One Nation “Under God” Being Challenged in Massachusetts Supreme Court

pledgeFor millions of Americans, in fact I’d say the majority, the words “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance are two words that undoubtedly have been apart of the pledge since the founding our nation.

This, of course, is not true.  In fact, it’s one of the biggest myths in this country.  The words “under God” weren’t added until 1954 and the pledge itself wasn’t even written until 1892.  In its original text, the words “under God” appear absolutely nowhere.

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

And the kicker?  The pledge was written by Christian minister Francis Bellamy.  So a minister chose not to include the words “under God” or any reference to religion whatsoever.

Oh, and just for an added “fun fact”—he was also a socialist.

Well, in Massachusetts the constitutionality of the words “under God” are being challenged in the state Supreme Court.

And as a Christian, I fully support this challenge.  Especially when you look at the core of the argument being presented.

The context of their argument isn’t about the “politically correct” basis that the words simply shouldn’t be in there — it’s based upon the notion that the act of having “under God” in our pledge places an emphasis that only believers in God are true patriots and all others are un-patriotic or worse.

And they’re absolutely right.  It’s a jab I’ve made at Republicans for a while now.  They see symbols or words as mechanisms which “prove” they’re more American than someone else.  And I know for a fact many will blatantly judge those who refuse to recite the pledge of allegiance.

For many — especially Republicans — they cite how many American flags they own, “God Bless America” bumper stickers they have and how loudly they recite the Pledge of Allegiance as “proof” of just how much of a “truly patriotic American” they are.

So while there’s no quantitative proof to say that those who refuse to recite the pledge are “less patriotic,” as someone who lives in the very red state of Texas I can tell you without hesitation that if an atheist (or some other non-Christian) were to refuse to recite the pledge in a situation which called for it, they would be judged by many as “less American” and “less patriotic.”

As I’ve stated previously I am a Christian, so I’m not defending the belief that God doesn’t exist because I do believe in God.  I’m simply defending people who might believe differently than I do.  There’s no reason that they should be seen as “less of an American” simply because they wish to remove religion from our Pledge of Allegiance.

Especially when the indisputable facts prove that our pledge, when originally written and for decades following, never contained the words “under God.”  They weren’t added until much later in an apparent symbolic stance against communism.

Which is slightly ironic considering many who blindly support “under God” being in our pledge don’t know the difference between communism or socialism—yet our pledge was written by a socialist.

So in reality when they “turned to the pledge to stand against communism” and added “under God,” what they really did was turn to a pledge written by a socialist to stand up against communism.

But to this day, I’ve yet to hear one argument as to why the words “under God” should remain in our pledge or how in any way they’re Constitutional.

Our First Amendment clearly states the “freedom of religion” (which also means freedom from religion) and the words in our pledge weren’t added until 1954.

It seems pretty clear cut to me that religion belongs nowhere in the context of our pledge.  Then again, I operate on facts, history and reality whereas many Republicans seem to live in some delusional reality where what they want to be true is more important than what is true.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • James Moser

    I hope it doesn’t end with the State!

  • Judie

    It was added for political purposes. Our Constitution guarantees separation of Church and State. Too many people today believe the USA is a Christian nation and the Pledge, as currently worded, gives them talking points. It should be removed.


      You are correct Judie. Also, the original motto of our country was “e pluribus unum” – Latin for “Out of many – one”. This should be put back on our money in place of “In God we trust”.

  • raytheist

    Those words have not been “apart of” the Pledge. They have been “a part of”, but need to become “apart from” the Pledge. Please learn the difference between ‘apart’ and ‘a part’.

    • Sunny

      Picky, Picky, Picky! Have you heard of possible typos? The message is clear.

      • raytheist

        Only a fool would dismiss the value of proof-reading your work and/or having an editor read it over before publishing a piece. If a message is worth posting, it is worth posting without error.

      • Steeler4Life

        get off your soap box, no one is perfect and mistakes happen!

      • raytheist

        hahahaha. I’m sorry my point went over your head. Have a good day. No, really – have a GREAT day. It’s Friday, and almost Beer O’Clock!

