E Pluribus Unum

Whoever [damages] any [money] issued by any [official source], with intent to render such [money] unfit to be reissued, shall be [punished].

Lucky me that's not what I'm doing.

I want these one-dollar bills and five-dollar bills and ten- and twenty-dollar bills to go out into the world. I want every dollar of this money to change hands a hundred times. I want every person who lays eyes on a bill I've touched to take a good look at what I did to it, and to have a good think about why I did it.

Every dollar bill that passes through my possession leaves with a permanent-marker line through the words 'In God We Trust', and the penned note in the margin, 'wheresgeorge.com'.

The wheresgeorge.com bit isn't the important part. I'm curious about where the money goes after it leaves my hands, that's all. No, the important part is that with my deletion of the national motto, the design is in compliance with the plain text of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

The US courts have considered this motto's constitutionality three times. Aronow v. United States in 1970 says that 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise. In 1979, Madalyn Murray O'Hair sued in the Fifth Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit referred to the Ninth Circuit opinion above. The Freedom From Religion Foundation tried again in the Tenth Circuit in 1994, and the case was dismissed without trial, based on similar reasoning. The Supreme Court declined to review all three cases.^[1]

What that tells me is that the judges in all three cases and on the Supreme Court in all three instances are soaking in the privilege inherent in being a monotheist in the US. Being a US monotheist is natural and normal, they think. Getting Good Friday off work is the way things ought to be. They don't mean anything religious by the phrase "In God We Trust", therefore no one does.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". It's right there in plain language in the First Amendment.

That means that Congress cannot declare the country officially Methodist to the exclusion of Presbyterians and Baptists, nor Protestant to the exclusion of Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox—the whole country's with me here. Nor can Congress declare the country officially Christian to the exclusion of Jews and Muslims—here I start losing people by the truckload. Nor can Congress declare the country officially monotheist to the exclusion of polytheists and atheists—here I lose everyone who isn't polytheist, atheist, or sympathetic to the non-monotheist cause.

Or put it another way. "In God We Trust". Which god? Allah? Zeus? Vishnu? Erzulie Freda? Invisible Pink Unicorn?

'We' in the national motto includes, must include, literally everyone in the nation. But "In God We Trust" makes a point of excluding everyone who believes in many gods, or no god, or a single female god. Everyone, that is, except monotheists.

The phrase "In God We Trust" might have lost all religious meaning to many monotheists, but for the rest of us, the religious meaning is very much alive, and painful, and declaring that phrase our national motto is a declaration akin to "One Nation Under God, love it or leave it". If we are not monotheists we are not American, is what "In God We Trust" on the currency tells us, and far too many people think that's either not happening or a perfectly acceptable or indeed desirable state of being.

Contrary to popular belief, the US is not a Christian nation. Only seventy-eight percent Christian. Sixteen percent unaffiliated, two-thirds of whom are nonreligious, and five percent less popular religions; one percent declined to answer.

Seventy-eight isn't one hundred. In God we do not all trust.

Having "In God We Trust" on the money I use to buy my pizza is an unconstitutional violation of the religious freedom of more than one in five US citizens, myself included. That's why I take that phrase off every dollar bill I touch. (I'd hit the coins, too, but I don't know if the ink would stay.)

If we must have the national motto on the money, we should revert to having the national motto be 'e pluribus unum'. Out of many—Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, United Methodist, Mormon, Orthodox, Reform, Sunni, Shia, Vaishavism, Shaktism, Zen, Theravada, Shinto, Bahá'í, Vodou, Santería, Asatru, Hellenic Reconstructionism, Wicca, Unitarian Universalism, atheism, agnosticism, humanism—

Out of many, one.

--MercuryBlue

---

^[1] The U.S. National Mottos: Their history & constitutionality ↩

---

The Slacktiverse is a community blog. Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors. We welcome disagreement in the comment threads, and invite anyone who wishes to present an alternative interpretation of a situation to write and submit a post.

Comments

[Lonespark]

Excellent post.

Vaguely reminds me of someplace in...UTAH? declaring crosses on graves to be nonsectarian symbols of death.

[cjmr, who will probably figure out her typepad logon eventually]

Sharpie will stay on coins for a while. We colored some for a statistics project the kids did--they wanted you to stick stickers on the coins, and I figured with different colors of Sharpie I wouldn't have to pick all the stickers back off before spending the coins.

