http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/10/23/EDG562H6J71.DTL

Does God Belong in the Pledge of Allegiance?
Defend religious freedom -- Drop 'under God'

Peter Miguel Camejo

Thursday, October 23, 2003


The Democrats and Republicans in Congress continue to show disrespect for the founders of our nation in their protest of a court ruling that attempts to enforce the separation of church and state by removing the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

On June 10, 1797, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution stating,

". . . the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on Christian religion . . . ." In 2002, the Senate unanimously voted to support the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. This reflects a 180- degree reversal of an important founding principle of our nation.

One of the many reasons that our founders insisted on freedom of religion and the separation of church and state is that they were not Christians but lived in a nation of Christians. Most Americans are unaware that many of our early presidents, such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison and George Washington, as well as great patriots such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen, did not consider themselves Christians. Their views often were carefully camouflaged in public for fear of reprisal but quite clear in their private correspondence.

Adams once wrote Jefferson that "This would be the best of all worlds, if there were no religion in it." (Letter to Jefferson, April 19, 1817). Adams explicitly argued against any reference to our government being "under" the influence of "heaven." ("A Defense of the Constitution of Government of the United States of America,'' 1788).

Many of the founding fathers were persecuted for their stand in support of the separation of church and state. The main criticism lobbed at Jefferson in his successful campaign for president was that he was an atheist. Paine died in poverty, primarily for statements such as, "The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion." ("The Age of Reason ,'' 1794).

Probably the most explicit of the early "Deists" who fought for religious freedom and the earliest fighter for separation of church and state was Jefferson. In his private letters, Jefferson made it clear he did not accept Christianity. "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, the Supreme Being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classified with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." (Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823.)

While many religious groups have suffered discrimination, such as the Jews and, today, Muslims in America and Europe, the group who has suffered the longest and most generic oppression is of those who reject religion. In the past, those who openly challenged religious beliefs faced having their tongues pierced with red-hot irons (British law), or long imprisonment, banishment or torture and death. When Jefferson first dared to question religion, the law was death for holding the views he advocated.

The Green Party, for which I was the gubernatorial candidate, understands why many people who are repelled by the crass materialism that dominates our culture, turn to religion as an antidote to our mania with money. Greens also recognize the personal sacrifice and contributions made by religious people to global peace and social justice.

Greens, in fact, favor total religious freedom -- including the right not to believe in god(s), the devil, hell or purgatory. Such freedom can only exist when church and state are kept completely separate.

Your religion is your private business. It has no part in government, in the Pledge of Allegiance, or in U.S. currency, or our public schools if we are to remain a free people with "liberty and justice for all."

Peter Miguel Camejo was the Green Party gubernatorial candidate in the 2002 and 2003 elections.

God does NOT belong in the Pledge of Allegiance.

In my humble opinion, no.
After shopping at my local co-op one day, recently, the manager offered to help me out with my groceries. Then she told me how much she liked my bumper stickers...especially "Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church"

I said, "Really? That's usually the one people DON'T like."

Then she started in about the pledge and how she remembered when they added under god. She told me that she was 60 and had grown up in Colorado, attended public school, where it was STRESSED how important it was to have state/church separation. Then, suddenly everyone had to say under god every day. She said, "I just can't say it. I never could."

She did not say that she was an atheist and I don't think that she is. I just think state/church separation is very important to her.

I can't say how I would feel if I were a Christian, but I know saying under god did bother me after age twelve. I felt like they were forcing me to lie every day.

One part the article left out (unless I overlooked it). It wasn't orginally written with "under God" in it. In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer. So, restore it back to it's original form the way it was meant to be. For ALL people as One Nation.

ETA: While they're at it, have them remove "In God We Trust" off of our money. They won't though. That endevore would be way too costly.

Does anybody really pay attention to the Pledge of Allegiance anyway? I know when I was in elementary school and we had to recite it every morning, it held no relevance to me whatsoever--reciting it used about as much thought as breathing.

I wonder how people would feel if the word God was replace with Allah. They'd be singing a different tune. What! We don't believe in Allah! I'm not saying that and I'm offended that you would put that in my allegence to my country! Well, there you have it. Not everyone believes in the same higher power, if they believe in a higher power at all. That's why I say take it out.

I hated recieting it and hated saying, "under God". I felt left out in a way, and that I had a shameful secret. My mother was forced to have "moments of silence" in school, after which she was routinely questioned and ridiculed for not praying.

Restoring the Pledge to its original form is not the same as changing God to "no God" it is just being silent on the issue.

The legal argument for keeping the God on so many things is that it is so commonplace that it has lost all meaning and become secularized. If that is true, then what's the big deal in removing it?

Maybe it's time for a change and God should become television (http://www.toddm.net/PoemsAndLyrics/TVDrug.asp)?

Francis Bellamy (1855-1931) wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of "The Youth's Companion", the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. In 1892 Francis Bellamy was chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his "Pledge of Allegiance".

The original Pledge read as follows: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".
He considered placing the word, "equality", in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.
* ['to' added in October, 1892.]