      • I agree with you wholeheartedly raytheist. It does need to be apart of the pledge. As in separated! (Not all of are idiots, I got your play on words)

  • Joe Sullivan

    It was added solely as war propaganda. Truth is, Christians should be outraged that it’s there for that reason. It had nothing to do with their beliefs, other than to sucker them into supporting the war.
    Kinda like Republicans do on a regular basis these days… invoke the name of “God” while pushing legislation that is “the opposite of what Jesus would do”.

    • Cathryn Sykes

      “The opposite of what Jesus would do.”
      Personally, I think the entire Republican platform these days seems to be the opposite of what Jesus would do. Matthew 25: 31-46.

  • Joan Brown

    I was 14 at the time they were added. At that time it didn’t make any difference to me. As I have aged, I can’t see any reason for them to be there. Actually I don’t think the words “in God we trust” should be on our money. It wasn’t there originally. Let’s remove anything to do with God/religion from anything to do with government. The way some of our politicians and some Christians are going it wouldn’t surpirse me if, in the near future, the US ends up in the same predicament as the mid-east countries.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      In God we trust. All others, pay cash.

    • Suzanne Lehman

      Totally agree that we should move for a clearer separation of church and
      state. State marriages should be in a courthouse and religious
      marriages in a religious building of one’s choice. Religious leaders
      should NOT be authorized to (or required to or barred from) perform
      civil wedding ceremonies. Take “under God” out of the pledge. Have the
      Bill of Rights posted in courthouses throughout the country. Just
      don’t start banning head scarves or religious medals or kippahs from
      public schools, please. That prevents person obedience to one’s own
      religious tenets which seems intrusive of the government….

      • Bruce Veasey

        Does that mean, as a pastafarian, I get to wear a collander whenever I please?

      • Suzanne Lehman

        I can’t see that threatening public order or decency or national security so, by all means, please continue wearing your collander (which, as a professed pastafarian, I presume you do regularly, correct?).

      • Cathryn Sykes

        Religious leaders are NEVER required to perform weddings outside their faith.

        No Catholic priests has ever been forced to marry Buddhists. No Jewish rabbi has ever been forced to marry Baptists.

        But what the religionists really want is for their faith, their mores, their rules to be applied to EVERYONE. Gay marriage is a good example. No priest of any faith will EVER be required to marry gays against his or her will. But any priest of any faith–such as the Unitarians–who is willing to preside over such a wedding should have the right to do so.
        All LEGAL marriages in this country are civil. You can’t get legally married without a marriage license. This is the government recognition of the marriage, and it has nothing to do with faith, it has to do with laws. Property right laws, guardianship of children laws, contract laws. All a huge part of marriage.
        The religious aspects of marriage are handled by a priest, rabbi or minister. Marriage by a cleric is not required in this country for the marriage to be legally valid. This is why the religious outcry that clerics would be “forced” to marry gays was so absurd.
        Again, no cleric will ever be forced to marry anyone in this country. That would be a violation of the separation of church and state. On the other hand, no law should be passed that prohibits religious marriage in this country, though without the civil recognition of a marriage license, a purely religious ceremony may not have the force of law.

      • Suzanne Lehman

        I admire your conviction, Cathryn Sykes, even if I do find it a bit naive. I apologize to the author of this article for the lengthy deviation from his original topic (with which I agree).

        First, I said that “Religious leaders should NOT be authorized to (or required to or barred from) perform
        civil wedding ceremonies.” Please note the words “perform civil wedding ceremonies”. Your assertions notwithstanding, I can assure you that many (if not all) states in this country delegate civil marriage authority to the religious leader performing the religious marriage ceremony. You get the marriage license, you show it to your minister, he/she marries you, files paperwork with the state, and then you get your marriage certificate without ever setting foot in a magistrate’s office. (BTW, it is the marriage certificate that makes you legally married, not the license.) I personally consider this to be a violation of the general understanding of the separation of church and state. The legal and religious ceremonies and procedures should be separate. Period.

        You state that no priest of any faith will ever be required to marry gays against his or her will. Perhaps you missed the fact that the Church of England is currently being sued under anti-discrimination laws because of a refusal to marry two homosexuals who wish to have a church wedding? If you respond that this point is unfair because this specific event is not yet happening in the United States, I will draw your attention to the May 16, 2012 policy statement released by the Obama administration. In it, the President states that he “strongly objects” to provisions in the House defense authorization bill that would protect military chaplains who refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies against their religious beliefs. The memo from the President’s administration said that this measure “would inhibit the ability of same-sex couples to marry or enter a recognized relationship under State law.”

