Does the General's insistance on absolute rule by majority conflict with the Constitution's explicit intent to protect the minority's access to the Bill of Rights?

10/29/03 I am listening to justice talking right now. Listening to the phone messages played during the beginning of this program, I am struck by the hypocrisy of the people who called...suggesting violence, denigrating names (jackass!!), going to "hell," for removing "under God" from the pledge. It is this sort of hypocrisy that affirms my belief that "God" (personally I prefer "Great Spirit" which encompasses other religions that are monotheistic, not just Christianity) does not belong in government.

If one looks into history up to the present, I am continually reminded that more people have been killed because of their religion than anything else; coversely, more people have killed in the name of religion than any thing else. The fact that most of these religions include injunctions AGAINST killing--need I say more?

As a person born to a religion that has received more than its share of persecution, and a believer in a faith that really does not have "God" as its basis, I'd like the pledge to be returned to its original, non-religious form. Peace to all.

Why does "God" have to be involved in everything we do? I believe that we can be good, positive contributing members of society simply because it is the right thing to do. If I pledge allegiance under god without believing in god doesn't that negate the pledge that I make? Whereas I can pledge or make a promise without believing in god or basing my pledge on god and it is actually more binding.

Is it not an injustice and a stacked deck to base your justification of the rule of law depending who is in the majority. Where does one stop with such a biased basis for judgement - slavery, genocide or worse?

Good day. I’m a current college student taking a political science course. In all the lecture and discussion of our constitution and the civil duties of our government, I’ll have to say that the general tone of political philosophy is that times are indeed changing for the American people. With all the diversity in our country today, one can’t help but feel that Lani Guinier’s seemingly “bizarre” philosophy may very well return. I feel today’s discussion is relevant with this line of thought. It seems “The Pledge” is long, long gone.

Lon in Bend, OR

All the Pledge of Allegiance ever did for me was to solidify in my heart the lameness of my elders and society. Patriotic indoctrination is - in my view - an affront to "god" and an affront to our divine nature. It demeans us to be fed such things without the involvement of our "god-given" critical faculties.

The pledge is a rite, and such rites appeal to the same part of our mind/heart that religious rites do. It forms an association in the mind between the concept of "god" and the concept of "state." This is simply a neural process. Repeat it enough and the neurons do the associative thing.

The pledge is personally demeaning and highly disrespectful to our deeper nature.

The General keeps saying moronic things like "why do atheists work so hard against a god they don't believe in." (applause) Defending the human mind against such demeaning rituals in order to preserve our divine integrity is doing "god's work" as far as I'm concerned. We have a critical mind for a reason, general.

Why do we only pledge to "God"? Why do we not also pledge to the higher being/power who created God, or too the higher-higher/power who created the higher/power.....and so on and so on.

Whereever did General Brady get the nutty idea that the Constitution places ultimate authority in a majority of the public. Even aside from the fact that the Constitution establishes rule by a limited set of representatives, it sure seems to me that the constitution is intended to define exactly what these representatives can and cannot do -- no matter what the majority wants.

I realize the show for today is over, but I really only have one question and it may be the subject of a future program. The question is, do atheists have freedom of religion?

When I attended school in the 40s & 50s the phrase “under God” was not in the pledge of allegiance. When it was added during the McCarthy hearings era I though it was very awkward and I still think it is awkward, in fact I never say it I am just am silent for that moment. I was born Jewish, after leaving home I did not practice Judaism in fact I was agnostic. Then in the 70’s I became a Baptist, but the more I studied the Bible the less I believed. In 1985 I started practicing the Buddhism of the Priest Nichiren (he was a priest in Japan in the 1200’s) and have been a practicing Buddhist ever since.

So since I do not believe that there is a God why should I say the words “under God”?

Actually, as I already mentioned I just remain silent when those words roll around.

Buddhism is a lot more respectful of other people’s beliefs. The original Buddha taught that it is extremely rare to be born as a human being so they are worthy of respect no matter what their beliefs or actions are. If you don’t think it is rare to be born as a human being look around, we are vastly outnumbered on this planet be many life forms.

