« FFFT Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Pledge

By: weco in FFFT | Recommend this post (0)
Thu, 14 Apr 11 2:09 AM | 79 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Food For Further Thought
Msg. 28134 of 65535
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Harry Reid Omits "Under God" While Reciting Pledge

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) talks about how he enjoys hearing the pledge of allegiance at the beginning of the Senate session, however does not say "under God." Instead, he says "one nation, indivisible."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/04/12/harry_reid_omits_under_god_while_reciting_pledge.html

While many are incensed at this omission, we must remember that the "under God" statement was inserted late in our history:

in Between 1924 and 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was worded:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

(that's the way I originally learned it as did many of us from the 50's)

In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the words "under God." The current Pledge reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

On 2002-JUN-26, a three judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2 to 1 to declare the Pledge unconstitutional because of the addition of the phrase "under God." This decision only affects the states of AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR and WA. The ruling stating that "the text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God."

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Circut Court of Appeals reading. They did not rule on the basis of the Pledge violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Rather, they ruled that the plaintiff, in this case, Michael Newdow did not have primary custody of his daughter and thus did not have standing to take the case to the federal court system.etc...etc..

The situation is that the phrase was not part of the original pledge although it is now. Although it came to be to placate McCarthy. There are many who still do not include (for whatever reason) the inserted phrase.

One can still be a patriotic American without stating a belief in God!


- -


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
« FFFT Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next