        Obama specifically stated that he would disobey this provision protecting chaplains. As Commander-in-Chief, any chaplain fired for failing to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony would find that he or she has no recourse because the CIC has refused to enforce the law. The basis for this position is clear in this quote from Chai Feldblum, one of Obama’s commissioners on the EEOC: “Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT people.” In other words, the state, acting in the name of nondiscrimination, enjoys an absolute right to violate the religious freedom of Christians (and Muslims and conservative Jews for that matter).

        I can assure you that the day is coming when all religious institutions that “discriminate” against LGBT persons by maintaining their integrity and refusing to alter the beliefs they have held for centuries will be stripped of all government recognition as punishment for said “discrimination”. Only those religions who accept the government’s definition of marriage will be able to keep their tax-exempt status. Look for the state religion to be coming soon to a town near you via our court system, not our legislative process.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        I said that religious leaders are never REQUIRED to perform wedding ceremonies. Exactly how did you interpret that to mean they are PROHIBITED from performing wedding ceremonies? My point being that no cleric would ever, under our laws, be forced to marry a couple whose religious beliefs he disapproved of! So this whining about being so forced is a bunch of bull.
        My sister doesn’t believe in God at all. She was married by a gay Presbyterian minister who is a friend of hers. No one has the right to force him to officiate at such a marriage….but of course, under our laws, he can do it if he wishes!
        And by the way, it is the license that allows you to marry. The certificate is PROOF that one obtained that license.

      • Suzanne Lehman

        and I said that Catholic priests serving as chaplains in the US military will soon be forced to perform homosexual marriages (very much against their religion) in military chapels or be fired; I also said that, in the name of anti-discrimination, priests of the Church of England are being sued with a view to forcing them to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies in their churches. Did you even read my entire post? What part of anti-discrimination law do you not understand?

      • Me

        Ms Lehman, regarding your concern for military chaplains two issues occur to me. First, rabbis in the military are not forced to perform the Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc marriage ceremonies any more than chaplains of other religions are required to perform ceremonies outside of their religious tenets.

        Instead, the military actively recruits for the appropriate people to address the military population’s spiritual needs. The most likely means of maintaining the chaplaincy’s integrity while also providing for the military LGBT community’s needs is to recruit more moderate and liberal chaplains. You may see a drop in the conservative chaplain population as a precentage of the whole; you will not see conservatives being drummed out of the service just because they are conservative.

        Second, the Church of England is a State institution subject to the laws governing civil institutions. Neither do they have the Bill of Rights confirming the ability to exercise their religion free of governmental interference.

        Please relax. We have enshrined in our Constitution and supported in the personal writings of the Founding Fathers the philosophy of Separation of Church and State. Look to what’s happening in England right now, and you’ll see one of the many reasons this philosophy was considered necessary by the likes of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

        Maybe we “godless” or “heathen” liberals are on to something after all. 😉

      • Suzanne Lehman

        Thanks for what I presume you intended as words of encouragement. Just to let you know, I do not believe in generalizations and never would I use the words “godless” or “heathen” to describe a class of people broadly (such as those who call themselves “liberal”).

        I admire your faith in our Constitution and in the ability of our Supreme Court to practice and uphold Constitutional law premises such as the anti-establishment clause even if I do not share it. I do, however, still believe, as I stated above, that “the state, acting in the name of nondiscrimination, enjoys an absolute
        right to violate the religious freedom of Christians (and Muslims and
        conservative Jews for that matter)”.

        I fully expect that the Catholic Church will be stripped of it’s tax-exempt status within the next 5 years, especially if it continues in its refusal to comply with the contraceptive mandate imposed by HHS (although I don’t necessarily think this is a bad thing). In public schools and public places, it will be illegal to call homosexual activity sinful. With the state firmly behind “women’s health” and “gay rights”, there will be no room left in the public sphere for those who continue to use the words abortion and sodomy to describe gravely sinful activities. Check back with me in 5 years and we’ll see who was right…

      • Me

        Well, that joke went over like a lead brick. Sorry. I was trying to add a little levity not make a judgment call on your supposed perceptions of liberals (godless, heathen, or otherwise). I don’t know you, so I wouldn’t presume to know what those perceptions might be.

