"Under God" and the Pledge of Allegiance

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,888
#31
As I explained it was originally used in the Civil War and the language was oriented to be against the Confederacy, "the republic", "one nation, indivisible". It was first used in the schools in 1892. "Under God" was added in 1954 and ealier in the Cold War. I am not sure when it was first widely used in the schools. It may have been in WWII or early Cold War, but I think before 1954.
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#32
As I explained it was originally used in the Civil War and the language was oriented to be against the Confederacy, "the republic", "one nation, indivisible". It was first used in the schools in 1892. "Under God" was added in 1954 and ealier in the Cold War. I am not sure when it was first widely used in the schools. It may have been in WWII or early Cold War, but I think before 1954.
Ah.My mistake about when it began, but I think right about the religious bit "under God", Has it been formally banned in US public schools?
 
Jun 2010
3,336
Colorado Springs (PA at heart)
#33
Ah.My mistake about when it began, but I think right about the religious bit "under God", Has it been formally banned in US public schools?
Not really. The version with "under God" was banned as a teacher led/school sanctioned activity but only in certain states, and the decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court.

FACT CHECK: Pledge of Allegiance Ruling

"A few points of clarification about this issue:
  • The decision applies only to the nine Western states under the Ninth Circuit court’s jurisdiction: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
  • The ruling does not make the Pledge of Allegiance “unconstitutional” or “illegal” per se; it holds that the current version of the Pledge of Allegiance (which includes the words “under God”) may not be recited in public schools as part of a teacher-led or school-sanctioned activity. Technically, schools could still lead recitations of the original version of the pledge (before the 1954 insertion of the words “under God”), and students could still choose to recite either version on their own."
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#34
Not really. The version with "under God" was banned as a teacher led/school sanctioned activity but only in certain states, and the decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court.

FACT CHECK: Pledge of Allegiance Ruling

"A few points of clarification about this issue:
  • The decision applies only to the nine Western states under the Ninth Circuit court’s jurisdiction: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
  • The ruling does not make the Pledge of Allegiance “unconstitutional” or “illegal” per se; it holds that the current version of the Pledge of Allegiance (which includes the words “under God”) may not be recited in public schools as part of a teacher-led or school-sanctioned activity. Technically, schools could still lead recitations of the original version of the pledge (before the 1954 insertion of the words “under God”), and students could still choose to recite either version on their own."
That sounds pretty good in principle.

Of course, I never had to worry about that in a Catholic school; you simply did what you were told.

In year nine, every hour, on the hour ,an appointed boy would clap loudly, three times, to get everyone's attention. He would then exclaim, in a loud voice:

"Let us remember that we are in the holy presence of God!!" . (I kid you not)

The practice stopped after that year. I think it may have been the idea of one of more 'extrem'e of the brothers, and we had some beauts.
 
Jun 2010
3,336
Colorado Springs (PA at heart)
#35
That sounds pretty good in principle.

Of course, I never had to worry about that in a Catholic school; you simply did what you were told.

In year nine, every hour, on the hour ,an appointed boy would clap loudly, three times, to get everyone's attention. He would then exclaim, in a loud voice:

"Let us remember that we are in the holy presence of God!!" . (I kid you not)

The practice stopped after that year. I think it may have been the idea of one of more 'extrem'e of the brothers, and we had some beauts.
I pity the boy who had that job!
 
Aug 2012
802
Washington State, USA.
#36
The French concept is Laïcité, which is very different. That is more saying that the state (and its organs) are atheist. That doesn't mean that it is illegal to practice a religion, only that the state has none. For example in the UK when you swear an oath, you can do it on the Bible or the holy book of your choosing. In France, it has to be on the constitution. It also has odd consequences; state school teachers (who represent the state in some way) are forbidden from wearing religious symbols like the hijab or a crucifix while teaching.
The French example for me is exactly how I define too radical.

As it turns out the bit about the Christian religion was NOT INCLUDED in the original Arabic version, only in the English version presented to congress.
Not something I actually knew. Still, when the US finally got our act together and defeated the Barbary States, we not only demanded that they stop raiding American commerce, but all European commerce for all time, whether they paid the Corsair's extortion fees or not. The young United States pretty much ended the raids by the Corsairs after they had been going on for centuries, and Europe for a time was in awe of our young nation. So, America did view itself as a Christian and a white nation. That's just the way it was. This is not changed that much by a handful of important Deists among the founders.
We can say that today the US government should not have a Christian or a white bias, but the history does not change because of how people feel today.
 
Last edited:

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,888
#38
I guess France is officially athiest from the French Revolution, although maybe it was Catholic again under the restored monarchies. That would not go over in the US. There are many different religions but atheism is a dirty word. It used to be like being a Communist or gay or something. It is OK to be not real religious, but not athiest.
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#39
The French example for me is exactly how I define too radical.



Not something I actually knew. Still, when the US finally got our act together and defeated the Barbary States, we not only demanded that they stop raiding American commerce, but all European commerce for all time, whether they paid the Corsair's extortion fees or not. The young United States pretty much ended the raids by the Corsairs after they had been going on for centuries, and Europe for a time was in awe of our young nation. So, America did view itself as a Christian and a white nation. That's just the way it was. This is not changed that much by a handful of important Deists among the founders.
We can say that today the US government should not have a Christian or a white bias, but the history does not change because of how people feel today.
Indeed

To be fair, the claim the US was not founded on Christian principles is perhaps a bit disingenuous . From what I understand, most of the population at the the time of independence were Christian. At the very least, the country was and is based on broad Judaeo-Christian principles.

The separation of Church and state seems to be to prevent sectarian control of government as say by the Catholic Church or Evangelicals, Muslims, or Jews.
 
Aug 2012
802
Washington State, USA.
#40
I guess France is officially athiest from the French Revolution, although maybe it was Catholic again under the restored monarchies. That would not go over in the US. There are many different religions but atheism is a dirty word. It used to be like being a Communist or gay or something. It is OK to be not real religious, but not athiest.
My own brother is an atheist, but doesn't use atheism as some kind of badge to convince others of his own intelligence. I'm really bothered when people present a typed argument, and announce they are atheist to give their ideas more validity. I've also seen accomplished intellectuals ridiculed (on Wikipedia)for having faith of some kind, as if all their hard work on their published works are made invalid by following a religion. Demonizing does not go in just one direction.
 

Similar History Discussions