Alonzo Fyfe

The government should declare that the use of the Pledge of Allegiance without the words “under God” is as legitimate as the traditional version.

I, for one, cannot make a pledge of allegiance to the United States, no matter how much I should want to. Insofar as the Pledge contains the words “under God,” it is a pledge to an entity that does not exist. I cannot pledge allegiance to a real nation under God if there is no God for any nation to be under.

A promise to Zeus would have has little real-world relevance as the pledge of allegiance. Not that I'm unwilling to make promises to Zeus. I just don't see the point.

This may be redundant, but I expect many will miss this point, and it is crucial. The problem is not that I find the existing pledge offensive. Rather, the existing pledge is a pointless pledge to a piece of fiction.

In fact, if I pledge allegiance to “one nation under God,” I am actually pledging allegiance to God himself.

Imagine living during the Great Schism when the Catholic Church had two popes, Urban VI in Rome, and Clement VII in Avegnon. Clearly, pledging allegiance to “the Catholic Church under Pope Urban VI” is the same as pledging allegiance to Pope Urban VI himself. Similarly, we must take a pledge to “one nation under God” to be logically identical to a pledge to God himself.

Consequently, I find myself living in a county, whose constitution prohibits the establishment of a religion, asserting that it would recognize no pledge of allegiance except a pledge of allegiance to God.

One could ask, “What is the problem, as long as nobody is required to make such a pledge?”

The problem is rooted in the double meaning, both of pledging allegiance, and of refusing to. Just as I cannot logically give the pledge of allegiance without pledging my allegiance to God, I cannot refuse to pledge my allegiance to God without simultaneously refusing to give my pledge to the United States. I do not see why I should be prohibited from giving any official pledge of allegiance to my country.

I also do not like my country forcing me to be vulnerable to theistic demagogues who prey on this equivocation by asserting that any who do not pledge allegiance to God must be against the United States.

Why don’t I just say the Pledge of Allegiance and omit the words “under God”?

Clearly, people should not feel free to make whatever edits they want to the pledge of allegiance and consider it just as official as that version accepted by Congress. To leave out the words “with liberty and justice for all” or to replace “the United States of America” with “the United Tribes of Afghanistan” creates a significantly different pledge.

If people individually should not feel free to make whatever changes they want and consider them to be substantially equivalent, no matter which changes they make. Official pledges require an official sanction from Congress.

Of course, the congress has better things to do than spend its days reviewing all of the variations people may want. However, a special problem exists when the wording prohibits a segment of the population that would like to and should be able to pledge allegiance from doing so – again, not as a matter of conscience, but because the official pledge requires allegiance to a fictitious country.

I, for one, would very much like to deliver an honest official pledge of allegiance to the real United States of America.

the Anti-Christmas

How can you say: "I, for one, would very much like to deliver an honest official pledge of allegiance to the real United States of America." ?? We do have an official pledge. We have had for years. And those who do not believe in God can simply not say it. And for that matter, if you are so offended by that pledge to our country, take your children to a muslim school, or athiest school. You are always free to do so. You see, that is what freedom is all about, here in the USA. You are free to decide what you say, think, or even to leave.

Alonzo Fyfe

Did you read what I wrote? Or just the title?

SharonDee

Alonzo's question is valid: you don't appear to have read what he wrote because your words quoted above were anticipated and answered by his post.

Why is this tactic used so often? It gets tiresome to be accused of not loving our country because of criticism lobbied at some aspects of it. "You don't like it, do something about it... other than expect us to treat your objections fairly." That's the message I hear.

You see, that's what freedom is all about here in the USA: speaking up when something is wrong without fear of being deported.

Brian K.

I would like to reply to "the Anti-Christmas" and say that i am Atheist and my parents are not. I doubt they would pay extra money to send me to an Atheist school, which BTW i have never seen even 1, if they think it is just a phase. My parents think that i am only reacting to something that happened or am being influenced, or want the attention of being different. But what they con't know is that living as an Atheist isn't easy. Its kinda scary at times, but i'm true to myself. I couldn't see myself believeing in something so luducrous as a God of Allah. N E Ways, sorry for that, i'll move on.... I think that the "Under God" should go. I shouldn't have to change schools.....i go to a public school, and if all of the Atheists went to seperate Atheist schools, it would be called Theists school. I think America is segregated enough that anymore is further malignant to this marvolous country. I have much pride in this nation and this love over-powers my dislike for saying "Under God" in the pledge. I still think its wrong and goes against alot of what this nation stands for, but i still have faith in my country. I think it is a bit naive to think no one can love somthing and still disagree with somethings that it does or stands for.
Thanks, Brian

Danya

This is the same argument I use for people who insist on teaching the bible in public schools. That is why there are Christian or Catholic or Muslim schools.

There is supposed to be a seperation of church and state. Using under god in the pledge clearly violates this law. Return it to the way it read prior to the 1950's and no one will feel they are being excluded from honoring their country when they say it.

Besides, it isn't just said in public schools or by children so sending them to another school to avoid it would not solve the problem.

Oresta

The phrase "under God" is not some innocuous nod to a supernatural presence that we freethinkers should have the good manners to shrug off. Its meaning is that the United States derives its sovereign authority from God. That, however, is not the case. The U.S. is a secular state and it derives it sovereign authority from its people. That is the revolutionary concept of our founding fathers. Offices derive their authority from the people who elected them, not from divine right.

MassAtheist

I agree with you in principle, but I don't quite follow your logic here. In my mind, removing "under god", does not "create a significantly different pledge". To paraphrase, you are pledging allegiance to the flag (of the US), and to the republic (for which it stands). The rest is really just commentary (which, I agree, should not be part of the pledge).

Corwin

I suppose the difference with just leaving out 'under God' instead of editing other parts of the Pledge is that removing the godspam goes back to the original form of the Pledge, that we used for years...

Alonzo Fyfe

In my mind, i agree with you. Quite the opposite, in fact -- the pledge without the phrase "under God" is a viable and substantively identical variation.

The issue here -- indeed, the point of the essay -- is that Congress should officially recognize that this does not create a significantly different pledge.

Thereby allowing atheists to do what they cannot now do -- pledge allegiance to a country that actually exists rather than a fictitious construct.