they do fine work. I contribute to the ACLU consistently.



Communism is an economic condition, btw and not a religion.

[Slickriddles]

2. The words "Under God" were added by a Bill passed

in Congress. I don't have the number of the Law, but the 1st ammendment expressly forbids Congress to "make a law respecting the establishment of religion." It seems to me they went against the constitution. As far as harm goes, I don't believe there needs to be any but what if I suggested the inserting "under God" between "one Nation" and "indivisible" has created a more divided nation?