After hearing your program, I was in favor of leaving the Pledge as it is. However, after pondering and discussing the matter since that time, I have changed my mind, for a troubling reason

that I think has gone unnoticed: the phrase "under God" makes the entire Pledge of Allegiance dangerously vague.

Most proponents take it as a statement of fact, i.e. that our nation *is* under God. Opponents object that it thus undergirds jingoism and an uncritical sense of manifest destiny. It occurred to me, as a rejoinder in the phrase's favor, that perhaps it one might interpret it not as a statement of fact but a qualification: I pledge allegiance to the flag...republic... nation *so long as* it is under God. It might go astray, in the same terms as a secularist might fear, and then it would cease to be under God or commend our loyalty.

Then someone reminded me of the existence of the postmillennialists/dominion theologians/Christian reconstructionists. Now, as a mainstream Christian, I object to this novel reworking of my religion just as much as any non-Christian, and I fear its political agenda just as much. Believing that only Christians (by their own narrow definition) can legitimately wield authority or power of any kind, they are prepared to dissemble in order to acquire it. Any loyalty to the Constitution of the U.S. is purely tactical. As soon as they can, they mean to abolish it and impose the Old Testament law in full. This, they believe, is a prerequisite to the second coming of Christ.

Now, if the phrase "under God" is not construed as a statement of fact but as a qualification, their interpretation could, and probably would, be that the United States at present is not under God at all. Their loyalty is to arrangements that don't yet exist but which they hope to bring about. Therefore, they can recite the Pledge of Allegiance alongside the rest of us, giving the impression that they respect the political arrangements under by which we have agreed to live together: but in fact, they are pledging allegiance to something else altogether! And to which most of us would be vehemently opposed.

Dropping the words "under God" would remove this mischievous back door to treason.

How can Gen. Brady and others who demand pledging allegience to a nation "under God", and who maintain the nation is built on "Judeo-Christian" religious principles at the same time either sponsor or accede to laws that demand the teaching godless evolution in the schools. Two prominant early evolutionists observed: “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it . . . can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (Biologist D.H. Watson) “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”—Sir Arthur Keith.

IM SORRY BUT THE PEOPLE WHO DONT WANT GOD IN THEIR PLEGDE HAVE RIGHTS TOO. OF COURSE THE POEOPLE WHO DO WANT HIS NAME IN THE PLEDGE HAVE A RIGHT. BUT LOOK THERE SHOULD BE A COMPROMISE ABOUT THIS THE PEOPLE WHO DONT WANT HIS NAME IN THE PLEDGE DONT SAY IT AND THE ONES WHO DO SAY IT. AND U KNOW THE POSTERS THAT SAY THE PLEDGE WELL MAKE TWO ONE THAT SAY "UNDER GOD" AND ONE THAT JUST SKIPS THAT PART. BUT NOW IF WE DO ALL THIS THEN THAT MEANS WE WOULD PEOPLE WOULD MAKE US CHANGE ALL OUR CURRENCY BECAUSE IT SAYS "IN GOD WE TRUST" SO THEN THAT MEANS WE WOULD HAVE TO STOP MAKING OUR ORIGINAL ONE AND WE WOULD HAVE TO START MAKING ONE WITH A NEW PHRASE. SO IN CONCLUSION THIS DEBATE IS GOING TO GO ON FOR QUITE SOME TIME

People that say that "the majority rules" do not recognize the fact that this is only true when it is in agreement with the Constitution. We have a constitutional democracy to prevent the tyranny of the majority. It doesn't matter that 99% of the people believe something; if it is against the Constitution, it can not be permitted. Having a government-specified pledge that includes "under god" definitely promotes religion (a religion that recognizes a god.)

The use of "under god" in the pledge is particularly aggregious because it is included in an action by people (school children, etc). "In god we trust", etc, is only passive and does not require any action and therefore does not bother me as much.

As a nation, every citizen should be able to recite our pledge of allegiance in good conscience. This includes the citizens that do not believe in god. The instant you insert anything to do with ANY god into the pledge of allegiance you are alienating a segment of the population that does not believe in that god. This is a shame since the pledge should be something that unites us as citizens, not divides us according to religion.