The White House Responds to Petition to Remove ‘Under God’ from Pledge of Allegiance

Aside from everything else, it’s just plain factually incorrect to say “In God We Trust”.

It’s far from the worst thing in the world, but the utter dismissal bugs the crap out of me.

btw Hemant, email to you still bouncing…  is it just me?

Rich — I’m getting other emails to my friendlyatheist account… not sure why yours aren’t getting through!  Double check the email address…?

No, I will not be voting for him in 2012. I didn’t vote for him four years ago either.

“These phrases represent the important role religion plays in American public life, while we continue to recognize and protect the rights of secular Americans.”

Is this a complete sentence? A complete thought? WTF is THIS?

Did you look at the other responses other petitions got? The marijuana one was pretty terrible too. I kind of skimmed some others but I wasn’t entirely familiar with all their issues. But it seems that they are all basically the same thing. Either completely ignoring the main issue, blatantly lying about it, or the complete standard canned response that politicians always try and give.  It’s just going to show that the entire process is useless. It won’t create change, as expected, but it won’t even enable a conversation about the issue to occur, which is pretty abhorrent.

Good for you.

Curious – which other candidate on either side of the aisle do you think would have responded differently to this petition?

Not to support this ghastly not-reply from the White House, but which other politician till now has had the balls to even acknowledge ‘non-believers’ in his/her speech, let alone the inaugural presidential speech?

I replied to the email with:
Fixed that for you, relevant passage is highlighted in red.

Please remove all vestiges of your silly superstitions from my government. I need government workers that are not beholden to a fictitious being. I really don’t care that 60 percent of my fellow Americans are unable to get out of bed in the morning without help from an invisible man that grants wishes. You are constitutionally bound to separate out the mythology and work based on facts.

The phrase I changed now reads:While the President strongly supports every American’s right to religious freedom and the separation of church and state, that does mean there’s no role for your religion in the public square.

I understand
your point but as I told my mother years ago he talks a good talk but let’s see
what he does when he gets into office.

When he acknowledge
non-believers in his inaugural speech it felt like lip service to me. It was
nice that he did but that is all I felt from it. He said it as lip service and
nothing more.

No other
candidate is going to reply any differently for years to come but keeping Obama
in office will not help us that are atheist.

He believes in
God and he can acknowledge us all he wants, that doesn’t mean he will have the
balls to change anything.

Yes, context DOES matter. So… what other context would one deduce from “under God” in our pledge?
Do I hear crickets?

This new and changing political landscape that we were supposed to get is looking mighty familiar. Obama taught constitutional law – where did he go to law school Liberty University?[/snark] Like I’ve said many times before – the only thing a politician can be trusted to do is talk out of both sides of his/her mouth.

I have to agree here… The lesser of all presented evils is the one we know.

I know someone who was Independent, re-registered Repub, and plans to vote for Bachmann.  Why?  She no more believe Bachmann is a good candidate than she thinks Charlie Brown would be… but she is convinced that a theocratic political showdown is coming and she is tired of waiting for it, choosing to force the issue.  It won’t work, but at least she feels she is doing something.  And no, it’s not me.  I disagree with that reasoning completely.

Hopefully we’ll get a Dem or Progressive with balls (i.e. guts) and try a run-off with our newest Pope.  I’d vote for either of them over Obama any day.  Despite what people say, there is an alternative to just voting for a sitting president.  There are a lot of people who would vote for an alternative within his own party, but too many are complacent and assume that nobody should challenge a sitting president within their own party.  Didn’t we get rid of hereditary monarchs once?

As a fellow software guy, your parallel is perfect; the same sense of frustration is present. BTW – I’m not American, however a change in the religious landscape in the US would definitely change things in other countries too, as US culture / politics influences others (especially ‘baby brother’ countries like my own, Australia).

Dammit Obama, stop making me regret voting for you!

Of course context matters. Here’s some more (that I am sure all commenters already know, I’m just infuriated so must vent): “Under God” is a relic from the McCarthy era. Supporting its inclusion means supporting the memory of possibly the most shameful era in U.S. history since the Civil War. For that alone it should be removed, not to mention of course the completely legitimate religion-related arguments.

The response was standard, boilerplate, election-year rhetoric.  What did you expect from a politician?  Sincerity?

Obama is so strange to me.  On one hand, he seems to know what’s right and wrong and seems to care about that–on the other hand, he doesn’t do a damned thing about most of it (yet even some of the lip service is more than many of us have been able to get).  I want to see what will happen in a second term.  I seem to remember Bush really melting the country down in his second term.  Maybe I’m just hoping on a lost-cause, but I’m kind of hoping he’s waiting to the second term to apply some force.  I’m probably wrong about that though, but it seems to me that a lot of presidents seem to really push their agenda, good or bad, when they no longer need to worry about re-election and such.