        If the Church is to be stripped of its tax-exempt status, the reason would be political advocacy from the pulpit because it has not registered as a political nonprofit. That is very difficult to prove, and it’s generally considered not worth the time, effort or money on the part of the IRS to pursue those kinds of cases. The contraception thing is more related to labor law than it is to tax law. The Church, as it is acting as a private employer, must abide by all labor laws or it must face the consequences. Those consequences can be anything from closing up shop to payment of fines to being subject to legal recourse on the part of employees.

        Homosexuality should never be relegated to being sinful outside of families and churches. Your personal opinions and religious beliefs aside, homosexual behavior occurs within the animal kingdom frequently amongst many species. Sin should remain the purview of religious doctrine since sin is basically a “crime against .” Separation of Church and State, and even various Biblical passages, hold that an earthly government has no power within the religious sphere. Ergo, it is not the government’s place to rule on the “sinfulness” of any action. Only the harm it does to society as a whole and individuals. Homosexuality harms no one; there have been many studies showing that is the case.

        Moving on to abortion and sodomy (homosexuality)… Again, the discussion of sin rightfully belongs in church. What values a family holds rightfully belongs within that family. The government should not take either of those as the basis for law. If it does, the government has failed to do its job: Balancing the disparate needs of a heterogenous population.

      • Me

        I don’t know what happened. became that gobbledy-gook in the third paragraph. 😛

      • Sherri G

        Sodomy is not homosexuality….but since the Catholic church is the #1 personal expert on sodomy, they should STFU regarding anyone else’s sexual preference!

    • louis

      you were born in 1860? cuz thats around the time it was added to the pledge of allegaince. google it

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Huh? “In God we trust” isn’t part of the pledge of allegiance; it was put on money in 1861. We’re talking about the pledge here.

      • Stephen Collingsworth

        She was making a further point… that not only should we take “under God” out of the Pledge but we should get “In God We Trust” off of our money.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I was talking about louis’ comment which seemed to be confusing the two.

      • Stephen Collingsworth

        You’re thinking money, not the Pledge. And her comment about money was just taking the argument further… that we should get God out of the Pledge AND off our money.

      • Janice Woods

        I did, it was written in 1892, and “Under God” was added in 1954. In God We Trust” was added to paper money in 1964, although it was on the one dollar silver certificate in 1935.

  • suburbancuurmudgeon

    “…liberty and justice for all…” Right. Voting rights suppression and the world’s largest prison population.

    • louis

      right, although i agree with you…this was about christians hijacking the pledge. but since you brought it up……the whole prison thing is bullshit

  • Clark Kent

    What an idiot I am… I’ve been saying “Under Zod” since I was a kid…

    • ZOD

      Kneel before Zod, Kal El

  • Youarekiddingme

    I would support having “Under God” taken out of the pledge. And I cringe every time the president says “God Bless America”. Frankly, I’m pretty sure Obama is an atheist. One would just never get elected if they admitted to being an atheist.

    • xnerd

      There is a difference between legislating the presence of religious words or sentiment and a president expressing a personal thought, whether that thought be genuine or not.

      The president enjoys the second amendment has a mere verbal expression does not violate the 2nd.

      I have no opinion whether he is an atheist or not.

      • Youarekiddingme

        I yes… I totally agree. I never say he doesn’t have the *right* to say “God Bless America”, I said “I cringe very time the president says” it.

        Personally I think a leader invoking a magical being sends the wrong message and I wish people in power wouldn’t do it, but yes, he gets to express his views just like I get to express mine.

    • Stephen Collingsworth

      Was listening to Progress on Sirius today and the host, Mark Thompson, on the show Make it Plain, said to a caller “God bless you caller,” and I promptly turned the channel. Totally turned me off. If someone sneezes, I respond with “gesundheit.”