Unfortunately, coloring on a coin highlights the relief elements rather than hiding them.

[Infrequent commentator, too lazy to sign in with open id]

As a Jewish by birth, agnostic(now atheist) kid, I knew darn well that "one nation under g-d" and "in g-d we trust" was *not* talking about me. I stopped saying the pledge of allegiance sometime in middle school, I think, and it made me uncomfortable longer than that. It's not right, it's not appropriate for the country the US should be, and it isn't meaningless and non-sectarian.

[dr ngo]

How is worship of "a single female god" excluded by this phrase? Just askin'.

[Froborr]

@Dr Ngo: Because it doesn't say "In Goddess We Trust." My question is how someone who worships a single female god isn't a monotheist.

Also, Single Female God sounds like a sitcom title to me, or possibly hour-long David E. Kelly dramedy. The adventures of a young, professional goddess as she tries to make her way in our crazy modern world. One of those ostensibly empowering things that is actually horribly, horribly misogynistic if you pay even the slightest bit of attention--pretty much Ally McBeal with a pantheon instead of a law firm.

It would air on the same network as the detective show T and Kofi: "One's the former Secretary-General of the United Nations. The other's helluva tough. They are... T and Kofi, P.I. Coming to television this fall."

*sigh*

I can dream...

[Sixwing]

*snrk* They wouldn't appreciate a friend's enamel samples being on old copper coinage, then, would they.

Dr ngo, probably when one uses the word "goddess," or any single god not adequately defined by conflation with the god of Abraham. (Which I'd think would be pretty much all of them aside from that the one that capital-G God is typically used to describe, honestly.)

On the flip side, if "In God We Trust" is non-sectarian and meaningless to the monotheists whose god it describes, as the claim goes, why on earth are people so invested in defending it? If it doesn't have a meaning to its defenders, and its meaning is hurtful to lots of people, there's really no reason not to replace it. (Except, you know, the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth about the loss of a privilege.)

[Froborr]

On the flip side, if "In God We Trust" is non-sectarian and meaningless to the monotheists whose god it describes, as the claim goes, why on earth are people so invested in defending it? If it doesn't have a meaning to its defenders, and its meaning is hurtful to lots of people, there's really no reason not to replace it. (Except, you know, the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth about the loss of a privilege.)

While that is probably the overwhelming majority of it, some people also just really, really hate changing anything, and will oppose any change by default unless the benefit is both large and obvious. I deal with this at work all the time, it's incredibly annoying.

[Lonespark]

My question is how someone who worships a single female god isn't a monotheist.

Yeah...

Also, Single Female God sounds like a sitcom title to me

This. I kinda thought it might be more like a dating show? Either way, it doesn't work with monotheism, unless you go outside our universe for colleagues/friends/potential dates.

[Froborr]

I dunno, the titular Single Female God could also be an avatar of a transcendent sole deity, or an Aeon or something, and all the other characters could be human.

But yeah, it would probably work better in a polytheistic setting.

[cjmr, who will probably figure out her typepad logon eventually]

A large number of the people who "really, really hate changing anything" about the money, were alive when the paper currency was changed to say "In God We Trust" (1957). But of course the money has *always* been that way. :P

[hapax]

Also, Single Female God sounds like a sitcom title to me

Now I'm thinking of a gender-flipped version of My Faith In Frankie. Except that Jeriven is such a pouty nebbish of a god that the project would be unbearably sexist (and now that I think of it, uncomfortably similar to I Dream of Jeannie*...)

*But then, Tony Nelson / Roger Healey would become canon, which would be WIN.

[Froborr]

@cjmr: Gah, tell me about it. Over at Permission to Live, which I just discovered and it's awesome, there's been this really loud homophobic, transphobic concern troll spewing crap about how one male parent, one female parent, and kids is "natural law" and the way families have worked for "tens of thousands of years" and all sorts of garbage trying to justify hir bigotry.

Not that it would be relevant if zie were right. *grumbles about number of people who don't understand the is-ought barrier*

[Robert Mathiesen]

I was eleven years old when they added "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, as a counter-move in the Cold War. I refused to say it with the added words then, and I have never done so since.

The thing with the money and the motto is much more complicated.

