# Is pledge anti-American? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 17, 2003, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808 "2003-05-17T01:04:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808/121 "2003-05-25T19:04:12Z")
For what it’s worth, WWII isn’t _completely_ irelevant to a discussion of the Pledge. The pledge wasn’t made “official” till it was added to the United States Flag Code (Title 36) on June 22, 1942. I’m convinced that the patriotic fervor of the time was the driving force behind its addition. Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court ruled that schools could not force children to say the pledge in 1943 - also during WWII. To get back to the main discussion, the states get around the supreme court’s 1943 ruling by “asking” the children to recite the pledge, which is still technically constitutional. However, last year the 9th circuit court ruled that the phrase “under God” constituted an endorsement of religion. The 9th circuit court is also regarded as the most liberal and holds the dubious distinction of being the most overturned. With the current conservative makeup of SCOTUS, I wouldn’t be suprised if they were overturned again when the Sup’s get around to hearing the case. As I said earlier, I don’t think the pledge is un or anti-American. just nationalistic. However, the “under God” line is certainly questionable. This seems to be the prevailing opinion of the courts as well. I also wouldn’t ask teachers to lead their class in it everyday; not on constitutional grounds, just because it’s silly. Keep the thing as part of the flag code and as part of swearing in new citizens, but don’t waste the teachers’ time. One last dead horse I want to pound into the ground addresses those who would call the pledge itself “fascist”. Nationalism is not fascism, though fascist countries are usually nationalistic. If anyone believes that the pledge is fascist, either they lack basic logic skills (if A has quality X, it does not follow that something with quality X must be A) or they don’t know what fascism is. ---
**Author:** ![Milum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Milum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milum)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808/122 "2003-05-25T19:35:52Z")
Well said,\*\* Monkey\*\*. And **Apos** it wasn’t a slanderous assertion that I made. It was a slanderous question that I asked. No matter, I apologise if you took offense. ( I did re-read your comments and couldn’t find anything that indicated your hate of anything. Sorry.) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_:smack: ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808/123 "2003-05-25T19:49:53Z")
> [@](#): > > And Apos it wasn’t a slanderous assertion that I made. > It was a slanderous question that I asked. The question contained an assertion (just as “Have you stopped beating your wife?” contains an implicit assertion about wife beating). But thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808/124 "2003-05-25T20:24:29Z")
> [@](#): > > If anyone believes that the pledge is fascist, either they lack basic logic skills (if A has quality X, it does not follow that something with quality X must be A) or they don’t know what fascism is. I concurr. Fascism has a very specific meaning that’s being rubbed away by poor usage. Totalitarian is closer to what most people mean when they use it. Revisionism in history really irritates me, not least of all because now the revisionists have got the idea of accusing the actual historians of being revisionist when the correct revisionist mistakes. The fact is that the REAL history of America is much more lively than the mythological one. And indeed, while the mythological one is meant to inspire and puff up America to an absurd degree, the real history is actually far more effective at getting people to understand and care about their country. For instance, I’m sure it will be roundly decried when I point out that most men in the Revolution fought because they were paid to fight. So too in the Civil War. It is only in retrospect that the view that they fought because they believed very strongly in the cause became an element of faith. But it’s important to remember that truth precisely because it shows us how that faith came to dominate the minds of later Americans under arms in the World Wars, many more of whom DID come to fight for the causes, not the pay. And it tells us lots about our transition from the draft to an all-volunteer force. Certain facts get lost, because they are declared “ugly” for some reason. Is it ugly to point out that Francis Scott Key, who wrote what was to become the National Anthem, was actually of the opinion that the U.S. was to blame for the War of 1812, and deserved to lose it? Or is it ugly only because, for gross present political ends, people want to create a duality between patriotism and dissent that they can exploit for political gain? It is because people are so ignorant of history that they make such lousy patriots. It is all well and good to defend an ideal of flag worship as part of patriotism. But it does no good to try and falsely pin this as an American tradition that goes back to the founders. (From Shenkman) In the revolution, almost no one used the flag, or even knew what it looked like. Almost every painting that contains the flag is a fake (most notably the famous “Spirit