Apologies in advance for any drop in the quality of writing -- this will be my first post in a couple of weeks.
I've been reviewing my religious views of late, and am leaning more towards agnostic than atheist (some readers will remember a few posts outlining ardent atheism over the past two years). But I leave my religion (or lack thereof) at the door for this post, and I request before you read further that you try to do the same.
The Pledge of Allegiance, in its original form, read:
There were minor changes made in the 1920s --"my flag" was eventually changed to "the flag of the United States of America"--but in 1954, the age of McCarthyism (mind you, it was only two years later that, in an effort to further distance ourselves from "the godless communists", the national motto was made "In God We Trust"), two words were added that completely twisted the pledge: "Under God".
Ignoring the personal offense I take from President Eisenhower's statement on the matter (which says, in part, that the addition would highlight "the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man"), I see this as being extremely dangerous.
Keep in mind that the First Amendment, stating that Congress would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", was adopted in 1791.
Keep in mind that President Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, supporting with "sovereign reverence" the First Amendment's "wall of separation between church and state", was written in 1802.
Keep in mind that the Treaty of Tripoli, explicitly pointing out that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion", was ratified by the Senate unanimously in 1797.
As you mull that over, tell me something. Given the 150-plus year gap between the establishment and initial clarification of secularism in our government, and the use of blatantly theistic diction in a pledge to the very symbol of our liberty, who do you think has seniority in the matter?
Glad to be back.
I've been reviewing my religious views of late, and am leaning more towards agnostic than atheist (some readers will remember a few posts outlining ardent atheism over the past two years). But I leave my religion (or lack thereof) at the door for this post, and I request before you read further that you try to do the same.
The Pledge of Allegiance, in its original form, read:
I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
There were minor changes made in the 1920s --"my flag" was eventually changed to "the flag of the United States of America"--but in 1954, the age of McCarthyism (mind you, it was only two years later that, in an effort to further distance ourselves from "the godless communists", the national motto was made "In God We Trust"), two words were added that completely twisted the pledge: "Under God".
Ignoring the personal offense I take from President Eisenhower's statement on the matter (which says, in part, that the addition would highlight "the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man"), I see this as being extremely dangerous.
Keep in mind that the First Amendment, stating that Congress would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", was adopted in 1791.
Keep in mind that President Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, supporting with "sovereign reverence" the First Amendment's "wall of separation between church and state", was written in 1802.
Keep in mind that the Treaty of Tripoli, explicitly pointing out that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion", was ratified by the Senate unanimously in 1797.
As you mull that over, tell me something. Given the 150-plus year gap between the establishment and initial clarification of secularism in our government, and the use of blatantly theistic diction in a pledge to the very symbol of our liberty, who do you think has seniority in the matter?
Glad to be back.
technorati tags:
political news | news | world news
More at: News 2 Cromley
No comments:
Post a Comment