'Pledge' Mom: My Daughter Is No Atheist

Fox News ^ | Monday, July 15, 2002 | Fox News

[fortress]

NEW YORK

[BartMar]

We are a representative republic. Our representatives don't just speak for the majority or those whose religious beliefs they concur with but all those citizens within the area from which they were elected. The rights and equality of a single citizen is not subordinant to any other or others. Our Founding Fathers knew that. Many today either don't know or ignore what our Founding Fathers knew and practiced as evidenced by the way the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written.
*****
M. Pinkney moved to add to the art: -- "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the authority of the U. States"

M. Sherman though it unnecessary, the prevailing liberality being a sufficient security ag. such tests.

M. Gov. Morris & Gen. Pinkney approved the motion.

The motion was agreed to nem: con: and then the whole Article; N.C. only no -- & M. (Maryland) divided
*****
M. Pinkney submitted to the House, in order to be referred to the Committee of detail, the following propositions --... "No religious test or qualification shall ever be annexed to any oath of office under the authroity of the U.S."...
*****
Both quotes from "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787" by James Madison

These are the only two references to religion I can find that occurred during the Federal Convention. There are only two references to religion in the Constitution. In each reference the government is being told "shall not" in regards to religion. I fail to see how anyone could say they would approve of "under God" or "In God we trust". They wanted a government untainted by religion. They had seen in their time and recent past the oppression that government sanctioned religion could do.

Does this mean they were anti-religous? No. Many were Christian, some were deist, some might have been like my favorite, Franklin. He really didn't give a d**n about organized religion as long as his belief in a god got him to an afterlife. They had no objections to someone in office using their personal belief in a religion to draw moral strength from. Nobody I know of does. They objected to government having any public ties to religion.

Knowing this, how does the Pledge of Allegiance as it is worded today do anything but not promote equality or individual rights and who can honestly say the Founding Fathers would have approved?

Federalist #69 (Hamilton)
Comparison of the President with other Executives

Towards the end while comparing the President of the United States to the king of Great Britain:

"The one has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the supreme head and governor of the national church!"

I wonder what Hamilton would have thought of Eisenhower?

[JediGirl]

Actually, we have, but she didn't say the things you wanted to hear, so you have decreed that she didn't speak.

Sorry, didn't know she'd spoken. But I would appreciate reading what she's said if you can link it. Thanks.

[Redleg Duke]

It was in the papers and news accounts over the past couple of weeks. You may have to dig.

[eyes_only]

I refuse to have a battle of wits

with an unarmed person...

[Conservative Chicagoan]

Of course I would be because there is no "Allah"! There is a God and He is Christ. That is what makes the difference.

[Mark Bahner]

"Mark, thank God (or a deity of your choice) we have YOU to tell us what's constitutional and what isn't."

Y'all don't need me. Anyone who can read (both the Constitution, and the historical documents that describe what the Founding Fathers were attempting to do) can tell what's constitutional, and what isn't. In most cases, anyway. It ain't rocket science.

But if you think that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the War on Some Drugs, federal ownership of national parks, etc. etc. etc. are constitutional, you need to do more reading. They clearly aren't.

As far as the Pledge of Allegiance goes...if you care one way or the other, you need to get a life! Why do you care about the Pledge of Allegiance when the federal government is MASSIVELY violating The Law (the Constitution)? (Also, the very idea that your children will somehow "turn out" one way or the other, depending on two words they say or don't say in school, is ridiculous!)

...my two cents. Or maybe it was a nickel. Keep the change. ;-)

[Mark Bahner]

"These are the only two references to religion I can find that occurred during the Federal Convention."

Apparently, about a month into the difficult deliberations, Ben Franklin proposed that the Convention (which to that point hadn't offered a public prayer of any kind) do a little praying. The rest of the Founding Fathers weren't interested. The motion apparently didn't even get a vote. Apparently, when the chips were down--when this country was being founded--public prayer was deemed "unnecessary."