of '76” painting) from the perspective of an accurate historical record. Not a single revolutionary land battle was fought under Old Glory, and the cavalry and marines didn’t adopt it until after the civil war. Even after the war, it did not fly from buildings, schools, or anywhere. It was never printed in newspapers, and it did not appear in art. Almost no one knew what it looked like then either: a year after its adoption, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams described it as having “alternating stripes of red, white, and blue.” There wasn’t even a standard design until after the Civil War, leading to countless different versions. The fact is, the flag was adopted primarily to identify our merchant and war ships, not for any highly esteemed purpose of symbolism. When the matter was brought up in Congress of adding two stars to the flag to represent Vermont and Kentucky, many Congressmen objected to wasting time on what they considered such a trivial matter. It was passed simply as “as the quickest way of terminating” it. The reality is, the founders generation was utterly indifferent to the flag, and many generations would pass before anyone even began to give it the reverence it now has today. Indeed, the real rituals of the U.S. flag weren’t fleshed out until the late nineteenth century, and weren’t properly codified until 1942, and weren’t even federal law until 1976. Indeed, the cheif motive for adopting the rituals was not some grand ideal for patriotism: it was xenophobia. People felt that the unwashed masses of foriegners needed to be reigned in, and forced to demonstrate their loyalty. None of this speaks against having flag rituals. What it speaks against is having rituals whose effective purpose is to re-write history and make us forget where we’ve come from and why we’re doing what we’re doing. If we are going to have rituals of patriotism, let’s do so out of actual, though-out ideas about how they will work and what purpose they serve, not out of the illusion that we are honoring a tradition that goes back to the founders. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808/125 "2003-05-25T21:33:01Z")
Milum’s comment about WWII being relevant to the discussion is not well said. Let’s just jump into the realms of facts here: what facts are relevant to a particular phrase being constitutional? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808/126 "2003-05-25T22:05:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*Unfortunately for you, I have studied the war: professionally. > > Quite an exagerration here. Indeed, it seems that you’ve read too much German propaganda, rather than history. While the Germans were ahead in some technologies, they were far far behind others, and in all areas they simply could not produce good technologies in useful numbers or acceptable quality. > > Really? As of 1941, the British alone, with only 70% of national income of Germany, outproduced the Germans in EVERY major aramament category except small arms and torpedoes. > > Indeed: far more tremendous than Germany’s effort. Americans managed to do something that Germany never managed to do: militarize their economy. Even up to the end of the war, Germany’s economy was still on a civilian footing. Thanks to Nazi propaganda, many people still believe that Germany worked “day and night” to arm itself. The reality is that the Nazis were not only fairly incompetant as industrial managers, but they could not convince the German people to stop frittering away resources on nicities, or co-opt industries the way we managed to do in the U.S. > > And the fact is, Germany not only did not spend time prior to war preparing for a wider conflict, it was also constantly short of resources during the war. The Blitzkreig attacks it was so famed for was not a strategy freely chosen as the best: it was the only sort of war Germany could afford. They had to win decisive victories or pull out precisely because they could NOT sustain long conflicts. After each major attack, they actually had to have a great deal of downtime in order to replenish what they had used and lost in battle. > > Again, your knowledge seems to come from watching the news back then (with not a small amount of propaganda), not from a study of history. There is simply no evidence at all that Hitler had any sort of grand plan for world domination at the start of the war: I dare you to back up your claims (and especially your insults to other’s lack of knowledge) with cites. I can cite historian AP Taylor, who can you cite? Hitler seems to have drifted from one small victory to another, surprising himself that it was so easy. His main ambition after that was to crush those who might take away what he had gained. The idea that Hitler wanted to “take over the world” is laughable to anyone who understands the resource needs that would be required to do such a thing and then administrate power. Even the U.S. today could not take over the world. He certainly wished to demonstrate the superiority of the Teuton race: but world domination is just silly. The only reason people cling to this idea is because they want to think of Hitler as the ultimate evil in every respect that they can imagine. But no such false fantasies of evil are necessary: the real Hitler was more than evil enough even if we only look at his treatment of the Jews. > > The United States government itself conducted a