Last month a petition to President Obama to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance was signed by over 20,000 American citizens. It's clear that this is a minority opinion in America, but protecting minorities is what the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights is all about.
Now the White House has made the administration's position clear: God should stay in our Pledge and on our currency. I know for a fact that regardless of the President's feelings about separation of church and state, he'd be committing political suicide to endorse anything that took God out of our government. That's just politics.
The heart of the White House response is this:
"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.So, we have to look at this petition as just one more step on a long road.
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.
Below is the whole text the email I received from the White House.
Religion in the Public Square
By Joshua DuBois, Executive Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships
Thank you for signing the petition “Edit the Pledge of Allegiance to remove the phrase ‘Under God.’” We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform on WhiteHouse.gov.
The separation of church and state outlined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is an important founding principle of our nation. Our nation’s Bill of Rights guarantees not only that the government cannot establish an official religion, but also guarantees citizens’ rights to practice the religion of their choosing or no religion at all.
Throughout our history, people of all faiths – as well as secular Americans – have played an important role in public life. And a robust dialogue about the role of religion in public life is an important part of our public discourse.
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. As the President said in his inaugural address, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.” We’re proud of that heritage, and the strength it brings to our great country.
del.icio.us
reddit
StumbleUpon
Posts
Pure political nonsense.
ReplyDelete"the separation of church and state, that does not mean there’s no role for religion in the public square."
Misses the point entirely. Government should be neutral on the subject of religion. Not for, not against. This is clearly for.
Yeah, I was one of those 20,000+, and received the same pointless response. I'm sorry that the White House doesn't seem to "get it" yet. Well, we knew it would be a long row to hoe when we started it.
ReplyDeleteYes I agree with Craig and with the first comment. It wouldn't be wise to change things, but this is pure misdirection. The "context matters" line is a brilliant political spin. They make it seem like the DOLLAR has some kind of context. What the president says in a pledge is one thing. What you ask me to pledge is another. What you say in your prayers is one thing. What you print on my money is another. -Leo
ReplyDeleteWell, if atheism isn't a religion, why should we care? If it's not hurting us, and we have no religion for it to be against, what difference does it make if religion is on the coins?
ReplyDelete@Vid: You don't have to have a religion to be subject to religious discrimination; it's just as easy (easier, often) to discriminate against someone for _not_ holding particular religious beliefs. For the government to print currency that sponsors one particular religious belief (the existence of a god, and apparently a monotheistic capital-G God at that) simply fosters an environment which emboldens those who would engage in such discrimination. What if the currency said "up with white people?" It's just a point of view, right? And yet this would be terribly inappropriate, for obvious reasons. How is this different, just because it's about religion instead of race?
ReplyDeleteI wonder whether an atheist could ever be elected President of the US? I'm doubtful. A Jew or a Mormon would probably have more chance!
ReplyDeleteI signed the petition & received the same insulting E-mail dismissal/response.
ReplyDeleteThere is one comment that he made that is correct: it IS a matter of context.
The context of placing the phrase "under god" into a "Pledge of Allegiance" is unmistakable. It states clearly that if I am to have any allegiance to my Nation, it is only to be "UNDER" those who profess to believe in & speak for their "god". (For that reason I have refused to recite the Pledge since Jr. High School 40 yrs ago.)
On the other hand, I have no problem with the phrase "In God We Trust" printed on our money since that is an accurate statement. Our true "god", MONEY, is based upon trust. It is, of course, a false & unworthy trust, even if a necessary one.