Failing that, could we please get a Dem with some balls and an actual liberal view (not a center-right view) in the game?  Please?  I mean, there really isn’t a liberal voice left in the game anymore–it died from accommodating too much, and now we’re left with a choice between the right-wing (Dem) and the batshit-insane right-wing (Repub).  This isn’t even a “choose your poison” situation anymore–it’s a choice between dosages of the exact same poison.  Would you like “lethal” or “batshit-insane weapons-grade-explosive lethal”?

Until something gives (or we, as the people, make it give), “lethal” is the better choice.  It’ll kill us eventually if we sit on our hands, but the alternative will ensure a nightmarish corporate-christian feudal state in a few short years, in which the majority will be starving on their feet, women will be legally baby-making chattel, the murder of homosexuals and rape/murder of “uppity” women will be a patriotic duty, and you will pledge allegiance to Jesus America on pain of death.

I wish I was being hyperbolic.  I wish I could be hyperbolic.  But in the current atmosphere, that is no longer possible.

I’m reminded of Derek Jacobi’s portrayal of the Roman Emperor Claudius:  “Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud HATCH OUT.”  He muttered this to himself as he took steps to ensure Nero would become Emperor, speeding the inevitable downfall of the decaying Roman society.  I sometimes feel this way, and I suppose this was why rlrose328’s friend was talking about voting for Bachmann. 

On balance, though, Obama did get DADT repealed, and passed some kind of healthcare reform, half-assed though it may be.  I’m pissed he didn’t prosecute Bush/Cheney for war crimes, since it sets the precedent (or continues the precedent Ford set when he pardoned Nixon) that our elected officials are above the law.  I’m also pissed he didn’t follow through on his promise to close Guantanamo.

Bottom line:  if Ron Paul gets the nomination (yeah, right) or runs as an Independent or Libertarian, I’ll vote for him (unless he picks a Palinesque running mate).  Otherwise, I’ll hold my nose and vote for Obama, and hope he’ll do more in his second term.

This, a thousand times this. Damn, that is well said!

You really need to abandon the two party system!

“the separation of church and state, […] does not mean there’s no role for religion in the public square.”On the contrary, that’s exactly what it means.

Here is my article on this issue: White House endorses ‘Under God’ in pledge – http://t.co/5t6YFjPB 

Agreed, very well put, T. Ray!  Thank you.

What gets me is the “That’s why” – I’m sorry, but I don’t remember seeing a reason before it.

Something else completely missing from the pledge debate is that not only are we not ‘Under God’, but we are not even ‘One Nation’.  Just ask any Native American.

In Jesus We Trust —-One Nation Under Jesus

Not a whole lot different.

If you mean guts say guts. If you mean guts don’t say balls.

It’s a feature.

Plus it’s a waste of class time.

Yeah, this feels like giant “screw you”. I’m disappointed, but not surprised. What bothers me most is not that no action will be taken, but rather that it reads like it was written entirely to reassure religious people rather than to seriously address the concerns of those of us who want a truly secular government.

From Ted in Wheaton, Illinois, home of Wheaton College, Billy Graham’s alma mater, and the Vatican of Evangelism.

Now here’s the way I always get the debate started.  When we all say the Pledge at a public function, I join in by speaking the Pledge rather loudly, and then when it comes to “under God,” I am silent, and then I resume the rest of the Pledge.  Afterwards people turn to me and ask why I did not say “under God,”  and then we begin the debate.  Try it, and be sure you debate well for our side.

Ah, I see…so mickey will certainly win, meaning there are no possible adverse consequences to not voting for Obama. 

Maybe Shannon read everything, but decided to look at the reality of the situation instead of being a foot-stamping moron about it.

Like Christian Science

or Peacemaker Missile

How about a president with bigger ovaries?

Or military intelligence… ooh, ooh, or jumbo shrimp.

*snrk*

And isn’t it ironic, doncha think…

Perry is a deer in the headlights when it comes to a debate. Cain will get the nod long before he does.

One thing I think you Americans are missing, and that is that the theist wing, want you to waste your time, energy and coin on petty stuff like the pledge and god on money. In the long run which is more important, teaching reality to the young, or the “Under God” stuff.

Yes, the “Under God” stuff is important, but if more focus was put on reality training, it would cease to be important and fall away by itself.  The theists love the fact that you guys focus on it like a pitbull on a bone. They are able to get away with everything that they have because of bones like this. 

You should refuse to engage on these types of topics in public and go after the real meat, the bigotry, hatred and other nastiness that is theism.