post-war investigation into these matters. It’s conclusion was that the Nazis were dismal failures in the industrial production department, and did almost nothing in the war preparations department. > > So, are you going to disagree with your own government, or admit that maybe, Germany wasn’t quite the iron giant its own propaganda seems to have convinced you it was? Germany was profoundly stupid for giving the Allies a reason to unite and combat it. \*\* I see no reason to continue this discussion beyond this post. I don’t care how much history you studied professionally, what matters is, was it accurate. I made no mention of America’s capacity to build war material, and agree that was mainly the reason we won. Actually we won due to air superiority as we have won all our wars. What I talked about was the hard times at the beginning of the war and the superiority of German tanks, guns and such. What I said was true, but you took the discussion in another direction. As for Hilter, he was a madman and certainly thought he could rule the world. In a book I read by a German fighter pilot, he was convinced he would be the head of some American state after the war. As for Hitler drifting from one victory to another, what lack of understanding, He had a plan and was following it. I have studied the war all by life and lived while it was going on, what you say about American industrial strength is true, but it happened because of the war. If you understood the circumstances you wouldn’t ever discount the herculean effort of the American people during this time. I know of no able bodied person who wasn’t contributing to the war effort. Kids, like myself, did so too. We collected metal, paper and other materials, we sold war stamps and collected money to buy flowers for the families of those killed in action. We joined scout groups and learned to shoot rifles and live off the land. All the good stuff was rationed, gasoline, sugar, flour, tobacco, to name a few. We had ration stamps and horders were put in jail. I could go on for hours on the details of the war. I saw 100+ passenger rail cars full of solders going to the fight, and they were respected and honored like never since. On the trains, and buses, the old people would give their seats to the solders, insisting they take them. Even with precious little gasoline hitchhiking solders would be picked up and taken to their destination, if possible, they were giving their lives and Americans at home were grateful. My dad used to say, “if they taught history like it really happened, we might learn something from it.” I don’t mind telling you I love that old flag and the pledge we said to it and the prayers we said for the servicemen in school. If that makes me silly, so be it, I lived it. Love Leroy ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808/127 "2003-05-25T22:20:28Z")
Still ignoring the FACT that it’s a different pledge now than the one you said then, lekatt? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2003, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808/128 "2003-05-25T23:42:10Z")
> [@](#): > > As for Hitler drifting from one victory to another, what lack of understanding, He had a plan and was following it. Oh, you’re right lekatt: all the mainstream historians must be wrong, because you read an unamed book about a German fighter pilot. > [@](#): > > If you understood the circumstances you wouldn’t ever discount the herculean effort of the American people during this time. I know of no able bodied person who wasn’t contributing to the war effort. How did I discount it? My point was that Germany utterly failed to do the same thing, not only before the war, but during. As it turned out, a lot of the talk about German superiority and them arming day and night turned out to be propaganda. You seem to have studied that instead of history. Again: this is what the professional historians say. And it is what the U.S. government concluded after an exhaustive postwar study. What do you have to refute other than the claim that “oh, I’ve studied history, and you’re wrong.” I’ve cited some actual authorities one can go and reference to find the evidence and reasoning: where are your authorities? > [@](#): > > I don’t mind telling you I love that old flag and the pledge we said to it and the prayers we said for the servicemen in school. If that makes me silly, so be it, I lived it. What are you talking about? What does any of that have to do with the key elements of fact we’ve been discussing? ---
**Author:** ![blue22](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/58f4c7/32.png) [@blue22](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blue22)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808/129 "2003-05-26T03:12:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > **I concurr [sic]. Fascism has a very specific meaning that’s being rubbed away by poor usage. Totalitarian is closer to what most people mean when they use it.