All of our early coins had a female head or full figure of Liberty, so named ("Liberty") on each coin, as well as the motto "E pluribus unum." In the 1860s, under political pressure from certain religious leaders, there was a serious push to declare the United States a Protestant Christian nation, amending the Constitution accordingly, and (in some outlying variants) to deprive non-Protestants of any rights of citizenship. This movement also pushed for changes in the design of our coinage, and actually succeeded in affecting the design of a very few new, experimental coins, such as the two-cent piece, which (1) added "In God We Trust" and (2) removed both the figure of the "Pagan Goddess" Liberty and the word "Liberty" (that is, Her name) from the design. The two changes went hand-in-hand.

Fortunately both the "Christian Amendments" and the new coins proved unpopular. They are now known chiefly to coin collectors and historians of religion, but the organizations that had pushed for them continued to survive in a small way, and at least one of them still exists today.

But in the early 20th-century the new motto ("In God We Trust") reappeared on some coinage together with another significant change, namely, replacing the image of Liberty with the head of some venerated past President: Lincoln first, next Jefferson and Washington, then F D Roosevelt and others. The word "Liberty" remained on our coins, but since it had become separated from the previous imagery, it was no longer associated with the figure on the coin as its proper name. Our modern "cult" (if I may characterize it as such) of the current President not just as the head of the Executive Branch, but as the nearly omnipotent leader and figurehead of the Nation, if not of the whole World, has developed slowly in step with these changes in coinage, especially during and after World War II.

Call me a cranky old contrarian, but I still regret that all those dead presidents have replaced Liberty on our coinage.

[Amaryllis]

A large number of the people who "really, really hate changing anything" about the money, were alive when the paper currency was changed to say "In God We Trust" (1957).
Well, I was alive then, but I can't say I noticed the change.

But the date reminded me of something else I read recently. In 1957, the National Rifle Association moved into a new building, displaying a motto at its entrance: "Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shooting for Recreation."

In 1997, the NRA moved into a new new building. And the motto at this one, as I'm sure no one will be surprised to hear, is “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.” Because the NRA has always been about defending our "Second Amendment Rights," which rights have always been understood to mean the right of anybody at all to carry as many guns as he can carry, any damn place he wants.

About the money, although I myself am a natural conservative, I would support removing the slogan, for all the reasons listed. But I'd probably miss the Great Seal, bizarre as it is, if that was gone. "A pyramid unfinished. In the zenith an eye in a triangle, surrounded by a glory, proper." You have to admit, it sounds cool.

"Annuit coeptis"? What does that mean again?

Let's see, according to Wikipedia, it means "our undertakings have been favored," quote, "leaving the reader to infer who or what was responsible for favoring such undertakings... had Congress wished to include the literal word "God" the correct translation would have been, "Deo Favente."

And furthermore, the phrase is from the Aeneid, from a prayer to Jupiter. Okay, then.

[MercuryBlue]

My question is how someone who worships a single female god isn't a monotheist.

Mea culpa. My initial phrase specified flavors of monotheism, and when I changed that I clearly made it overbroad. (Also, henotheism.)

Call me a cranky old contrarian, but I still regret that all those dead presidents have replaced Liberty on our coinage.

Especially since the category 'president of the US', at least thus far, excludes women, and the category 'dead president' excludes people of color, and both categories exclude lotsa people who contributed to the US but didn't happen to win federal election. Harriet Tubman has a lot more right to be on our money than President Trail of Tears.

If we bring back Liberty for the coins, though, can we also include other civic virtues personified? Justice? Progress? 'Cause that'd be cool.

[Nathaniel]

Its when I read statements like "In God We Trust has no religious meaning" I wonder if there are times when even the people writing these opinions know they are engaging in pandering bullshit.

[Robert Mathiesen]

I was actually a member of the NRA for about five years in the second half of the '50s, while I was in junior high school and high school in Berkeley, because I wanted to learn about guns and become skilled in their use. There was a full 22-caliber rifle range and an armory* in the basement of a high school near mine, just across the line in Oakland, and that was where we 'teens met once a week.