You misunderstand – I meant that it means there *isn’t* a “role” for religion in the “public square” – which are both ludicrously ambiguous terms, and I have little doubt were used in the letter for that very reason.  Just you try and even find a relevant meaning of “public square” in a dictionary.

I take “role” to mean “recognised position of authority or responsibility for specific action.  But who is doing the recognising? The phrase “public square” implies their authority stems from the public themselves, but here’s the nasty bit: the system of democratic government is one mechanism by which the public recognise positions and assign authority, and it is required to be secular.  Alternatively, however, the public can and do recognise other de-facto public roles without the involvement of the government.  If a whole community just tends to take advice from the local priest, that could also be said to be a “role in the public square” – but it’s not a state supported or endorsed one; it’s not official.

Unless and until it is clarified whether they mean an official or unofficial “public role,” the letter is a non-statement.  It can be taken to support either side.  It’s really a beautiful specimen of government say-nothing-with-a-lot-of-words bullshit.

However, the strong implication is that they mean government-recognised roles, given that the rest of the letter is basically the very instrument of that recognition.  Strictly speaking, just the fact that the letter effectively says “the government considers religion to be important” could qualify as a violation of church and state separation, even though they’re trying to imply it’s all unofficial and not enforced by law – in an official letter, attempting to justify a religious act enforced by law.

Wow. Ok. Calm blue ocean. Calm blue ocean. Calm blue ocean.

It’s just a phrase, in a stupid pledge, that almost no one takes seriously. We all said it, and it didn’t brainwash anyone.

This is the equivalent of a patient demanding that a doctor stop his busy clinic to discuss why there is a religious wallhanging in the waiting area.  Meanwhile there are ten more patients to see and he is already running behind.  Sorry, you’re not gonna get an hourlong therapy session. What are you expecting him to say? Does he even control this stuff?

What’s your goal here?  For Obama to say, “whoops, didn’t notice that – let me issue a proclamation banning the statement ‘under god’ in the pledge of allegiance.  That won’t set off air raid sirens throughout the South.”

All this does is rile up religious people, and light a fire under them to push religion in the public sphere even harder.  Contrast with England where there is a STATE RELIGION, yet they are far more secular than we are.  It is possible to still get the important victories.  Let’s focus on LGBT discrimination, anti-science, climate change denial, creationism, and religious discrimination (where it actually affects people).

DuBois’s argument is: Religious people play an
important role in public life, and so religion plays an important role in
public life, and so it’s okay for the government to declare us a monotheistic state. This is equivalent to arguing that Christian people play an important
role in public life, and so Christianity plays an important role in
public life, and so it’s okay for the Pledge to say “one nation under
Jesus”. See the problem now, Mr DuBois?

I’ve written more about this here.

You’re enthusiasm flatters me.  If and when I exceed ten followers on my blog I will give the suggestion more consideration.

“Under God” in the pledge destroys the ideas behind the words immediately before and after that part, “one nation – – indivisible.” It’s not “one nation” and those words are dividing the lines between those who are in and those who are out. Anyone who believes in a higher power, you’re in the “in” crowd, secularists, atheists, agnostics, non-believers, spiritualists, you’re “out.” In fact the very name “God” standing for the Christian deity also puts Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu persons in the “out” crowd.

“Under God” means Christian.

As if it’s not enough that IGWT is the official motto, they’re going to make it the motto again.  You know, because they have nothing better to do.

http://www.americanhumanist.org/news/details/2011-10-in-god-we-trust-motto-to-be-reauthorized-take-action

(Both Boxer and Feinstein ignored requests to recognize Freethought Day)

yikes!  I better go write something then.

Please send this to the White House!!!!!

Under God is how our nation was originally founded. No one is forcing our students to say it, they can or cannot say it…it’s their preference. If you don’t like it then don’t say it. But my question is this…if saying “under God” is such a big deal, then why is no one making a fuss about “In God We Trust” on our currency? How come no one is complaining about the Supreme Court saying a prayer before convening? It is still a country of freedom of speech so do or do not say it if you please. But don’t attack one part without attacking the entire situation. What a cowardly way to fight. God bless all and please have an open mind about all angles of the situation.

It’s nice when people have civil conversations and debates about the topic, you get to hear the inane comments made by people who fail to understand simple things and then there’s the people who don’t know anything and just have an opinion because of what their friends say. These people who know nothing about the topic don’t make any points at all, they just throw out vulgarity and insults to the people with a different view. Notice how most of the pro “under God” people have been understanding and they take in the points of the opposition? It would be nice if the people who want to remove two words from a phrase that has been alive longer than them, would stop being accusatory morons and actually use the brain they might not have. This isn’t meant to be hypocritical like it may seem. Not all of the people who oppose “under God” are morons. Just most of them who have commented on here. Please make a real argument.