** No; actually, I do indeed mean fascist. The underlying concept of fascism is that the state exists as an entity outside of the individuals that comprise it, its symbol being the Roman _fasces_, a bundle of sticks tied together to represent strength through unity. Theoretically, the Pledge is a symbolic gesture of sacrifice to the state. It represents the sum of its citizens unifying, when necessary, to protect the nation’s interests. The concept of pledging allegiance to _the republic itself_, and not the citizens that form this republic, then, is fascist–it implies that the nation has an existence outside its citizens. Perhaps it is a diction problem, as were “to the republic” changed to “to the population that consitutes this republic,” the Pledge would sound infinitely better. (But then it would also sound infinitely less idealistic and be bogged down with utilitarian concepts.) ---
**Author:** ![blue22](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/58f4c7/32.png) [@blue22](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blue22)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808/130 "2003-05-26T03:17:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > **I concurr [sic]. Fascism has a very specific meaning that’s being rubbed away by poor usage. Totalitarian is closer to what most people mean when they use it.** No; actually, I do indeed mean fascist. The underlying concept of fascism is that the state exists as an entity outside of the individuals that comprise it, its symbol being the Roman _fasces_, a bundle of sticks tied together to represent strength through unity. Theoretically, the Pledge is a symbolic gesture of sacrifice to the state. It represents the sum of its citizens unifying, when necessary, to protect the nation’s interests. The concept of pledging allegiance to _the republic itself_, and not the citizens that form this republic, then, is fascist–it implies that the nation has an existence outside its citizens. Perhaps it is a diction problem, as were “to the republic” changed to “to the population that consitutes this republic,” the Pledge would sound infinitely better. (But then it would also sound infinitely less idealistic and be bogged down with utilitarian concepts.) I do _concur_ with your opinions on revisionist history, though. Mad props on that. To add to your list, there was the entire “draft war” that occurred during the Civil War as a result of the reluctancy of many Northerns draftees to fight. ---
**Author:** ![blue22](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/58f4c7/32.png) [@blue22](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blue22)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808/131 "2003-05-26T03:20:26Z")
What may also interest the reader is that, while everyone believes America was founded on Christian values, many our most important founding fathers–including Jefferson, Franklin, Thomas Paine and George Washington–were not Christian. They were Deists. But that’s completely irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808/132 "2003-05-26T03:30:15Z")
blue22: Not everyone believes that America was founded on Christian values. Only the ignorant do. ---
**Author:** ![blue22](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/58f4c7/32.png) [@blue22](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blue22)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808/133 "2003-05-26T03:35:34Z")
Yes. Sorry. I was merely using “everyone” as a loose, idiomatic quantifier to mean “a large number of people.” ---
**Author:** ![Milum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Milum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milum)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808/134 "2003-05-26T04:22:44Z")
_What may also interest the reader is that, while everyone believes America was founded on Christian values, many our most important founding fathers–including Jefferson, Franklin, Thomas Paine and George Washington–were not Christian. They were Deists. But that’s completely irrelevant._ No Blue22, you know not well the use of words, that’s not completely irrelevant, that’s completely bullshit. Oh my, what do they teach in school these days…do they teach that that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson didn’t go to church? Listen, Blue 22, most all values of western civilization are founded on the teaching of Jesus Christ. His teachings were simple - love- pure unadulterated love. Can’t we all be friends? \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808/135 "2003-05-26T06:05:18Z")
> [@](#): > > Oh my, what do they teach in school these days…do they teach that that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson didn’t go to church? Washington is an interesting case. Washington went to church with his wife, but his own preacher said that Washington was a deist. He at first slipped out the back of the church on the Sundays when they gave communion, and when told that this was disruptive, simply stopped coming on those days altogether. And if Christianity is all about openly witnessing/professing one’s devotion to Christ, then Washington clearly was no Christian: he never mentioned his faith to anyone, did not pray out loud or in public or even with friendly company. Jefferson at times called himself a Christian, but Christians considered him an infidel. He didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ, and indeed created a version of the NT by going through with scissors to cut out the parts that he considered superstitious nonsense. > [@](#): > > Listen, Blue 22, most all values of western civilization are founded on the teaching of Jesus Christ. His teachings were simple - love- pure unadulterated love. Ah: and this forms the basis of the values of due process, liberty, equality, or the idea of separation of powers? Most of the key Western values that we think of when thinking of the West in particular were formulated during the Englightnment. Almost all of them were opposed by the religious forces of their day and considered new, heretical, and dangerous: not harking back to the teachings of Christ. What does the English Common Law, or Madison’s theory of political factions, have to do with the teachings of Christ? And if you really think all that Christ taught was love, then you must have the Jefferson Bible. Which, I agree, is a much better version. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808/136 "2003-05-26T06:14:14Z")
