I pledge allegiance to the moral majority…

Brain Fertilizer says:

Don’t you think this anti-religious movement is getting out of hand?

So was this open season on religious belief brought on by libertarians who feel uncomfortable finding themselves under the same big tent as conservative Christians in voting for Bush, or liberals who feel they lost the 2004 election on the basis of religious values?

about this on Michelle Malkin‘s blog

The Washington Times’s Valerie Richardson has a story out today that wins my p.c.- hell-in-a-handbasket award:

DENVER-The students in Vincent Pulciani’s seventh-grade class were reciting the Pledge of Allegiance this week when they heard the voice over the intercom say something they’d never heard before, at least not during the Pledge.

Instead of “one nation, under God,” the voice said, “one nation, under your belief system.”

I ask this simple question:

Should our children be forced to mouth phrases which could mean nothing to them? If a Wiccan child is forced to pledge allegiance to a God that they do not believe in, does that do that child any good?

Would not God appreciate it more if it’s heartfelt? Or, does he like to have people forced to love him?

I think that some Christians are seeing that their faith is on the decline. And this scares them.

Wicca projected to be 3rd largest U.S. religion by 2012

“Witchcraft is growing so fast on high school and college campuses that Wiccan visionaires are rushing to establish their own schools.” This is meant as a warning to Christian parents. Chas Cliftion, editor of Pomegranate: The International Journal Of Pagan Studies has a collaborating statement: “We (Pagans) are like a third world country that can’t put up enough elementary schools fast enough.”

Steve Wohlberg, Hour of the Witch

People have to realize that intolerance is no longer an option. People have started to look beyond their parents faith. Faith based on guilt, and forgiveness of our personal shortcomings by some larger then life man behind the curtain falls short logically, and spiritually.

Many people that I know prefer a belief structure based on personal responsibility, kindness, compassion and logic.

This belief might or might not include a belief in a God or Godhead. It’s not relevant. What is important is that these people are kind, compassionate people.

And some would force them and their children to mouth allegance to a God that they do not believe in.

America – land of the free as long as you agree with the majority?

8 thoughts on “I pledge allegiance to the moral majority…”

  1. <em>In any case, no one is going to convince me that after 200 years of having references to God in all sorts of government literature, that saying ‘Under God” in the pledge is somehow suddenly an assault on religious freedom.</em>

    <blockquote>"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." <em>President Eisenhower (1954) after signing into law a bill to have "under God" added to the original pledge.</em></blockquote>

    So, Under God was added a little less then 200 years ago. And, it’s aim is pretty clear.

    <blockquote>"The statement that the United States is a nation ‘under God’ is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism," Rulings by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002-JUN and 2003-FEB. </blockquote>

    <blockquote>"…the Pledge of Allegiance presents a vision of a monotheistic Judeo-Christian country, and ignores the fact that there a large number of Buddhist Americans who do not adhere to monotheistic beliefs." Ken Pierce of the New York law firm Cadwalader, Wickersham &amp; Taft LLP.</blockquote>

    So, it seems that a portion of the legal system disagrees with you.

    <em>Unless someone is forcing you to act, i.e., forcing you kneel to an icon or attend church or recite a creed, there is no establishment of religion by the government.</em>

    By forcing children to recite a mantra of montheistic belief, the Goverment is forcing us to pay homage to an Icon that many of us might not belive in.

    <blockquote>Many well-meaning Christians argue that the United States was founded by Christian men on Christian principles. Although well-intentioned, such sentiment is unfounded. The men who lead the United States in its revolution against England, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and put together the Constitution were not Christians by any stretch of the imagination</blockquote>

    From <a href="http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm">Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State</a>. It goes on to point out these specifics

    Thomas Paine:

    <blockquote> I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. (Richard Emery Roberts, ed. "Excerpts from The Age of Reason". Selected Writings of Thomas Paine. New York: Everbody’s Vacation Publishing Co., 1945, p. 362)</blockquote>

    Thomas Jefferson:

    <blockquote>The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury to my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. <em>(Dumas Malon, Jefferson The President: First Term 1801-1805. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1970, p. 191)</em></blockquote>

    John Adams:

    <blockquote>As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion – as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, – and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. <em>(Charles I. Bevans, ed. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949. Vol. 11: Philippines-United Arab Republic. Washington D.C.: Department of State Publications, 1974, p. 1072)</em>.</blockquote>

    Benjamin Franklin:

    <blockquote>As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble…." <em>(Carl Van Doren. Benjamin Franklin. New York: The Viking Press, 1938, p. 777.)</em></blockquote>

  2. To a certain extent, I <i>do</i> agree with you. Not to the extent you are going, though.

    In places where the Goddess of Justice’s image has been for scores of years, atheists will not suffer an image of the 10 Commandments.

