White House defends 'under God' in pledge of allegiance in response to petition

[alp227]

Via Friendly Atheist: "Joshua DuBois, Executive Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, sent out the following email today in response to the White House petition which said “Edit the Pledge of Allegiance to remove the phrase ‘Under God.’”":

While the President strongly supports every American’s right to religious freedom and the separation of church and state, that does not mean there’s no role for religion in the public square.

When he was a Senator from Illinois, President Obama gave a keynote address at the Call to Renewal conference where he spoke about the important role religion plays in politics and in public life.

A sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation — context matters.

That’s why President Obama supports the use of the words “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance and “In God we Trust” on our currency. These phrases represent the important role religion plays in American public life, while we continue to recognize and protect the rights of secular Americans.

I commented on the article: "At least for the next 20 years it seems that it's a fact of life that religion is a prerequisite for being President of the US. Besides getting large campaign contributions from big business and Wall Street."

[provis99]

1. ok then. Would he then support a pledge that said:

"One, Nation, under no god." or
"In the Flying Spaghetti Monster we trust"

But as usual, Christian crap is ok, and everything else isn't.

[bluestateguy]

2. Nobody has ever demonstrated that they were harmed by "under God" in the pledge or In God We Trust

And Obama isn't stupid. 90+% of Americans believe in God and next year is an election year.

[enlightenment]

24. Really? Where did you pull that statistic?

A major poll, released in 2009, indicated between 15% and 17% of Americans expressed non-belief (up from 8% in 1990). Among 20 to 30 year-olds, that percentage rises to 25 to 30%, suggesting that the number of people who profess a belief in a god is falling - not rising.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/17/opinion/la-oe-1017-putnam-religion-20101017
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-american-religion-ARIS_N.htm

Could you please offer a link to the source of your statistic? It is very much at odds with the facts.

[Deep13]

29. We're harmed by those who believe those slogans.

Putting it in "god's hands" means refusing to take responsibility for those things.

And the figure is more like 85% and falling.

[beam me up scottie]

3. "These phrases represent the important role religion plays in American public life"

Bullshit.

They're only promoting ONE religion - christianity.

:puke:

[laconicsax]

5. There's a difference?

:sarcasm:

[NMMNG]

12. That's the only one the First Amendment protects

According to some people, any way.

[beam me up scottie]

13. Yes, and since we choose not to believe in their god we only have ourselves to blame.

I'm glad they cleared that up.

[Deep13]

30. "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion...."

Claiming trust in "God," which means the Abrahamic god, on Federal currency is a small establishment of religion. But the 1st Amendment says NO law establish religion is allowed.

[laconicsax]

4. What wonderful doublethink.

Secular means no opinion or position on religion. "Under God" and "In God we Trust" is taking a position. The US is supposed to be a secular society and taking a position on religion is a betrayal of those principles.

"Under God" and "In God we Trust" are not inclusive; they exclude non-believers and violate the principles of secularism.

[beam me up scottie]

6. More than non-believers, they exclude non-christians.

Not surprising, just sickening.

[laconicsax]

10. Strictly speaking, not all non-Christians.

It specifies the Abrahamic god, so the other two Abrahamic religions get to be more equal as well. I also recall that there's a branch of Hinduism which regards the Abrahamic god to be a form of one of their gods, so they can be more equal on a technicality.

[beam me up scottie]

11. That's true.

'more equal'

Nailed it! :thumbsup:

[SheilaT]

7. I remember when the Under God was put into

the pledge. I was in first grade in Catholic school, and the nuns were not happy about it. They had a clear understanding of the difference between church and state.

I have personally stopped reciting the pledge in recent years. With or without the Under God part, when you really think about it, there's not logic in pledging to the flag. The nation or the Constitution, maybe, but not the flag.

[alp227]

8. I know! The pledge sounds so INHERENTLY religious,

while appreciating the US constitution REALLY makes one value American freedoms, not just a graphical symbol!

[NMMNG]

9. "Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation "

This isn't about someone mentioning "god" in public. It's about the way our Pledge of Allegiance was altered to enshrine religion.

[gateley]

14. Seriously, don't we have more important issues to get all

frothy about?

I HATE the "Christianity" that the RW think they have a lock on. I'm an atheist. But I don't care one way or another what the Pledge says, it doesn't affect me or my beliefs (or lack) at all.

It's more important to me that Obama not give the RW another attack point by taking this on.

[beam me up scottie]

15. Perhaps you can give us a list of acceptable froth-worthy issues. n/t

[gateley]

18. Tax loopholes for companies to send jobs overseas; erosion

of our civil rights; slashing of services to those who have earned them and are in need; election fraud; Corporate Personhood. I could go on, and so could you, but "under God" in a meaningless Pledge would not make it on my list.

[laconicsax]

20. Funny you mention civil rights... n/t

[beam me up scottie]

21. Of course, because it's all about you, isn't it?

And please don't lump me in with you, I would never presume to tell others which infringements on their freedoms they should resent.

[gateley]

26. Got it. Won't lump you in with me. I'd never presume to drag you down to my level.

See ya.

[NMMNG]

16. Funny

That's what LGBT people every time they speak out about their pesky little rights. Move to the back of the line, there are More Important Matters we must attend to. Wait until every hungry person is fed, every war is over, every unemployed person has a job, everybody has healthcare before you quibble over your paltry little concerns...and even then you must be sure you don't piss off the RRRW and cost the Dems an election.

:puke:

[laconicsax]

19. +1000

[NYC Liberal]

23. We have to "keep our power dry" for the "real fight"...

at which point there will be another excuse for keeping our powder dry, again.

[msongs]

17. Obama kills people on one hand and defends "under god" with the other lol. hypocrite nt

[struggle4progress]

22. Nobody can make you say the words: I always leave them out.

Actually, the pledge seems fairly silly to me: after all, what's all this nonsense about allegiance to a flag? But there are a few circumstances under which I'll recite in any way -- then I always use the pre-Carthy-era version, and anybody else who wants top is free to do the same

[rug]

25. I leave out the whole pledge.

Frankly, even without those two words, the pledge is obnoxious.

[darkstar3]

27. Now tell us why that matters.

When the problem is the fact that the pledge as it stands is a recognition of one religion over another, and religion over non-religion, the ability to hold a longer pause than customary during recitation is in no way relevant.

[struggle4progress]

28. I eagerly await your ideas about the political steps we can take to remove the language

[darkstar3]

32. Based on the post I replied to, I don't remotely believe you.

[struggle4progress]

33. Yeah, I haven't figured out how to get Congress to remove the words, either

:shrug:

[Deep13]

31. We should add "when convenient" to the presidential oath. nt

[edhopper]

34. Firstly

I think "under God" and In God We Trust" are just anti-commie 1950s bullshit and have nothing to do with this country's founding.
That said, does the Pledge have any formal standing? Is there any official place in the law for the pledge, or is it just a tradition?
i.e New citizens say the pledge, but would they be denied their citizenship if they did not, or left "under God" out?

[rrneck]

35. I inderstand it.

I don't like it, but I understand it.