Pledge of Allegiance Changed...

[Ashley Weed]

Originally Posted by Jeremiah Johnson

What about those that hate this country? Or disagree with its policies. Is it treason to not say the pledge based on those grounds?

Those are the individuals, who I believe are more than free to leave the country that I love, adore, and would die for.

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by Don Rotolo

Yeah, God is great. Really.

But anyway:
Look up the Federal Pledge of Allegiance, see when God was added to that one... (...one nation, under God, indivisible...).

Don

Yeah, we love and believe in God so much we have to keep reaffirming it over and over again! See, we really love God, a bunch! It's even on the bumper sicker on my car, all my kid's lunch boxes, our tshirts we wear everywhere, in all the books we read (I've read through the Left Behind series 20 times!), video games, and thank god for christian music, finally I can escape from spontaneous human emotion and feelings to the uniform quality of McDonald's music!

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Pavan

Could somebody please explain to me why it was so necessary to change the pledge? My friends and I are going bonkers trying figure out why it was so necessary.

Thanks,
Pavan.

The necessity of the change is entirely predicated upon the importance you place in acknowledging humility before God and recognizing that God alone could facilitate the morality and constitution of character demonstrated by our most treasured leaders and citizens. More practically, I'd venture to say the change was necessary only insofar as it provides Rep. Riddle with something to tout come Election Day since, as others have pointed out, lots of folks believe in her god. The bill does nothing to make the lives or futures of Texans better nor more prosperous and, as far as I'm aware, the state has not been undergoing a crisis of identity that requires a little bit of forced unity.

Discussion about this measure in the Texas House included recognition that this bill, "will acknowledge our Judeo-Christian heritage by placing the words 'under God' in the state pledge." That anyone could believe this change then doesn't reflect an endorsement of these sects of religion is astonishing. The "God" of this pledge of allegiance isn't some universal deity or some manifestation of faith in science and logic. It is meant to evoke, unequivocally and without question, the Judeo-Christian God. Rep. Riddle added, "I am simply mirroring our national pledge," while discussing the change.

Our country survived -- though just barely -- through more than a century with no Pledge of Allegiance. It survived another five decades more without any mention of "under God" in its verse. In fact, Thomas Jefferson recognized after nearly eight years in the office of President of the United States that,

"We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."

The drive to recognize the divine influence of God over the founders of our nation is little more than revisionist history -- an attempt to cash in on good will toward those who near-expertly identified and provisioned for the needs of a growing nation. What is most admirable about these men is not their adherence to Christian principle, but how they had both experience and foresight that led them to codify in our Constitution our freedom to express and practice any religion and to do so without fear of prosecution nor persecution. Pursuant to Jefferson's words and the Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights, it becomes clear that Christianity does not have a monopoly on moral or ethical behavior! Our nation's strengths are not informed by Christian systems of belief, but by our collected experiences as immigrants from all parts of the globe fleeing persecution -- whether it be because of our religion, our race, or our caste.

The addition of "under God," to the recitation of the United States' Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 and again to Texas' own Pledge in 2007 are fundamental affronts to the circumstances that formed this country. Compulsory recitation of either as required by law represents an unethical and unconstitutional recognition of religion in violation of the First Amendment and has been recognized as such by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al. in 2002.

I am not offended by those that attribute our country's enormous successes to the leadership and wisdom of their god, but by their effort to force that opinion upon me through law and indoctrination. While some may consider this issue small or inconsequential, I'd argue that the Kristallnacht did not come without warning. I will not sit quietly at the sideline so that the majority may do as it sees fit, nor will I move to "China or Vietnam" so that I might return content with relative freedom.

[KarenH]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Discussion about this measure in the Texas House included recognition that this bill, "will acknowledge our Judeo-Christian heritage by placing the words 'under God' in the state pledge." That anyone could believe this change then doesn't reflect an endorsement of these sects of religion is astonishing.

According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, "sect" means:
"a dissenting or schismatic religious body; esp: one regarded as extreme or heretical ... a religious denomination ... a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader ... PARTY ... FACTION"

"Judeo-Christian heritage" is a very broad term, encompassing a mindset common to a large majority of Americans up through the middle of the twentieth century. Usually this would include belief in God, with the Ten Commandments (don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, etc.) as the basic moral foundation. It would not necessarily include belonging to a church or synagogue, however. It also encompasses two major world religions, one of which was derived from the other.

The term "sect" is not appropriate to these broad concepts, but would refer to any of the innumerable smaller groups within the major religions, e.g., Hasidim or Missouri Synod Lutherans. As I mentioned in my previous post, the prohibition against establishment of religion refers to the government preferring one of these "denominations" over the others, as differentiated from acknowledging the basic views on God and morality held by most of our citizens earlier in our nation's history.