To remove “Under God” from the Pledge is nothing more than trying to hide a historical fact because of a frail sensibility held by a minority who just cannot abide by it. So they make dumb arguments about “discrimination” to try to cover for their inability to cope with reality.
Blacks were once enslaved in America. Jews were once persecuted and killed by Germany’s NAZI Party. Thomas Jefferson fought and defeated Muslims who were, even that long ago, targeting Christians because they believed their religion mandated such of them. These are all statements of historical fact. None of them are discriminatory. They are truths.
Discrimination is defined by Mirriam-Webster’s Dictionary as a “prejudiced or prejudicial outlook”. Prejudice is no necessarily a bad thing. For example, being prejudiced against lies is a good thing. Being prejudiced against bigots is a good thing. But, when used as a pejorative, prejudice is “an adverse opinion or leaning formed <b>without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge</b>”. So discrimination, meant as a derogatory label, is an outlook based on unjust and faulty beliefs. When one speaks the truth however, one cannot be discriminating in a deprecating way. Truth is just truth.
So I have to laugh when I read that anonymous, read cowardly, atheists are suing a school district in Massachusetts, of course it is in Massachusetts, to remove the words, “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance[1]. The attorney representing these hyperventilating, soft-skinned souls, one Mr. David Niose, defends the lawsuit by saying that the words “Under God” being contained in the pledge discriminates and, “suggests that people who don't believe in God are less patriotic than others, and that's just not the truth."
No Mr. Niose, it does not say that. Maybe instead of trying to get your fifteen minutes of fame for doing something stupid you should actually read the pledge and comprehend it? It says only that the nation we live in, the United States of America, was formed, “Under God.” This is an historical fact. And as an historical fact it cannot be discriminatory in a bad way.
To summarize why this is truth, only the facts need to be considered. Our Founding Fathers regularly evoked God in public and as justification for why the United States should be an independent nation. Our leaders from way back when the nation was still young even proclaimed days of Thanksgiving to Almighty God for the entire nation. The Declaration of Independence is rife with references to God spoken in the flowery and grandiose language that the time dictated should be used to pay homage to the Creator. Even our very Constitution itself proclaims that the act of its creation was done “In the Year of Our Lord”, 1787.
Atheists, it seems, always become antsy any time they come face to face with the reality that most people believe in America believe in God. They break out in hives and shiver uncontrollably whenever they hear the fact that our founders formed this nation with a reverence towards God and God's laws. They collapse into convulsing seizures any time they themselves have to utter the fact. The fact the First Amendment protects them from being forced to worship in a way that is contradictory to their own Godless theology by the government is not enough for them. They want no mention, publicly, that anyone believes, on in the case of our Founders, believed, in God.
So why do atheists insist that Americans reaffirming the historical fact of our nation being founded “Under God” is so dangerous to them? I can only surmise that their own belief in their own religion of Atheism is so fragile that the intrusion upon it by the mere mention of another is damaging to their psyche. And yes, atheism is indeed a religion. As I have pointed this out before, much to the disdain of unthinking atheists, the dictionary defines religion in its most simplest terms as, “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith,” with no God or gods required. As such, Atheism fits the mold of a religion.
To remove “Under God” from the Pledge is nothing more than trying to hide a historical fact because of a frail sensibility held by a minority who just cannot abide by it. The simple phrase of historical truth is so disgusting to them and they cannot cease until it is removed from their sight and they are able to never have to admit it as truth. But the fact that removing this simple phrase of historical truth is disgusting to so many others does not even faze them. The hypocrisy of what they want is lost in their blind incoherency and pursuit of their ultimate goal which is that none shall utter an historical truth that offends them. So they make dumb arguments about “discrimination” to try to cover for their inability to cope with reality.
This set of facts might be of interest to this piece. The Pledge of Allegiance originated in 1893 and did not contain the words “under God” before 1951. In 1951 the fourth degree of the Knight of Columbus adopted a resolution to begin opening their business meetings by reciting the pledge of Allegiance.
In August of 1952 the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus adopted a resolution urging the change be made permanent. Copies of the Supreme Council’s resolution were sent to the President, the Vice President, and the House Speaker. The Supreme Council reaffirmed this resolution during each subsequent annual meeting.
In 1953 the Knight of Columbus decided to write letters to all members of both Houses of Congress urging the pledge modification to be adopted.
A resolution was eventually introduced by Congressman Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan and adopted by both Houses of Congress. Pressident Eisenhower signed it into law on Flag Day’ June 14, 1954, making it official.