  • goldwing

    Take “Under God” out of the Pledge and remove “In God We Trust” off our money…there is NO place for religion or any of its trappings in Government…we have a huge mess right now because the Religious right is trying to overtake government and control how Americans believe ! Outrageous that these phrases were ever inserted

    • Cathryn Sykes

      Liberty and justice for all. That’s the true message of the Pledge. And when you add a qualifier such as “under God” you’ve told a number of citizens, specifically atheists and agnostics “…except for you people.”

  • Gay_heretic

    The original pledge was a statement of what holds us together as Americans, it was a simple statement that any loyal citizen could embrace. But, in 1954, we managed to corrupt that by adding a phrase that divides us. Imagine, a statement of loyalty that serves to divide us. For that reason alone, the “under god” phrase should be eliminated. Besides that, the phrase messes with the meter of the pledge. Try saying it out load, with and without the added phrase, and you will see that the original version recites poetically, but the recent version adds an awkwardness. Reason number two to eliminate the phrase.

    • Sherri G

      It was written as a MARKETING PLOY to sell more flags… was about MONEY not Patriotism!

  • The problem is stated in the article. You’ll never get the republicans to let go of the ‘Under God” in the pledge. They already think there is a war on religion. This will certainly add fuel to the fires of HELL!

    • louis

      i thought we all agreed fuck republicans and what they think…..did i miss a memo?

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      But I LIKE irritating Republicans!!!

    • Stephen Collingsworth

      But they’re talking about taking it out in the bluest of blue states. Republicans are an endangered species here in Massachusetts.

  • Gabriel Gentile

    I’m of the George Carlin mind on this. It’s just a word, and words are by themselves insignificant. It’s the intent behind the usage of that word which grants it any significance. If you’re a Christian, “God” means Christ. If you’re a Muslim, “God” means Allah. If you’re an Atheist, “God” means nothing at all.

    Leave it alone for the sake of maintaining SOME semblance of peace around here… As long as nobody goes mucking about with that last part about “Liberty and Justice for all”.

    • louis

      right, cuz nothing has brought more peace than the introduction of forced religion and its idealogy…..sarcasm. now back to the GOP where you belong

      • Gabriel Gentile

        I’m not sure you fully understand the sentiment behind my statements. That’s alright. Text isn’t a very expressive means of communication, lacking in nuance, etc.

  • louis

    I agree and have always thought it needs to g. same tih “in god we trust” on our money. God should not be mentioned anywhere in our government. CUE the crying from bible thumping jesus freaks…

  • Pat Phagan

    Allen I like your post and this new venue. I like the progressive movement and support progressive candidates and issues. As a free thinking Atheist I have not been shamed into quoting the pledge in public without leaving out the words, “under god”. I was proud to tell a judge that I would not share to a “god”. The judge altered my pledge and the commended me for my public courage in standing up for my rights! If enough concerned citizens stand up for their rights they will not have to stand for having religion shoved down their ears and into their kids brains.

    • Paula Prindle

      I just leave out the part that says”with liberty and justice for all” because I cannot tell a lie.

  • Guest101

    Hi, I’m a Christian, and although I believe in God, I’m willing to do whatever it takes to send this country to hell. I’ve devised this argumentative essay in order to dissemble any semblance of sanity, godliness, morality, and values that we may still have in this country. So, do not mention the word God please because although I believe in God, every heathen, atheist, and anarchist has the right to impose whatever way of life they deem “good” on the rest of us by removing, erasing, and banishing any mention of the word God anywhere. Thanks. Amen.

    • Cathryn Sykes

      “….banishing any mention of the word God anywhere”?


      Do you know that the US has more churches per square mile than any other country on earth? I hardly think that God is under-represented in this country. All we are saying is “Keep God out of the government.” Or would you rather we make laws FORCING people to go to church each week? Or laws that impose a tithe on every citizen for the support of churches?

      When this country was thirteen colonies, that was the actual situation. The Church of England was the official state church. If you lived in a Church of England parish, you had, by law, to pay a tithe for the support of that church and it’s minister, even if you were a Baptist or a Methodist or a Jew. If you didn’t belong to that church, you had no chance at a job with any authority at all: teacher, military officer, government official. You were a second-class citizen, and I mean LEGALLY.