> [@](#): > > Listen, Blue 22, most all values of western civilization are founded on the teaching of Jesus Christ. His teachings were simple - love- pure unadulterated love. What do you mean by “western civilization?” That covers quite a lot of geography and quite a lot of centuries. I’m not really aware of single western culture that was founded on a philosophy of “pure, unadulterated love.” Cite , please? I can unequivocally state that Christian dictrine played no part whatever in the founding of the USA or in he drafting of the US Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Milum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Milum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milum)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808/137 "2003-05-26T06:23:33Z")
**I can unequivocally state that Christian dictrine played no part whatever in the founding of the USA or in he drafting of the US Constitution** If you can then you are unequivocally wrong. Cite? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808/138 "2003-05-26T06:36:13Z")
I don’t need a cite, _you_ do. _you’re_ the one making the assertion. There is no mention of God or Christianity anywhere in the Constitution. There is a first amendment which forbids the government endorsement of religion. The primary architects of the Constitution specifically wrote about the need for a separation of church and state. There is not one word in the Constitution which can be said to have been derived from any religious doctrine. The Constitution and ideals of the founders came from the ideals of the enlightenment, from British common law and from Greco-Roman democratic models. Now, if you’re going to make this radical new assertion that the US was founded on Christian principles, then back it up. This is big news to US historians. Show me a single line of the Constitution which you can prove derives from Christian doctrine. Hell, forget about proving it, show me something you can even make a persuasive argument about. Good luck. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808/139 "2003-05-26T06:59:17Z")
While I think Diog’s claim is too strong (it could be falsified by even a single instance, despite the prescence of small instances really having very little to do with the issue at hand), I think I can at least provide some useful information on this score. Let’s start off with Washington. When a group of clergy complained that the Constitution contained no mention of Christ, Washington replied: “I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country.” – Papers, Presidential Series, 4.274 (1789) Here’s Adams: “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.” --A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787) And of course, the obligatory Treaty of Tripoli, approved by Congress and signed by Adams: "As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] … it is declared … that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries… “The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.” from the Treaty of Tripoli (1797) Note that the Senate that signed this into law was almost assuredly more devoutly and old-timey religious than the Senate is today. Yet these Senators had no problem with the idea that there is a difference between the rationalist ideas of political government and the religious practices of a people. Many people seem to have this problem today. Now for Madison: “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.” James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston on July 10, 1822 “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?” Madison, from “A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” Frankly, the idea that Christianity played an important part of forming the Constitution is just silly on the face of it. The point of drafting the Constitution was not to rule on any particular religious matter, it was to create a legal framework on which the nation could more effectively function. It was practical, political, and pragmatic: what was on people’s mind was no more particularly religious in function than is what on most people’s minds, even those people who are very religous, when they try to do some practical task requiring planning and consideration. Indeed, what was remarked upon afterwards: what was considered notable, was how LITTLE influence religion had upon the new government, not how much. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2003, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808/140 "2003-05-26T07:01:50Z")
> [@](#): > > There is no mention of God or Christianity anywhere in the Constitution. Actually, there is one _mention_: the date. 🙂 Though still not what Milum is looking for. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-pledge-anti-american/175808.md?page=8)