In a message to Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart at the meeting of the Supreme Council in Louisville, August 17, 1954, President Eisenhower, in recognition of the initiative of the Knights of Columbus in originating and sponsoring the amendment to the Pledge of Allegiance, said:
“We are particularly thankful to you for your part in the movement to have the words ‘under God’ added to our Pledge of Allegiance. These words will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral
principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded. For the contribution which your organization has made to this cause, we must be genuinely grateful.”
That’s how the words “under God” became part of the pledge.
Here are some facts for you…
1) The Pledge of Allegiance was written in the 1890's by Francis Bellamy, an avowed Socialist. It did not include the words "under God."
2) It was formally adopted by Congress in the 1940's, without the words "under God."
3) These words were first suggested late in the 1940's, likely in deference to Abraham Lincoln, who is responsible in large part for ruining the idea of "states rights" we conservatives hold dear. It was revised, with these words added, in the 1950's.
4) The official English translation of the Treaty of Tripoli, which formally ended the first Barbary War, contains the following statement: "(a)s 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 Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." This language was passed with unanimous consent of the Senate in 1797, which leads me to believe that it is generally representative of the beliefs of our founding generation.
This country was not founded as a "Christian nation." It was intended to be a loose federation of sovereign States, some of whom had religious identities and some of whom didn't, coming together to share certain functions such as border defense, currency valuation, regulating interstate and international commerce, protecting intellectual property, etc. While many of our Founders held deeply religious beliefs, they intentionally left matters of faith and religion to the sovereign States and the people.
"Nationalistic Christians" hijacking the term "conservative" are just as responsible as the progressive left for the revisionist history we constantly encounter today, and it is just as harmful. If they succeed in nominating Rick Santorum, then we'll have four more years of Obama and the damage to our union and the sovereign States that form it will be almost impossible to recover from.
I will agree, however, that there is no inherent right to not be offended, and a lot of people are really just thin-skinned. But let us make sure we really do have all the facts on our side.
In posting this I will likely be misinterpreted and demagogued as an atheist and liberal. Neither could be further from the truth.
sbennett
Facts are facts and you cannot refute them by shooting the messenger.
The Founders’ intentionally left religion as a personal liberty They didn’t want overt (state sponsored) displays of religion in government; they were also careful not to restrict the individual liberty to practice (or not to) as one wishes. We are both in agreement that there is no enumerated or implicit right to not be offended.
In addition I do agree with your premise that both major political ideologies have damaged the nation, each in their own turn, by attempting to drag the country to their own ideology. My experience has led me to the opinion that progressivism is just as much a religious ideology as a political one.
For SBennet, it should be noted that there is a distinct difference between our nation and the government of the nation. This is a common mistake made by those wishing to use the Treaty of Tripoli to support the notion that we were not formed to be a Christian nation. There is far too much evidence to suggest otherwise that Christian notions of right/wrong guided the founding. But the government of the nation is NOT a religious one. So, how the government was founded and how the nation was founded is not quite the same thing.
But regardless, the addition of the "under God" still evokes a truth about our nation that doesn't change simply because one believes or doesn't believe in God. It will remain true even if the entire nation becomes atheist, which will be right about the time the nation falls.
I don't know that I was shooting anyone, Bill. Your post wasn't moderated yet when I put mine together. And it sounds like you pretty much agree with me.
I stand by my statement that as a nation the "United States of America" was founded as a loose federation without a particular religious bent. Those matters were to be left to the States, as little experiments in self-government. If you didn't like the State you lived in, for whatever reason be it religious, commercial, social, etc., you were free to move to another that better aligned with your particular ideals. There is certainly a "Christian" tradition in the founding, history, laws, culture, and customs of many States in our union; I don't dispute that. And I don't dispute that the Founders looked to God for discernment. But the national government was specifically denied the authority to regulate religious activities. It was never intended that the national government would be able to tell the sovereign States that they could or couldn't allow or encourage religious activities.
My real objection is that "nationalistic Christians" distort history by extrapolating the individual religious beliefs of many of our Founders and the and the religious customs and traditions of some of the States during our founding generation into this idea that we should have a national Christian identity, complete with all the earthly judgment they want to use the police power of government to implement. I don't believe that this is what our Founders intended. This is why I find Rick Santorum as dangerous as Barack Obama. Plus the fact that he's no conservative. He might be talking a good game now in some ways, but his record in Congress says otherwise.
My other point is that the Pledge of Allegiance is not really "history." It's only been in its current form for about 1/4 of our existence as a nation. And I'm honestly not sure what our Founders would have thought of such a pledge. Most of them saw themselves as citizens of their State first. They didn't want to sacrifice the unique identities of their respective States in forming this new national government, which is one of the reasons they attempted to limit its power so much.
Wasn’t talking @ you shooting me. Talking @ anyone shooting you because of your; “In posting this I will likely be misinterpreted and demagogued as an atheist and liberal. Neither could be further from the truth.”