A response to I Pledge Allegiance to the Constitution from correspondent Bonnie:

>> Appeals court declares Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional <<

I agree with this decision. Too bad it'll be overturned quickly. The country isn't ready to face the obvious: that whenever the government touts God, it violates the First Amendment.

Americans have no concept of their own history, as they prove frequently in history tests. They don't understand the First Amendment any better than they understand Indian sovereignty. Americans are sheep, basically. They'll let the power elite steal the country while they bleat "God Bless America" and the Pledge of Allegiance.

>> I've just always not said the "under God" part, it's never bothered me any. <<

I said the whole thing when I was a kid. It didn't bother me and it's not a big deal. But it's still unconstitutional.

>> It's supposed to be a pledge to your country, not the (Christian) God. <<

To many Americans, God and America are synonymous. In different ways, I must've told you that a dozen times since 9/11.

The discussion turns into a debate (8/6/02)
>> I get the whole 'separation of church & state' thing, but no one is forcing anyone to accept the Christian God, and there is no benefit to the government OR the church by having people say the Pledge of Allegiance. <<

I thought we tentatively agreed on something, for once. Apparently not.

Are you sure you get the whole "separation of church & state" thing? The First Amendment doesn't prohibit government enforcement of religion. It prohibits government establishment of religion.

>> It's not like you're going to lose some of your rights as an American citizen if you refuse to say the "under God" part. <<

You lose the right to be free of religious indoctrination if the government (through its schools) forces you to listen to the Pledge. But those of us who believe in freedom don't have to justify why we want a particular right. The government has to justify why it's curtailing that right. It has to be because of a clear and present danger to society.

That doesn't apply here. There's no danger if we remove two words from the Pledge. There's no constitutional justification at all for an oath of allegiance, much less for an oath that insists on God's existence.

>> You remind me of those 60s hippies you see on old news footage, blathering about the capitalist pigs exploiting the oppressed minorities <<

Sounds like a compliment to me. Ever hear of the civil rights movements, the environmental movement, the end of the Vietnam War, or Watergate? Those people profoundly reshaped the world and made America into a better place.

>> but in real life they came from upper-middleclass white suburbia and wouldn't know the first thing to say to one of the ghetto-dwellers whose rights they pretend to champion. <<

I think my upbringing was more middle-class than upper middle-class. But since I have no problem talking to the Indians whose rights I champion, I don't think I'd have a problem talking to inner-city ghetto dwellers, either.

>> The people who are in control of the political, financial, and commercial structure of this country are not "stealing" anything from the rest of us. They *have* the power, they *are* in control. <<

In a democracy, in theory, power belongs to the people. The power elite is stealing that power from those who rightly own it.

>> So what you said is, "The people that have the power have the power and the rest of the country doesn't." Allow me to say — DUH. <<

Allow me to say we can and will take back the power that's rightfully ours. As we did in the '60s. The mission we began then remains to be completed.

>> But please do explain to me how saying the Pledge of Allegience (with the God reference) further enables those in power? <<

Again, people with rights don't have to justify those rights. They're "inalienable," which means they're our birthright as human beings. The Founding Fathers understood that, even if people like you don't.

But if you want a justification...Christianity as it's practiced today is profoundly hierarchical and authoritarian. It demands control over the way people think and feel. Anything that helps establish Christianity, which is what "under God" is all about, contributes to an authoritarian mindset in the US. It may not be a big contribution, but there's no reason we have to tolerate any contribution to this mindset. It's wrong because it limits our freedoms without providing any corresponding benefit.

Thus endeth your constitutional lesson for the day.

More anti-Pledge arguments
In which we debate a writer's opinion on the Pledge:

>> The writer just sabotaged his own argument. <<

No, the writer did not.

>> If the word "God" is so trivialized and meaningless as children recite it in the Pledge, than what can it hurt to keep it in there? <<

The writer said the words trivialized "consideration of religious and spiritual issues," not God. They aren't the same thing. You've trivialized the writer's argument in a vain attempt to make a point.

>> Having kids say the pledge of allegiance (and allowing them to not participate or to leave out the "under God" part if they wish) does not prevent schools from teaching all of the things mentioned above. <<

The writer was explaining why the Pledge is wrong on moral grounds. It's wrong on legal grounds because it violates the First Amendment. A court doesn't have to decide whether there's a moral justification for a legal violation. A legal violation is wrong because the Constitution says it's wrong.

>> Actually, a good lesson plan could begin with something like, "What does 'under God' mean in our pledge of allegiance? What does it mean to Al Qaeda?" <<

You can be sure the same people defending the Pledge would protest vociferously if the nation's schools tried to teach religious pluralism to any degree. I'd favor such a move, of course.

>> If the pledge doesn't have the phrase in it, then you can't use it as part of your lesson. So another reason to keep it in there. <<

Don't be silly. You could teach those two words in isolation, or you could study the Pledge's history without reciting it. Nobody is saying the Pledge must be excised out of history books, the educational system, or the public sphere. The court ruled that our government can't force schoolchildren to say it or listen to it—period.

>> To me, "religious freedom" means being tolerant of other people's beliefs or lack thereof. <<

And how is forcing people to listen to "under God" tolerant of people's beliefs? That is, the beliefs of people who worship multiple gods or no god?

Oh, you mean the minority has to tolerate the majority's views, not the other way around, because the powerful have all the power? That's exactly why the Constitution exists: to protect the minority's rights.

>> This pledge issue is about intolerance of monotheism. <<

Intolerance by whom? I didn't overturn the Pledge, a court did. Something like 90% or 95% of Americans say they believe in a single God, including almost every president, congressperson, and judge. So where exactly is the intolerance?

Your position is rubbish. The issue is about interpreting the First Amendment exactly as written—exactly as the Founding Fathers intended it to be interpreted. The words "under God" were added to the Pledge in 1954 by McCarthy types who thought the words would protect us from Communism. These right-wingers violated the Founding Fathers' intent.

Wow...you really are ignorant of the whole concept of minority rights, I see. As you've shown in many of our debates, you have little or no concept of fairness or justice. To you, what's "right" is what the rich and powerful say is right. You don't need any other thought.

Related links
God bless secular America
Victor or victim:  our new national anthem?
Corporate culture:  rotten to the core
America's cultural mindset

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .