The Pledge of Allegiance and
Our National Flag
Editor's Note:
Everyone should be aware that the Pledge of Allegiance is not one of our national documents. It has never been legislated, drafted into a bill, voted on by the Senate or the House - much less the Congress, there has never been an Executive Order aimed at it, and there are no laws to protect it other than copyright, which has been infringed several times. The People have never had this Pledge appear on any state or national ballot and they have therefore never voted on it. There was a proclamation, but, was it Constitutionally legal? The term "the flag of the United States of America" was officially adopted in 1924, but, the question remains as to which sector of our government did this and under what authority? President Dwight D. Eisenhower directed Congress to add the two small but controversial words in a direct violation of the Constituion. It is not mentioned or protected by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and thus cannot be validated by our elected government in any way other than stating that the mention of 'under god' is a violation of religious freedom insofar as seperation of church & state and here we find that each state is in violation of this Constitutional provision, or protection, by allowing the pledge, as it is argued, to continue in their schools and levy penalties for not reciting this pledge or making provisions for those who wish to be excused and then calling them unpatriotic, which has nothing to do with any of it. It does, however, violate the individuals rights to freedom of religion, and civil rights for being harrassed about the issue in the first place.
Pledge of Allegiance attributed to
socialist editor, clergyman Francis Bellamy
Wed Jun 26, 7:38 PM ET
By RON HARRIS
Associated Press Writer
The Pledge of Allegiance, attributed to socialist editor and clergyman Francis Bellamy, was first published in 1892 in The Youth's Companion (news - external web site), a children's magazine where he worked.
The pledge was meant to echo the sentiments and ideals of Bellamy's cousin, Edward Bellamy, an author of "Looking Backward" and other socialist utopian novels, according to pledge expert John Baer.
Bellamy crafted it as a resonating oration to bolster the idea that the middle class could fashion a planned political and social economy, equitable for all, Baer said.
After a proclamation by President Benjamin Harrison, the pledge was first used in public schools on Oct. 12, 1892 during Columbus Day observances.
The original wording was: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
There were those who claimed The Youth's Companion editor James B. Upham penned the famous pledge, but the U.S. Flag Association ruled in 1939 to recognize Bellamy as the author.
The pledge has been changed a few times since. For Flag Day in 1924, "the flag of the United States of America" was officially adopted as a substitution for the phrase "my flag."
In 1954, the words "under God" were added, after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic men's service organization, and other religious leaders who sermonized that the pledge needed to be distinguished from similar orations used by "godless communists."
The prospect of atomic war between world superpowers so moved President Dwight D. Eisenhower that he directed Congress to add the two small but controversial words.
"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and every rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty," Eisenhower wrote at the time.
In 1988, the elder George Bush made the pledge a presidential campaign issue after Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis vetoed a bill requiring teachers to recite the pledge. Some Republicans sought to require a recital in Congress, but House Speaker Jim Wright, D-Texas, soon casually and voluntarily started a morning recital.
The Senate began reciting the Pledge on June 24, 1999, after passing a resolution at the urging of Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H.
There is some protocol when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Uniformed military personnel face the flag and give the military salute. Civilians stand at attention or place the right hand over the heart. Men traditionally remove their hats.
Baer, author of "The Pledge of Allegiance: A Centennial History," said more modifications can be expected.
"It's about time for another change to take place in the pledge. It's a living document," Baer said.
More Historical Information HERE!
Voice Your Opinion Now At FEEDBACK.
Impeachable
Observation
When the 9th Curcuit Court handed down its ruling on the inclusion of "Under God" being a violation of our Constitution (seperation of church & state), and thus, by law, and doing their sworn duty, struck it out...we soon found our nations leaders standing on the steps of our nations capitol, hands over their hearts and reciting the Pledge with the term 'Under God' included as a voice in protest of the courts decision.
Whether they agreed with it or not our leaders openly, and blatenly, violated the Constitution of The United States right in the faces of the entire nation. This act is impeachable. They turned their noses in the air and their backs on the very document that was created to protect all American Citizens no matter what their religious preferences are. One thing for sure, God is not in the Constitution and America is not a Christian-Jewish country.
This open act of defiance by our nations elected leaders was against Constitutional Law (this all aside of the original 13th Amendment to which it had never been ratified or amended) and for that alone is cause for their removal from office. If we are to allow this act to go by without any kind of call for accountability then we have given them permission to do with our Constitution anything they want at any time they want.
If they wanted to do the right thing they should have stood in support of this decision without putting themselves in a position of religious preferences but doing their sworn duty as well to uphold the Constitution of The United States. They failed.
What they should do now is stand collectively and independently in the eyes and ears of the entire nation and renounce what they did as being wrong, incorrect, out of character and misleading (to say the least). They should make a formal apology as well as ask for the forgiveness of the Nation. To do less is a shame on America and in the eyes of the World who also understands these things.
|
|
IS AMERICA A CHRISTIAN NATION?
The U.S. Constitution is a secular document.
It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 7).
If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?
In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.
The First Amendment To The U.S. Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." What about the Declaration of Independence? We are not governed by the Declaration. Its purpose was to "dissolve the political bands," not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.
The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.
What about the Pilgrims and Puritans?
The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1607 for trade, not religious freedom. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom. The secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half later. If tradition requires us to return to the views of a few early settlers, why not adopt the polytheistic and natural beliefs of the Native Americans, the true founders of the continent at least 12,000 years earlier?
Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the "wrong" faith. The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanted no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the first government in history to separate church and state.
Do the words "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution?
The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.
What does "separation of church and state" mean?
Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.
The Supreme Court has forged a three-part "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.
A law must have a secular purpose.
It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion. It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state. The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle supported not only by minorities, such as Jews, Moslems, and unbelievers, but applauded by most Protestant churches that recognize that it has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. It keeps the majority from pressuring the minority.
What about majority rule?
America is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion.
Not only is it unAmerican for the government to promote religion, it is rude. Whenever a public official uses the office to advance religion, someone is offended. The wisest policy is one of neutrality.
Isn't removing religion from public places hostile to religion?
No one is deprived of worship in America. Tax-exempt churches and temples abound. The state has no say about private religious beliefs and practices, unless they endanger health or life. Our government represents all of the people, supported by dollars from a plurality of religious and non-religious taxpayers.
Some countries, such as the U.S.S.R., expressed hostility to religion. Others, such as Iran ("one nation under God"), have welded church and state. America wisely has taken the middle course--neither for nor against religion. Neutrality offends no one, and protects everyone.
The First Amendment deals with "Congress." Can't states make their own religious policies?
Under the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868), the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states. No governor, mayor, sheriff, public school employee, or other public official may violate the human rights embodied in the Constitution. The government at all levels must respect the separation of church and state. Most state constitutions, in fact, contain language that is even stricter than the First Amendment, prohibiting the state from setting up a ministry, using tax dollars to promote religion, or interfering with freedom of conscience.
What about "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust
The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.
Isn't American law based on the Ten Commandments?
Not at all! The first four Commandments are religious edicts having nothing to do with law or ethical behavior. Only three (homicide, theft, and perjury) are relevant to current American law, and have existed in cultures long before Moses. If Americans honored the commandment against "coveting," free enterprise would collapse! The Supreme Court has ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is unconstitutional.
Our secular laws, based on the human principle of "justice for all," provide protection against crimes, and our civil government enforces them through a secular criminal justice system.
Why be concerned about the separation of church and state?
Ignoring history, law, and fairness, many fanatics are working vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation. Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state.
|