No (public) prayers to any God during the Constitutional Convention

"Franklin's motion for prayers in the Constitutional Convention has been used as the basis for another clerical falsehood that has been presented to the eyes or ears of nearly every man, woman and child in the United States. We are told that, the Convention for a month opened its sessions without prayer, that at the end of this time nothing had been accomplished, it was in a state of confusion, and on the point of adjourning, when Franklin came forward, proposed that the sessions be opened with prayer, which was adopted, after which the work of the Convention was speedily and successfully performed. This is adduced as a striking proof of the efficacy of prayer. The fact is, there was not a prayer offered in the Convention from the time it convened until it closed. So nearly unanimous were the members in their opposition to Franklin's proposition that not even a vote was taken on it. Franklin himself, referring to it, says: "The Convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary."

[zerosix]

Quit using U.S. Money, since it also says "In God We Trust."

I'd just like to suggest that you strongly consider moving to a country where God is banned - China would be good for a start.

[kidd]

Your quotes and research is interesting, but mostly irrelevant. The Pledge is not a test for an office or position of public trust, nor is anyone required to take it or say it.

As far as trying to determine what the Founding Fathers would have thought, I think you only have to read the Declaration of Independence, which clearly demonstrates that they believed that our rights come from the Creator, not government. The Pledge, in mentioning "under God" simply reflects this thought.

I think the Founding Fathers would have been appalled that this country has established Atheism as the state-sponsored religion.

[My2Cents]

Just out of curiosity, would you share the short version of why Medicaid, say, is unconstitutional?

[glory]

LOL--hammer meet the nail!

[Mark Bahner]

"Just out of curiosity, would you share the short version of why Medicaid, say, is unconstitutional?"

Several reasons:

1) The 10th amendment (the amendment routinely ignored by all branches of the federal government) limits the federal government's powers to those enumerated in the Constitution.

2) The relevant part of the Constitution would be Article I, Section 8, which lists the things for which Congress can appropriate tax money.

3) Article I, Section 8 does NOT mention "medical care for persons in the U.S." as one of the things for which tax money can be appropriated.

4) The common (and nonsensical) perception is that Congress can do ANYTHING it deems for the "general welfare." But Madison (I believe in Federalist 41) pointed out just how absurd that perception is. In fact, he ridiculed the anti-federalists for raising fears that anyone would think that, as proof that the anti-federalists would say anything to scuttle the Constitution. As Madison pointed out, the Founders obviously did NOT intend Congress to spend money on ANYTHING that might be for the "general welfare"...otherwise, they wouldn't have included a specific list, such as establishing a postal service, and coining and regulating the value of money. It's obvious that those things fall under the "general welfare." (In fact, as Madison pointed out, even the "common defence" falls under the "general welfare"!) So if the Founders had intended for Congress to be able to fund ANYTHING that might be considered for the "general welfare" they wouldn't have listed specific things dealing with the general welfare.

5) Even if Article I, Section 8 DID include "paying the medical bills of citizens"...Medicare is obviously NOT for the "general welfare" (let alone the "general welfare of the United States"...I won't even get into that). It's OBVIOUSLY not in the "general welfare" for young people to give their money to old people (or poor people, or any other people) for NO service rendered. (Is it in your "welfare" for a crook to take money from you, for no service rendered?)

6) If the Founders HAD intended the federal government to pay for ANYONE'S medical bills (the poor, the elderly, or ANYONE else) it wouldn't have taken more than 150 years for a Congress to come up with the idea of paying various people's medical bills! (That is one of the simplest preliminary tests for determining whether something violates the Constitution: If the thing didn't even exist for 100+ years after the Constitution was written, and there was no amendment to allow Congress to appropriate money for it, then it's probably unconstitutional. There are of course exceptions, such as the Air Force, which shows why this is just a "simple preliminary test.")

The Founders clearly expected relatives, charities...or even state or local governments...to handle the medical expenses of old people. (And poor people. And everyone else.) It's obvious.

[Mark Bahner]

"Quit using U.S. Money, since it also says 'In God We Trust.'"

