One nation, under Dog... damn dyslexia.
The pledge was originally written in the late 1800s and before WW2 was recited with hands outstretched towards the flag kind of like in the picture at left. I wonder why they changed it? The pledge was originally sans deity. One site, that looks pretty bonafide, says the original pledge read as follows:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The author thought about putting the word "equality" in the pledge, but knew his fellow education committee men were opposed to equality for women and blacks. I don't even need to make a joke about that. "My flag" was changed to "the flag of the United States of America" in the 1920s...
In '54 Congress and Ike federally mandated "under God" be squeezed in to the ass end of the pledge. If I had to represent that graphically I would do so like this:
I have troubles buying this addition to the PoA simply as historical, the major lobbying force for the change was the Knights of Columbus (unless wiki is wrong, they aren't a club of history buffs). More importantly, when Dwightron signed the pledge and recitation into law he said, "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." That doesn't sound too historical.
In context, the '54 legislation violated Lemon vs Kurtzman.
Lemon vs Kurtzman summarized:
-The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose.
-The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion.
-The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.
Let's talk about a secular purpose.... take God back out, because all the faith in the world can't prove he exists, and put equality in. 120 years late is better than never. The pledge would then return to a completely secular event. Much like the event pictured below.
*Reciting PoA in 1892
Also, in case you were wondering: For the PoA and IGWT: the establishment clause is not violated; anyone who says otherwise is simple taking the establishment clause out of context. The Supreme Court and history agree.The pros of me checking into this IGWT and PoA stuff is that I now feel I can make an educated opinion... and also feel knowledgable enough on the subject not to eat up some evangelist's or hippie's bullshit. The downside is, it's really lowering my opinion of Eisenhower and the supreme court (I guess they are people after all). Perhaps this is my mid-west upbringing, but I'd always kind of held Eisenhower on a little bit of a pedestal... now I'm curious to know if old people like Ike just because he was big on God, or if it was because of the other things he did, or both. This is really neither here nor there.
Stay classy San Diego, and thanks for stopping by.