So I can speak from first-hand knowledge when I say that in the '50s gun ownership was much less controversial than it later became, once the peace movement really took off in the late '60s and the '70s. In the '50s the NRA saw no particular need to advocate very fiercely for gun ownership under the second amendment. Sure, the NRA did support wide-spread gun ownership, but so did a great majority of Americans in the '50s. Its primary focus, back then, was in something that took the second amendment for granted, namely, how to maintain your own guns and shoot them responsibly. With rights also came responsibilities, and they were there to teach responsible gun ownership and use. This was a worthy goal, given that hardly anyone questioned the right to own guns.

-----
* Also, for what it may be worth, the security was minimal at that high-school armory: just a few ordinary 5-pin pin-tumbler locks, not overly hard to pick if you happened to know the theory, and had a couple of coping-saw blades, a vise, and a file or two to shape the saw blades into a lock-pick and a tension wrench. There was no need for more security, way back then, and there was no anxiety about weapons in schools.

[gleomstapa]

My elementary school was big on peace (of both the interpersonal and world varieties) and down on nationalism and displays of power, so I never got an opportunity to say the Pledge of Allegiance until after I'd decided to leave out the "under God" part.

That chance came right after 9/11, when some school (different school) administrator decided that the occasion called for a school assembly. I don't remember what else happened in that assembly - just that we all stood in the gym and said the pledge, as we'd never done before, and I paused as everyone else said "under God" until we got around to "indivisible," and my silence simultaneously felt tiny, huge, and alienating. I don't think anyone noticed, and that almost made it worse.

It was such a weird assembly. What was the point? Did they think we would find solace or pride in being USians, saying words together that most of us weren't even thinking about at that point? What it felt like was an attempt to indoctrinate us into a side. That side, apparently, included God for everyone but me - and I did like the indivisible and liberty and justice bits, but no, that apparently wasn't enough.

After that day, I never said the pledge again.

[MercuryBlue]

Can the NRA go back to the 1950s please? Too many people die of 'but that gun wasn't loaded!'

Also, I've never questioned people's right to own guns. White-tail deer tend to take over the place if not kept in check, and I hear venison is tasty. I'll even concede, though I disagree on the necessity, that people have the right to own handguns for self-defense. It's people's right to own small armories I'm skeptical of, especially if the guns in question are designed to kill people, not game animals. And the scuffle over whether to restrict gun purchases to one a month indicates that when many people talk about Second Amendment rights, they mean the right to own a small armory.

[gleomstapa]

(It was doubly weird because at that time I didn't realize anyone actually honestly believed in God - I thought they just went to church because they had to - which meant that what I saw around me was hundreds of kids reciting an oath about something they didn't believe in as if they just didn't care at all, so long as they held up their end of the illusion. And even then, I took oaths seriously.)

[dr ngo]

Froborr, Sixwing, et al.: I am of the generation that had to learn that it was generally wrong to genderize professional titles, such as waitress, aviatrix (! I liked that one), authoress, etc. My wife is an actor, not an actress (unless she wins an Oscar); she belongs to Actors' Equity, not Actors & Actresses.

Thus I took "Single Female God" to include what once would have been, by less enlightened souls, referred to as "Goddess." ;}

[WingedBeast]

"On the flip side, if "In God We Trust" is non-sectarian and meaningless to the monotheists whose god it describes, as the claim goes, why on earth are people so invested in defending it? If it doesn't have a meaning to its defenders, and its meaning is hurtful to lots of people, there's really no reason not to replace it. (Except, you know, the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth about the loss of a privilege.)"

It's because of the shifting weight of meaning to the words. To most monotheists, the phrase is meaningless, as it doesn't distinguish between all the monotheists out there. In the same way that people say that it doesn't violate the 1st Amendment becuase it doesn't mention *which* god.

But, that meaninglessness suddenly adds on tons of weight in meaning the moment A. one can use God to demogogue for their particular issue or B. non-theists threaten one's privilige.

It's worth noting that one of the best measures of privilige is the ability to forget that non-priviliged people exist. That's why "In God We Trust" is simultaniously meaningless and something full of meaning to be fought for. When "everyone" doesn't include atheists and polytheists, then everyone believes in a god, so the motto means nothing. When those atheists and polytheists make ourselves known, we're suddenly encroaching upon soveriegn territory by wanting a national motto that doesn't explicitly exclude us.

As nontheists and polytheists we either don't visibly exist or we afflict the sociologically comfortable. It's the same reasoning behind any time somebody says they don't have a problem with a specific group so long as "they stay in their place", IOW "so long as I don't have to keep remembering they exist."