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words "my flag", to "the Flag of the United States of America". Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

In 1954, Congress, after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus (and in response to McCarthyism), added the words, "under God" to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer. Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:

"It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...
The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the "republic for which it stands". ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?
Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, "Liberty, equality, fraternity". No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all."

The legal argument for keeping the God on so many things is that it is so commonplace that it has lost all meaning and become secularized. If that is true, then what's the big deal in removing it?

Excellent point!

Maybe it's time for a change and God should become television (http://www.toddm.net/PoemsAndLyrics/TVDrug.asp)?

LOL. It would be more accurate...



In response to an earlier post, the addition in 1954 was indeed left out. The piece is more commentary than article, but I did wonder why he didn't mention that. I think that fact is a strong argument for how arbitrary it's inclusion is, on top of the other issues.



Also, removing In God We Trust is easy. We have been changing our money a lot more recently, and all we have to do is take it off the design. They're more apt to replace it with the following, though: "In THIS we trust!"

Hmm epski I admit I misunderstood Camejo. In my defense, I would have informed myself much better would I have actually been able to vote.

BTW I heard a conservative person on TV (was it Bill O'Reilly perhaps? though not sure) say that he too would rather it was removed (at least from the money) because he as a Christian finds it offensive that God's name is on it. He came kind of from the other direction but he wanted to have it removed too... :)

That is another direction isn't it. Good point.

Has anybody bothered to ask the Flag what it thinks?

Don't know. What does you research tell you?

It should be taken out. Religion doesn't belong in government pledges or on our money.

Hmm epski I admit I misunderstood Camejo.

Could you be more specific? I'm not sure what you mean. I think you're referring to some posts from back during the gubenatorial election, but I don't remember exactly what you're referring to.

BTW I heard a conservative person on TV (was it Bill O'Reilly perhaps? though not sure) say that he too would rather it was removed (at least from the money) because he as a Christian finds it offensive that God's name is on it. He came kind of from the other direction but he wanted to have it removed too... :)

Yeah, I was thinking of this after I posted, and hoped someone would bring it up. Good on you! I mean, what bible-based christian would want something in their god's name on money? I would figure it's even a sin!

The separation between state and religion should always be maintained, particularly in schools. I'm currently attending a public school -- I have been for six years, and I have always resented the mindless recitation of the pledge and the uncomfortable "moment of silence" day after day... I was a Christian for three or four of these years, and it bothered me even then. If one is forced to recite a pledge every day for years, it loses all meaning. I have always resented the moments of silence, as they are obviously made for prayer. There is no justification for prayer in schools... Unfortunately my opnion on this matter is very much the minority, so I just grin and bear it.

The separation of church and state is a very important issue to me, so I believe that God does not belong in the pledge of allegiance, or on our money, or in our schools, or in our government.

God belongs in the church, and in the lives, hearts, and minds of His followers.

Freedom of Religion should mean that a person should have the right to be free FROM religion, to practice any religion he/she chooses, or no religion at all.

I'm reluctant to identify as a christian for many reasons, but I do believe in God. I want to keep my spiritual beliefs separate from civic concerns. Furthermore, I think it's more appropriate to use the original pledge, as it was intended before it was altered at the hands of McCarthyism and other influences.

In my humble opinion, no.
After shopping at my local co-op one day, recently, the manager offered to help me out with my groceries. Then she told me how much she liked my bumper stickers...especially "Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church"


Gee. I always thought people who used bumper stickers like that never thought anywhere, but that is a different issue...

No biggie for me either way.

Freedom "of", not "from".

I think it should go back to the original without God. I don't have anything against God, and the pledge isn't making people say they are christians in my opinion - but it's not the original version.

Also - there are many more non "god" religions in the United States now - so I think it makes even more sense for it to go back to the original version.

The separation of church and state is a very important issue to me, so I believe that God does not belong in the pledge of allegiance, or on our money, or in our schools, or in our government.

God belongs in the church, and in the lives, hearts, and minds of His followers.

Freedom of Religion should mean that a person should have the right to be free FROM religion, to practice any religion he/she chooses, or no religion at all.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I don't really give it much thought but I am thoroughly opposed to it.

Does God belong in the pledge of allegiance?

No.

The only time I can ever recall anything like this in Canada was back when I was in elementary school and they used to make us say "The Lord's Prayer" (you know, the "Our Father, who art in Heaven" one) each morning before classes started.

Quite honestly it never made any difference to me then, nor does it now if it were still being practiced. None of us kids really paid any attention to it, it was just something we did and I honestly don't think it made kids think about religion at all. I know it never made us think about it.

I think this is a bigger deal with the parents and people like the ACLU/supporters than it ever is for the kids, since most kids probably couldn't care less, just as we couldn't care less when we had to recite the prayer each morning.

Quite honestly it never made any difference to me then, nor does it now if it were still being practiced. None of us kids really paid any attention to it, it was just something we did and I honestly don't think it made kids think about religion at all. I know it never made us think about it.


I agree, it's probably not a big deal to kids but that doesn't make it right. Government has no right to ask children (or adults) to pledge allegience to any god. And if you didn't believe in a god or the Christian God you would either have to hide your beliefs or face the very real possibility of being ridiculed byt the other children. It's not fair to put children in that position.