The 1950's Red Scare & The History of God in U.S. Government

6-27-02 | Tired of Taxes

[Tired of Taxes]

The original Pledge, composed by Francis Bellamy, read:

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

1923 - At the first National Flag Conference, the words "the Flag of the United States" are inserted.

1942 - Congress officially recognizes the Pledge.

1943 - The U.S. Supreme Court rules that youngsters cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge in WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). The case is heard on behalf of parents and students belonging to the Jehovah's Witnesses sect, who argued that their religious faith prohibited them from saluting the symbols of a worldly government.

1950s - The Red Scare: In a search for "commies", congressional committees and state legislative panels question citizens about their political and religious beliefs.

1952 - The Knights of Columbus adopts a resolution urging the inclusion of the word "God" in the Pledge.

Flag Day, June 14, 1954 - President Eisenhower signs a measure adding the words "under God" to the Pledge.

1956 - The secular phrase "E Pluribus Unum" ("Out of many, one") is replaced with "In God We Trust" as the national motto. President Eisenhower first institutes the annual "National Prayer Breakfast" held in the White House. The phrase "So help me God" is added to the oath taken by Federal judges and other officials.

Many of you continue to assert that the Founders would've endorsed this mixture of God and government. But, as you can see, these religious slogans and practices were not adopted until much later during the Red Scare.

[RLK]

"Red scare" is a term used by leftist to demean the seriousness of a situation that existed.

[Kenyon]

Interesting timeline. One of America's greatest early supporters of liberty AND religion, Roger Williams, would be justifiably appalled by the forced injection of these sorts of slogans in the classroom and in government.

[mattdono]

And your point is that the "Red Scare" has caused all of these phrases and that our country is a God-fearing country?

A few points:

1. Our country is comprised of people how believe in a higher power: God. In fact, almost 75% specifically identify with God, in the Old Testament sense (the whole Judeo-Christian thing).
2. We live in a representative democracy and people who believe in God represent the majority of people. Hence, our country's mottos, pledges, etc. should represent our beliefs.
3. The founding of this country was based on a "divine providence". The Founders believed that what they were doing was favorable in God's eyes.
4. The seperation of Church and State is a farce. The government can NOT institute a state religion, but it can't take sides with an atheist either, and that is PRECISELY what is happening here.

And, as far as thie being a response to the "Red Scare", I am afraid that you don't have a proper understand of the men who created this country. They were, contrary to leftist lies and revisionist history, some of the most pious men ever to walk the face of the earth.

Of course, I guess that you are going to dismiss the idea of being pious too.

[maeng]

Then we should also rule unconstitutional Lincoln's act freeing the slaves as he "called on God" in his speech and writing of the Eman. Proclamation. Right?

[Wm Bach]

Many of you continue to assert that the Founders would've endorsed this mixture of God and government.

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ...

...WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATED OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

[norraad]

Maybe, maybe not, I've got marks from sittin' on both sides of this fence.

I glad for it in the long run & I think many oldsters like me will agree if nothing else it gave a sense of community & benign ritual during grade school.

Sometimes, if I was mad at God or didn't think he/she/it didn't exist, I didn't say that part, that's all.

Mostly, I always enjoyed the fact that we were all saying it together. That was fun, like singing together, regardless of the song, it felt good, n'ést pas?

[Tired of Taxes]

"We live in a representative democracy and people who believe in God represent the majority of people. Hence, our country's mottos, pledges, etc. should represent our beliefs.

This is not a "majority-rule" nation. For example: If the majority wanted to confiscate all guns, should the government do so? No, because we have a Second Amendment right. If the majority wanted to add the word "godless" to the Pledge, as in "one godless nation, indivisible", should the government adopt that measure? Of course not, because the First Amendment protects us from gov't interference in our religions.

"The government can NOT institute a state religion, but it can't take sides with an atheist either, and that is PRECISELY what is happening here."

If this atheist were to lobby for the word "godless" or "god-free" to be added to the Pledge, and the government adopted the measure, then you would be correct. But that's not what has happened.

[grebu]

There is no "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution. It was a phrase Thomas Jefferson wrote to Danbury Baptists in 1802 to convince them that the United States would never establish a national nomination - 11 years after the First Amendment was ratified.

The First Amendment says only that Congress shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Meaning that Congress shall not establish a religion or prevent you from practicing one. But the words "under God" do not do that, they are not denominationally monotheistic.