[Lonespark]

On the Pledge:

I very much enjoyed being a Toastmaster, but I didn't enjoy saying the Pledge of Allegiance at every meeting. AFAIK, I was the only one leaving out "under god." The Hindu guy always said it. He did treat mentions of God as non-sectarian references to a higher good. Even from Obnoxious RTC Lady, one of those people who sends you email about The True Meaning of Christmas. He was happy to take what people meant, or thought they meant, rather than what they actually said. I think that can work in certain groups with a certain level of mutual respect and comraderie, but I think it tends to make diversity less visible and less valued.

For me it was a good chance to practice non-confrontational discussion of a lot of things: marriage equality, the legal challenges facing minority religions, the actual history of the Puritan War on Christmas, racism in Sherlock Holmes books, etc. (I recall quoting Fred twice.)

[Izzy]

Yeah, I also prefer non-gendered words. Although I use "goddess" myself, because how I talk really has very little to do with my beliefs most of the time. (See also: swearing, and why Willow's uber-Wiccan profanities bugged the hell out of me.)

Didn't say the Pledge a whole lot, but I don't think it'd bother me to do it now, any more than it bothers me to say the Lord's Prayer or the Nicene Creed at various family weddings. I've never had a problem with keeping up my end of the illusion myself--and if the illusion shouldn't be kept up, enh, that's for another day, and you've got to pick your battles--because honesty is not generally a thing for me on a wider scale. Personal oaths and promises that I make of my own informed choice/free will are important; other stuff is just something to say because it makes my grandparents feel good, and I'm sure anything I'm personally devoted to will understand. Which is sort of where money falls for me too.

That said, I do think, as Lonespark says, that this sort of thing makes diversity less visible, and I understand why and how these things are significant to other people. And really, the fewer stupid rhetorical tools the fundies have, the better. So I think highlighting the issue rocks.

And I would totally watch Single Female God.

[Literata]

Dr ngo, I understand what you're talking about in terms of the dissociation of gender from job titles, but I think the situation in religion is justifiably different. I was raised with the argument that "God is beyond gender" and the implicit but overwhelming lesson that God was masculine, period. (I know some Christians and other monotheists are doing great work expanding ideas of deity in their groups; good on 'em.) So I don't accept that argument anymore; it tends to come either from the unaware - who don't or can't understand how degrading it is to hear time after time that I am not as close to God as men are - or from patriarchal apologists. (You asked a question, and didn't simply make an argument, so I'm not suggesting you belong to either category.) If people want to say God is beyond gender, then they ought to live up to it: start using Goddess equally, or, better yet, favor truly nongendered language like Deity, Power, Spirit, etc.

Also, henotheism, soft polytheism, and panentheism can all blur the mono- poly- theist border. Regardless, MB, your point is absolutely correct.

[Lonespark]

I mostly just think there's not particular reason to say "female god" when there's a perfectly good, concise, word for that. Whereas "male and female deities" works ok. And I do use terms like The Divine when I'm talking less about entities and more about God-stuff, power, spirit, genius, what have you.

On another level, gods and goddesses aren't men and women, and I don't think they're particularly male and female in the way we understand it. Obviously that goes triple for gods who are known in myth as transgender/genderbending/multi-gendered... But gods or goddesses who are associated with male or female human-ish or animal-like forms are often also associated with natural phenomena that pretty clearly transcend a gender label...

[Izzy]

@Lonespark: Good point. I'm okay with using gendered words when the gender actually matters: if you're distinguishing female v. male deities, "goddess" works.

I just twitch reflexively when gendered endings come up in discussion. Too much memory of ridiculous MUSHers using words like "bardess" and "warrioress" and just fucking kill me now.

[Lonespark]

"Warrioress?!?!" You are joking, right?
...
You're not joking?
Ugh.

[Literata]

No, they may not be male and female, or masculine and feminine, in ways we understand it, but they do present themselves that way, and/or are described that way. There's some truth to the idea that we create deities in our own images, and that most people want to relate to a deity they can partially identify with. For me, relating to goddesses has been a big part of that, so even if they are beyond gender or whatever, "god" as neutral doesn't fly for me any more than "he" as neutral does. Because then you go back to the distinction between marked and unmarked categories ("female god") and...yeah.

