Do We Need Under God In The Pledge?

I was driving through rural Pa. last weekend. While I may be a high falut'n New York city-slicker now, I grew up in the corn fields, dairy farms and mountain forests of central Pennsylvania. My grandmother had been rushed to the hospital, and at age 91, all trips to the hospital are serious. I had spent the day visiting with her in the cardiac care center and was driving through the corn fields to the home I had grown up in and which my grandmother now resides.

On the radio came an ad that started off with a grandson talking to his grandfather, asking the grandfather what it was like when he was the boys age.

"Well, America was a different place back then. People cared about each other then." Said the grand pappy

"So, what changed?"

"Well," the grandfather responds, "they decided to take 'under god' out of the pledge of allegiance because it was unconstitutional. Then they took 'in God we trust' off of the dollar bill. Next thing you know, they made all open religion a criminal offense... that is why I am here in prison now."

A voice is heard in the background saying that visiting time is over and the grandson must leave. Then an announcer comes on and touts a petition to make it illegal for judges to declare under God unconstitutional because it will destroy our country.

I could not both laughing and feeling sad at the same time. How could the people who made this ad be so wrong on so many levels but feel they are so right? Could America really be destroyed by having the words under God removed from the pledge of allegiance?

To understand how wrong this concept is, you need to know the history of under God in our pledge. For some unknown reason, conservatives seems to think that under God was added by George Washington himself.

Well, it wasn't. The pledge was created in 1892 by a Baptist minister named Francis Bellamy. In the original pledge, God was not mentioned. The country was a Republic. It was indivisible and had liberty and justice. But it was never under God, even though it was written by a Christian clergyman. Not only that, Francis deleted the word equality because he knew that it would not be accepted by educators since women and blacks were not considered to be equal at that time.

In 1940, the Supreme Court ruled that a school board could make it mandatory for children to recite the pledge even though some Christian religious groups found it against their religious and moral beliefs because it created idolatry in the flag. In 1943, the supreme court reversed its ruling, saying that requiring the recitation was state control of religion.

Still, there was no under God in the pledge.

The words under God were not in the pledge that my father learned as a school boy. It was not in the pledge that any of the heroes of WWI or WWII learned. It was added by President Eisenhower in 1954 during the height of the red scare. One of the rationale behind the addition of the under God words was because it was believed that no communist spy or sympathizer could bring themselves to recite the words, and thus, give themselves away as traitors to the United States. Seriously... someone actually believed this to be true. Similarly, in God we trust was not added to the dollar bill until 1959.

178 years had passed between the Declaration of Independence and the words under God appearing in any type of pledge. If the grandfather in the radio ad was right, America must have been a horrible, horrible place to live in those 178 years. No one cared about anyone. It was just masses of godless heathens muddling around the streets cursing at each other. It was not until 1954 that this country began to become a decent place to live. I obviously say this tongue in cheek, but what an insult that that radio ad is to all of those who came before us. What an insult it is the the hundreds of thousands of Americans who fought in WWII to free the world of tyranny but never recited under God once in the pledge of allegiance. Was the moral compass of what we deem to be the greatest generation inept due to the lack of public acknowledgement of God?

The radio ad also made me think of James Madison, the creator of the Bill of Rights. He was the person who enshrined our freedom of religion in the constitution so that the government could and would never interfere in the matters of personal faith. Madison in his Remonstrance of proposed legislation for Christian teachers to be paid for with public funds said:

Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion...for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

Basically what Madison is saying is that if God is real, than he does not need the support of the state. He exists because he exists and this is with or without the state and in fact, has endured direct opposition from countless governments before we existed. It, in fact, weakens the faith to need government support. If your faith in God is real, you must believe that he is bigger than the state and is in no need of governmental support. It is only those who have questions in their own faith that do not believe that God can exist without state sponsorship and the words under God in their pledge. Ultimately, not having state sponsorship of religion and not having under God in the pledge does not diminish religious freedom, it ensures it.

God will exist if the words under God are not recited by school children. He will exist if in God we trust is no longer on our money. Removing words will not remove him, and to think that the only thing that makes this country great is the words under God and in God we trust, then you have a serious lack of understanding about this county.

The Pope's Comments

Ok, now let me get this right. The Pope recites some comments written in the 14th century that, admittedly, can be offensive to Muslims. The 14th century writer basically said that the followers of Mohammad spread their religion through violence and that Islam brought "only evil and inhuman" things to the world.

To protest this, Muslims go on a rampage, bombing churches and firing bullets willy-nilly. (Iraq al-Qaida says pope, West are doomed). Basically, they said, "We are not a religion of violence! And if you say that again, we will kill you!"