The problem for those who argue that it does is contradiction - That the same men who created the Constitution and supposedly wanted a "separation of church and state" also put "In God We Trust" all over our federal currency. On the same day that the founding Congress past the First Amendment - September 25, 1789 - the same approved a resolution asking President George Washington to enact "a day of public thanksgiving and prayer." And it was President Thomas Jefferson, as head of the District of Columbia school system, who made the Bible and Isaac Wyatt's hymnal a pair of mandatory readings.

This court system is banning a pledge "under God" when the First Amendment says the power is limited to Congress, not state and local governments. These are not federal schools.

The Declaration of Independence mentions "natural God," and "that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

This is nothing more than knee-jerk ultraliberal legislation in the People's Republic of San Francisco. It won't hold up.

And since when do we have a right not to be offended or to not to feel isolated. That happens to me daily. Who do I get to sue?

It's like the environmentalists. They twist and warp everything to achieve their version of utopia.

[mikeb704]

1950s - The Red Scare: In a search for "commies". . .

I like how quote marks are used, as if to suggest there weren't any Commies. We all know better.

Michael M. Bates: My Side of the Swamp

[M. Thatcher]

1956 - The secular phrase "E Pluribus Unum" ("Out of many, one") is replaced with "In God We Trust" as the national motto. President Eisenhower first institutes the annual "National Prayer Breakfast" held in the White House. The phrase "So help me God" is added to the oath taken by Federal judges and other officials.

1956. A very good year.

[Kenyon]

I agree that by and large the pledge of allegiance was a benign exercise in school. But when the issue comes to the courts due to some controversy, and is addressed on constitutional grounds, it is reassuring that they decided the case correctly. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the Supreme Court does with the case.

[PatrickHenry]

I was probably in the 6th grade when the pledge was changed. Adding "under God" wasn't upsetting to anyone, as I remember it. After all, we were usually reciting the Lord's Prayer right after the pledge. (And yes, this was a public school.)

But even as a kid, a couple of things did bother me. First, I found it vaguely unsettling that something as apparently ancient and venerable as the pledge could be changed at all. I never thought very deeply about it, but I can still remember that I found the concept of revising the pledge a bit puzzling. But what does a kid know?

Also, having learned the old pledge, I always thought it had a certain wonderful cadence to the flow of the words, and that this almost musical quality was disrupted by the addition of "under God." Try it yourself, aloud. Say the words: " ... one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." It sounds lyrical. At least to me. With the extra words added , the pledge has more meaning, of course; but it's always sounded somewhat choppy. Which is certainly not relevant to the court's decision.

One more recollection, while I'm at it. Most of us were probably saying: " ... one nation, invisible ... " It wasn't until around the 5th or 6th grade that I finally got that word right and understood what it meant.

[flying Elvis]

A bit of trivia for you.

Do you know how to tell if an old Texaco sign is vintage or modern? Look at the star on it. Texaco changed the color of its star from red to white during the red scare.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

J.P.McCARTHY WAS A TRUE AMERICAN HERO!

[Kenyon]

Roger Williams wrote of and supported the "hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" in the 17th century in Rhode Island. Its a concept that has been with the country from the beginning, and actually to protect both institutions.

[kidd]

ToT -

What a ridiculous argument. You did not tie the insertion of God into the pledge with the McCarthy hearings. Instead all you have said is that they occurred at the same time.

By the same stupid logic, you could also say that the national highway system, I Love Lucy, statehood for Hawaii and air conditioning are a result of the "Red Scare".

[Tired of Taxes]

"the same men who created the Constitution and supposedly wanted a "separation of church and state" also put "In God We Trust" all over our federal currency."

That's not correct. As noted at the top of this thread, "In God We Trust" wasn't placed on our currency until the 50's. It replaced a secular phrase, "E Pluribus Unum" - "out of many, one".

[Tired of Taxes]

Yes, but, more importantly, they wrote the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Any way you slice it, a public school teacher - who is a representative of the gov't - leading students in a taxpayer-funded institution in a Pledge that includes the words "under God" is establishing religion. You wouldn't want the same teacher to tell students there is no god, would you?

[KC_Conspirator]

Nobody has said that the Founders wanted to mix religion and government into a theocracy. That is a flat out lie fit for a college classroom of freshmen and sophomores who don't know any better. Reciting the pledge is not an "oppressive theocracy" nor is having any other mottos on our currency. None of this is the establishment of an official religion.