Rant on.

In 1892, a man named Francis Bellamy–a Baptist minister–created what would become the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

That’s it.  That’s the original Pledge.  In 1923, “Flag” was changed to “the Flag of the United States” and then in 1924 “of America” was added.  In 1942, the U.S. congress approved this version of the Pledge.  And there, in my opinion, it should have stayed.

Twelve years later, however, the phrase “Under God” was added to the Pledge.  This, in my opinion and that of many others, violates the First Amendment?  You remember the First Amendment, right?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I bolded the important part here.  Religion is not to be endorsed by law.  And yet, there it is, plain as day:  The government-approved version of the Pledge of Allegiance contains the phrase “Under God.”  While this does not endorse a specific religion–nearly all religions have a deity at the core of their beliefs, after all–it does establish religion as a general concept.  Many U.S. citizens now identify themselves as atheists or humanists, and they have no belief in any kind of god.  No small number of such folks see the whole concept of god as a work of overactive imaginations, often going so far as to say people who worship a god are worshipping “an imaginary friend.”  That makes the phrase pretty laughable:  …one nation, under an imaginary friend, with liberty and justice for all.

In spite of what, to me, seems like a bad idea, a panel of three judges in Texas unanimously declared the phrase should stay in that state’s Pledge.  I don’t know how many states have their own pledge, but Texas does and its pledge–Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible–has that religious phrasing in it.  Part of the reason for the ruling was the inclusion of “Under God” in the national Pledge.  This sounds dangerously circular to me.  I can see a higher ruling stating the phrase should be in there because many states have it.  Many of the states will say (as Texas now has) they have it because the national pledge does.

This easily slips into the inclusion of the phrase “In God We Trust” on currency.  “No law respecting an establishment of religion” and yet there it is, plain as day, on the money we spend.  One more reason, I guess for using debit / credit cards more often.  Electronic money doesn’t endorse any religious belief.  Sure, there’s credit card designs with religious symbolism, but use of such things is very much an individual choice, not something endorsed by the government or even the bank producing the cards.

I’m sidetracking, and I apologize.  The fact is the first amendment clearly states the government should not be endorsing any form of religion.  Removing “under god” or “in god we trust” from the Pledge and our money does not endorse atheism.  The point is no religious belief–and by this definition, atheism is a religious belief–is endorsed or favored.  (I can’t think of a phrase to replace either “under god” or “in god we trust” which would, in fact, endorse atheism without being very negative.)

I hope someday soon legislation makes it congress to change the phrasing back to the original one approved by congress.  The man who wrote the Pledge was a Baptist minister and he didn’t see the need to mention God in the Pledge.  I don’t think this is going to happen any time soon, and I am certain “in God we trust” is going to be on our money for a long time, but I can hope.  Nothing is perfect, and that very much includes national governance, but these glaring contradictions would be better as a part of past history.

Rant off.