Do they not get the point? If you are a religion of peace, you do not get violent to protest someone saying your religion is violent!

I agree that the pope should apologize for his comments (Pope 'Sorry' About Reaction to Islam Remark). They were not necessary in order to have the debate on the problems surrounding Islam. I don't necessarily think they were the most hurtful words in the world, but the theological debate could have been started in a much better way than quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor.

But to go on a rampage? You are only proving his point. Muslims basically said, "were not violent, and to prove it, we are going to blow up the Vatican."

I think Bush should convert to Islam and become there leader. He makes as little sense as they do.

Iran to Purge Liberal Profs

Iran's president, Ahmadinejad, is calling for the universities to purge all of the liberal professors from it ranks in order to get back to a more "fundamental" form of education.

Now, where have I heard this before?... Hmmm... Oh yes, that is right. The conservatives in our own country are constantly calling for the liberal professors to be purged from the ranks of academia. It has long been the cry of American conservatives that liberal educators are destroying the traditional, wholesome Christian values in this country.

This is just more proof that conservatives of middle east and west are ideologically the same. If conservatives in this country had their way, liberal professors in this country would be heading for early retirement as well.

Iran head wants liberal teachers ousted
By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer
Tue Sep 5, 6:50 PM ET

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's hard-line president urged students Tuesday to push for a purge of liberal and secular university teachers, another sign of his determination to strengthen Islamic fundamentalism in the country.

With his call echoing the rhetoric of the nation's 1979 Islamic revolution, Ahmadinejad appears determined to remake Iran by reviving the fundamentalist goals pursued under the republic's late founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Ahmadinejad's call was not a surprise — since taking office a year ago, he also has moved to replace pragmatic veterans in the government and diplomatic corps with former military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners.

Iran still has strong moderate factions but Ahmadinejad's administration also has launched crackdowns on independent journalists, Web sites and bloggers.

Speaking to a group of students Tuesday, Ahmadinejad called on them to pressure his administration to keep driving out moderate instructors, a process that began earlier this year.

Dozens of liberal university professors and teachers were sent into retirement this year after Ahmadinejad's administration, sparking strong protests from students, named the first cleric to head Tehran University.
(Full Story)

In God We... We Have No Choice

Katherine Harris is really grasping at the evangelical base in order to pull out some sort of victory in her electoral bid. Unfortunately, it is also proving how nutty she is.

She has claimed that separation of church and state is a "lie" and that God chooses our "rulers."

If this does not explain to you why political secularist, such as myself, are scared senseless by these right wing "Christi-fascists," nothing will. And this should show that any religion; Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc, that is taken to an extreme is a danger to democracy. There are no benign religions when an extremist is involved.

First off.... Rulers? Are you kidding me? We have rulers now and not elected representatives?

And if God chooses our rulers, doesn't that mean that all the evangelicals who believe this should just stay home on election day since the outcome it pre-ordained?

Harris clarifies comments on religion

MIAMI - U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a religious journal that separation of church and state is "a lie" and God and the nation's founding fathers did not intend the country be "a nation of secular laws." The Republican candidate for U.S. Senate also said that if Christians are not elected, politicians will "legislate sin," including abortion and gay marriage.

Harris made the comments — which she clarified Saturday — in the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention, which interviewed political candidates and asked them about religion and their positions on issues.

Separation of church and state is "a lie we have been told," Harris said in the interview, published Thursday, saying separating religion and politics is "wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."

"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," Harris said.

(Full Story)

President Christ

I am not sure where this notion came from that Republicans represent a values of Jesus Christ. I consider myself Christian and to the best of my ability, I follow the ideals of Christ's teachings. Because of this, I feel compassion for the poor, not disdain. Because of this, I feel greed is sin, not a attribute to be admired. Because of this, I believe I have an obligation to help my fellow man, not kick him while he is down. Moses may have been a Conservative, but Jesus was the original Bleeding Heart Liberal. Bush asks "what would Jesus do?" Well, would Jesus lie to us. Would Jesus be OK defiling God's pristine earth for clear cutting trees and oil drilling? Would Jesus cut taxes for the rich while creating the largest population of children living in poverty in American history? Would Jesus award John a no-bid contract so he could make a quick buck on baptisms? Would Jesus create a plan that ensured all Americans have access to basic health care, or would he favor insurance companies? Would Jesus make sure the elderly had affordable prescription drugs or would he make sure the pharmaceutical companies made wall street estimates? Would Jesus favor big business that pollute the air and water or would he favor the children with asthma and leukemia? And most of all, what would Jesus bomb?