      But I imagine that sounds good to you. Make faith a matter of law, not of love. Get those people into those churches each Sunday, or they get fined. No atheists or agnostics in any position of power, from policeman to President. And hey, let’s take it a step further. No one other than members of YOUR particular form of Christianity shall be first-class citizens. Are you a Baptist? Baptist politicians only! Catholic? You don’t go to mass, you don’t serve in the legislature! Mormon? Let’s get back to the good old days in 19th century Utah, and make being a Mormon a prerequisite for any position of authority! Your idea of Utopia, I’m sure.
      Jewish, Methodist, Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, Protestant….the tyranny of religion is what many people came to this country to escape. Faith should be a matter for the individual to decide. It should never be codified into law.

  • Ashton

    Actual, I am quite happy it was added I find it to be divine providence. This debate actual led me back to god! I couldn’t be happier! May it continue to stay!!A proud American! Even prouder new Christian! However, it came to be in Jesus name amen!

    • Then that’s your pergative. Not all of us are Christians… you have to keep that in mind. Obviously, you are too young to remember when it was not this way. Not everyone believes in Jesus

  • Ashton

    I am lucky I live in a country that has the greatest pledge …with the word God! Awesome! I pay taxes with money that has the word God on it! I hadn’t thought about this before but this makes me prouder to be an American! Ill skip all the other words in the pledge if we got rid of any words lets keep the most important one…. God! Everyone so ready to get rid of words! That’s what they sound like to me! Then if we are taking out words do away with the whole pledge my proudest moment is when I say God! Always, wanting to take words away and that word has power and meaning! Maybe, not to some of you but a lot of us! Lets lobby because we don’t believe on the other shoe your taking away from those of us to! My pledge rocks! God!

    • ratagonia

      Oh God, save us from such as these…

      • HannahGod

        Absolutely! In Jesus Name We Pray for Ashton and Ratagonia.

      • ratagonia

        Hey, It’s Yahweh and Jupiter Optimus Maximus for me, just don’t let Yahweh know about Jupiter – He gets kinda testy, if you know what I mean!

    • It was not always that way Ashton…Under God was not always in our pledge nor was In od We Trust on our money…do your home work….Youre right about one thing tho…SKIP THOSE WORDS and it’ll be back to what it used to be.

  • sabrina murphy b.

    Remove it!! Then on to our money!! Remove it here too!!

  • Cathryn Sykes

    You are absolutely right when it comes to being judged less patriotic if you aren’t religious. I look at some of the Facebook comments that show up on my computer from people in Texas and elsewhere and so many are along the lines of “If you don’t believe in God, or accept Christ as your savior, you should just leave this country!” And they then cite the “under God” part of the Pledge as “proof” that this country was founded as a Christian nation!
    The United States is a country where a majority of people are Christian. That is not that same as saying it’s a “Christian country.” When you say that Pledge, the words “under God” being included mean that you are ACCEPTING the idea of this being a country ruled by God. For atheists or agnostics, that’s basically being given the choice between lying about their religious beliefs, or branding themselves as unpatriotic by refusing to make the Pledge. To me, the important part of the Pledge is the last line….”with liberty and justice for all.” For ALL. Including those who don’t believe in a divine being or those who just aren’t sure.

  • Keith Jenkins

    Allen, I agree with what you say and appreciate your saying it. But since I’m also an ultra-picky proofreading nerd, I can’t help pointing out that the end of your first paragraph should read “two words that undoubtedly have been a part of the pledge since the founding our nation”–i.e. two words “a part,” not one word “apart.”

  • HannahGod

    If you don’t believe in the word or concept, you shouldn’t be bothered by it. Why take something out that you don’t believe in? It seem that you’re belly aching over nothing. Some of us are thankful it is there.
    ~ Proud to Be an American Under God ~ <3

    • Because no one wants it forced on them…there is no state sanctioned religion in America……Lets keep it that way,,…the way the founding fathers wrote it.

  • Me

    The idea of ANY pledge to a symbol was anathema to many of the Founding Fathers. Symbols can become corrupted. Words are empty. Actions prove intentions. It’s too easy to hand wave, say the right thing, and point to a symbol. It’s even easier if you hold those words to be empty and power or influence are at stake because there is not impetus to hold yourself to account. Symbols tend to turn off our thinking. It’s what makes symbols so very powerful. 😛