Yes, but that was added almost 100 years(!) after the Constitution was written. So, "In God We Trust" was certainly not around at the founding of these United States.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm

"In 1863, Chase asked the Director of the Mint, James Pollock to prepare suitable wording for a motto to be used on Union coins used during the Civil War. Pollock suggested "Our Trust Is In God," "Our God And Our Country," "God And Our Country," and "God Our Trust." Chase decided to have "In God We Trust" used on some of the coins. The phrase was a subtle reminder that the Union was on the side of God regarding slavery."

And don't get me started on the Union! ;-)

Mark Bahner (Durham, NC)

[Mark Bahner]

"I think the Founding Fathers would have been appalled that this country has established Atheism as the state-sponsored religion."

I defy you to find even one official federal government document that contains words to the effect of "there is no God."

The Founding Fathers (except perhaps Hamilton) would be far, far more appalled by the unconstitutional size and power of the federal government. And how it's citizens worry less about whether the federal government follows the Constitution than about trivial words that are not even compulsory. (No one is required, under any law, to ever say any part of the Pledge of Allegiance.)

http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.religion.html

"West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) - Court overturns Gobitis but is broader in its scope. No one can be forced to salute the flag or say the pledge of allegiance if it violates the individual conscience."

[My2Cents]

It's obvious, but apparently not to some judges who have over the past 200+ years increasingly expanded the role of Congress beyond the obvious scope of the texts you mention.

[My2Cents]

The phrase was a subtle reminder that the Union was on the side of God regarding slavery.

Considering the outcome of the war, the utter defeat of the Confederacy, and the end of slavery, couldn't we conclude that Chase was correct?

[Mark Bahner]

"Considering the outcome of the war, the utter defeat of the Confederacy, and the end of slavery, couldn't we conclude that Chase was correct?"

Correlation is not causation. A much more likely explanation for why the North defeated the South is that there were more guns and people in the North.

I agree that slavery was (is) wrong. But that was only one of many possible reasons why the North won. (And I don't agree that states don't have a right to secede. I think they do...subject to the rights of individuals within those states to remain citizens of the country from which the state is seceding, and subject to the remaining states' rights to be compensated for debts incurred while seceeding states were part of the Union.) (In short, any secession would be complicated.)

[Mark Bahner]

"It's obvious, but apparently not to some judges who have over the past 200+ years increasingly expanded the role of Congress beyond the obvious scope of the texts you mention."

I have about this much respect for those judges (which is to say, virtually all judges)...look at the distance between the pixels in this period---->.

By the way, however...the federal government was essentially run at Constitutional levels right up to WWI. So it's been less than 100 years that the role of Congress started to clearly go beyond the scope of the Constitution.

[My2Cents]

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your perspective on US history, and respect for constitutional government.

[BartMar]

"Your quotes and research is interesting, but mostly irrelevant. The Pledge is not a test for an office or position of public trust, nor is anyone required to take it or say it."

Not irrelevant at all. The Founding Fathers wanted religon out of our government. Legislating "under god" into the oath puts religion into our government.

Whether anyone is required or not required to say the Pledge of Allegiance is irrelevant. Inclusion of the words "under god" is showing preference to monotheism. A no-no.

"As far as trying to determine what the Founding Fathers would have thought, I think you only have to read the Declaration of Independence, which clearly demonstrates that they believed that our rights come from the Creator, not government. The Pledge, in mentioning "under God" simply reflects this thought."

Not at all. The Declaration of Indpendence was not a document intended to institute a plan of governement.

"I think the Founding Fathers would have been appalled that this country has established Atheism as the state-sponsored religion."

Atheism has not been announced or even given preference as a "state-sponsored religion". Leaders may still use their religious beliefs as moral support or ask the country to use their religious beliefs by praying for support in times of need. There just may be no outspoken preference given to any theology and the Pledge of Allegience does give a preference.

Our Pledge of Allegience should be inclusive rather than exclusive. It is not as worded today. It is exclusive of Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Pagans, agnostics, atheists and a host of other relgious beliefs practiced by the citizens of our nation.

It is past time to rid our nation of the theological preference in the Pledge of Allegience as well as other parts of our government. It is the constitutional, as well as the right, thing to do.

BTW, try and find the word "god" in the Declaration of Independence.