Why Don't People Know that "Under God" Was Not in the Original Pledge of Allegiance, added only in the 1950s?

Question

Is it ignorant for people to demand to "leave it as it was originally written" when it was modified by Christians only a couple decades ago as a subversive attempt to mix church and state?

Answer 1

1954 to be precise.

In fact, here's the irony: Before 1954 it said "One nation indivisible."

They then took that beautiful phrase, and chopped it up ("divided" it).

And in so doing, they divided our "indivisible" nation in two:
- People who could say the pledge with sincerity (Christians, Jews, and Muslims).
- People who could not say the pledge with sincerity (pretty much everybody else). I.e. you could say it as long as you were just mouthing words.

In other words they "amended" the Pledge of Allegiance to exclude athiests, agnostics, Buddhists, pagans, etc. These people are no longer eligible to pledge allegiance to the country. There is no different version for them ... you either say this is a "nation under God", or ... sorry, you're disqualified.

I.e. they amended the pledge in 1954 to make it clear that you could no longer be considered a loyal American unless you believed in God.

Could some of the modern divisions in the country, along religious lines, be traced back to this little bit of symbolism?

Can anyone really read the amazingly hateful posts on YA ... Americans expressing open *hatred* of fellow Americans (did I just hear Mark D say "God how I hate you people"?) ... and say we are still "One nation indivisible"?

---

{edit} Mark D ... yes that's precisely my point! *Both* sides are extremely intolerant of each other, especially on matters of religion, because there is *nothing* more personal or sacred than whether a person chooses to believe, or NOT believe, in God. That is precisely the POINT of the Establishment Clause. When the government passes laws declaring that belief in God is part and parcel of declaring yourself a loyal American ... that's what happens.

{edit2} Mark D ... good points. So we have traded concessions ... so maybe there's hope after all. (Cheers.) :-)

Answer 2

Additionally, what number of correct-wing Christian Americans are mindful that "the Pledge" used to be composed via a National Socialist (or, in the event you opt for, a Nazi) as a method of encouraging youngsters and different residents to suppose a debt of loyalty to The State?

Answer 3

It's all these self righteous late generations that like to think they know things saying crap like "leave it as it was in the first place". I personally don't care one way or the other, our country was built on and essentially governed by the misguided principles of religion in the late eighteenth century, and is now being torn apart by the misguided religious principles of the twenty-first century. I just wanna stand up for a couple seconds sit down and enjoy the fireworks. What's the matter with that? Ultimately I say that if you're gonna be stupid make it entertaining for everyone else who knows better otherwise sit the f*ck down and enjoy the game.

Answer 4

I haven't heard that argument from anyone. This is the 1st time I have encountered it. Smells fishy & looks red.
BTW, the 50's were more than a couple of decades ago. A couple of decades ago was 1986. 50's were 1/2 of a century ago.

Answer 5

"Subversive" ??????

God, how I hate you people. I wish you'd leave this country, because you don't know everything about the Establishment Clause and if you think your view about it is right and anyone else's is "subversive," then you need a kick in the pants so hard that it'd send you to ...................... Antartica.

{edit} c-sense-1 ..... the word "subversive" is itself amazingly hateful.

Yes, you saw me say that, obviously. Now explain why it is okay and not hateful to accuse the majority of Congress, in 1954 when they passed the bill putting the words "under God" in the pledge, of being "subversive." The majority of Congress. The majority. How is that "subversive" and how is that accusation not hateful?
~~~
At least it seems now that maybe I've gotten a concession out of you that "thehiddenagle"-s original statement also carries a whiff of hatefulness, too.

No matter how much you might wish it, no interpretation of the Establishment Clause is ever going to make everybody happy. Put the words "under God" in the pledge, someone is unhappy about it and they will hate the people who put the words in. Take the words out of the pledge, someone else is going to be unhappy about that and will hate the ones who took them out.

I'll concede this to you. The pledge does indeed end up looking hypocritical when it results in this kind of divisiveness. You've got a valid point there. There is hypocrisy in the pledge, because we have always been divided and always will be.

In "The Federal Courts, Politics, and the Rule of Law," by John C. Hughes (published 1995), it says:

"In the contemporary political context, those who fear conformity have tended to describe themselves as liberal and have tended to applaud judicial 'protection' of human rights. Those who fear diversity have tended to call themselves conservatives and have been appalled by judicial 'usurpation' of the majority's discretion to form the kind of community it finds most conducive to its own happiness. The former tends to approve of the expansive theories of constitutional interpretation, while the latter tends to prefer the restrained theories of judicial review. These alignments are neither perfect nor inevitable, but the debate has surely been shrill."

Cheers, to you too. ;-)

Answer 6

A couple of decades ago? Try more than half a century ago. And it was added to separate us from the Godless communists, which have now turned into the Godless liberals and socialists.

Answer 7

Yes, we know. I guess maybe now you believe us when we tell you that this recent movement to legislate morality isn't new.

Did you know that until 1970, gay meant happy?

Answer 8

Why! are you one of those "nonbelieving" backword thinking morons, that is causing the world to get corrupt.
Does the word "GOD" offend you.
Well too bad.

Answer 9

I don't think it was subversive.

Answer 10

Because they only know what they want to know. They never bothered to learn that because it does not fit their view of things.