    I certainly agree that many Christians aren’t that tolerant of other religions. That doesn’t excuse ahteists being hyper-intolerant of Christianity.

    Unless someone is forcing you to act, i.e., forcing you kneel to an icon or attend church or recite a creed, there is no establishment of religion by the government. Enduring <i>expressions</i> of religion is not governmental force, it’s merely good manners. Because, like it or not, we have a society and culture heavily steeped in religion in general, and Christianity in specific. Our country may change someday. Islam is taking over Europe…maybe Wicca will take over the US. But this current trend of seeing a Theocrat in every churchgoer is paranoia to the extreme, and I think it will backfire.

    We’ll see.

    In any case, no one is going to convince me that after 200 years of having references to God in all sorts of government literature, that saying "Under God" in the pledge is somehow suddenly an assault on religious freedom.

  3. Let me be the first to speak for conservative Wiccans (a small, but not as small as you think, group).

    During the pledge, I can say: "one nation, under Gods" under my breath and no one will notice or care. It’s the thought that counts, and as a very religious, right-wing, Wiccan, I appreciate the sentiment that we live under a higher power.

  4. The concept of ‘under God’ seems quite valid to me, as I think I have mentioned before.

    I look at that phrase as a conditional loophole. Basically, we pledge our loyalty toward the country conditional on it acting in a moral manner. We acknowledge that it is ‘under God’ and not in and of itself the supreme authority.

    Obviously some people have different views on the nature of the supreme authority. Some call it God and believe morality derives from a Supreme being. Some believe it is based upon ‘natural law.’ While others have a belief in a multitude of Gods with varying names and sphere of responsibility. Obviously, each of these categories has its own subdivisions as well, with a variety of names for the supreme God(ess), different interpretations of the limits of natural law and a variety of multi-thesitic pantheons.

    So, I would say the the ‘under your belief system of choice’ is accurate to the way I think this phrase should be used. However, it certainly does not sound very nice or roll off the tongue well.

  5. "<i>people actually said, ‘Merry Christmas” and ‘Happy Easter” when I was a kid. We had Christmas trees</i>"

    I don’t know where you live, but we still have those things here in Washington State.

    "<i>Why not let every locality decide what’s appropriate based on the prevailing belief of the local population?</i>"

    That would be a good idea. So, let’s get rid of the pledge as a federal ‘thing’ and allow states, citys, and even schools to modify it as they see fit? As the school in the article in fact, did?

    So, you in fact agree with me.

    "<i>There’s no need to impose a personal belief on everyone else, right?

    No forced action/behavior/statements of belief, no establishment of religion. It’s a darn good rule of thumb.</i>"

    So, no religion in goverment at all. If a goverment person is religious – great. If that person wants to put the 10 commandments, or a Wiccan crede on a public building, not so great.

    :)

  6. Whose forcing anyone to say anything?
    That’s the irritating part. You can say "mashed potatoes" at the "under God" part, or say nothing, or not say a single word of the pledge.
    But if you take out the words, there’s no space for the people who <i>want</i> to say them to do so.

    It’s a very low-grade offensive, to be sure. But people actually said, "Merry <i>Christmas</i>" and "Happy <i>Easter</i>" when I was a kid. We had <i>Christmas</i> trees, the main Christmas season television special included quotations from the Bible (The Peanuts Christmas special), nativity scenes were on public grounds, and there were more than few 10 Commandments on display in courthouses. And nobody seemed to be forced to kneel or attend church under pain of death or threat of imprisonment.

    The hypocrisy comes in when the people who want the 10 Commandments removed and hate the idea of a nativity scene in public view don’t utter a peep about the Goddess of Justice images or Kwanza celebrations in schools.

    Why not let every locality decide what’s appropriate based on the prevailing belief of the local population?

    There’s no need to impose a personal belief on everyone else, right?

    No <i>forced</i> action/behavior/statements of belief, no establishment of religion. It’s a darn good rule of thumb.

Comments are closed.