[Leum]

I don't say the pledge of allegiance, but not because of the "under God" part. I don't like it, but it doesn't seriously bother me. What does seriously bother me is that I'm being asked to recite, in public, a loyalty oath to my nation. What sort of country expects that of its citizens? My loyalty to my nation should be implicit, not something I have to reaffirm at every public meeting. Making young children recite every day is creepy beyond belief.

[Mike Timonin]

And I would totally watch Single Female God.

As would I. Friday night tv on that channel would be Kofi and T, followed by SFG, followed by "Small Business":

There was a story on NPR about the fetishisation of small businesses by American politicians, and the story pointed out that, while small businesses employ 65% of new hires, they also lay off a lot of people too. Small businesses open and hire a bunch of folks, but lots and lots of them close fairly quickly. So - a show, featuring a bunch of 20-30 somethings, employed in a series of increasingly odd small businesses, taking their absurd job skills to each new business they encounter. I envision conversations like "hey, weren't you working at Ronko's Pig Twaddlers?" "Yeah - you were next door at the Catch and Cook your own Eel shop, right?" A dark comedy for our times. The opening credits could be a mash up of politicians saying "small businesses are the engines of our economy...

[hapax]

FWIW, my children have never recited the pledge in school* -- and they've attended schools both on the East coast and now in the patriotic Amer-by-God-i-can heartland. Not because they've refused, but because their schools simply didn't do that. My children speculate that they simply didn't have time in their overstuffed school days.

I am hoping this indicates a welcome trend nationwide.

*Although hapaxson did recite the pledge in Boy Scouts, that's a voluntary association. I note that he displayed the exact same expression of "whatever, just make the mouth noises" that I see when we say grace before meals.

[Izzy]

Me, I'm...not that loyal, honestly. Not that I'd sell state secrets, if I knew any, but I don't have much sense of attachment to America as a concept. It's a place where I live; it works for me; I'm happy to pay my dues in the form of taxes and voting, just as I'm happy (okay, not *happy*) to pay rent and to clean my apartment; but I don't have any more emotional connection to my country than I do to my apartment building. Don't see why I should.

The West Wing makes me feel vaguely patriotic. Otherwise, nope.

Didn't have to say the Pledge after about fifth grade or so, myself. Before then, I had to say it along with the Lord's Prayer at Catholic school, and then along with the Earth Prayer (good intentions, Tastes Like Diabetes execution) at the Happy Hippy Elementary School where I went.

@Lonespark: Seeeeriously. So much hate.

[Froborr]

I would always pledge allegiance to Queen Fran and her mighty state of hysteria, personally. Most of my class did, I think.

[hapax]

"Warrioress?!?!"

Well, around these parts, the accent would make that pretty much indistinguishable from "Where your ass?", so I can't imagine anyone trying that without being shamed for life by the ensuing hoots and jeers.

[Reverie]

@ Mercury Blue

"Especially since the category 'president of the US', at least thus far, excludes women, and the category 'dead president' excludes people of color, and both categories exclude lotsa people who contributed to the US but didn't happen to win federal election. Harriet Tubman has a lot more right to be on our money than President Trail of Tears."

I remember loving it when the Alternate Universe in the TV show "Fringe" rather than Andrew Jackson had MLK Jr. on their bills. Little touch, but it made me smile.

[MercuryBlue]

MUST MOVE FRINGE UP THE WATCH LIST.

(sorry)

[Bruce]

I haven't been required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in more years than I care to count. But I do look forward to the day when there's nothing but silence in between "one nation" and "indivisible". And I hope it gets caught on YouTube and it goes viral. ;)

[cjmr, who will probably figure out her typepad logon eventually]

My Girl Scout troop doesn't say the Pledge at our meetings, because I don't say it. It is weird when we go to other GS events where everyone does. The homeschool Juliette GS co-op we also go to, wants the girls to say the Pledge at every meeting and I've managed not to have to explain myself at three meetings so far...

Before getting involved in GS-ing, I hadn't been anywhere that wanted the Pledge said in YEARS.

[sarah]

[[Izzy: Me, I'm...not that loyal, honestly. Not that I'd sell state secrets, if I knew any, but I don't have much sense of attachment to America as a concept. It's a place where I live; it works for me; I'm happy to pay my dues in the form of taxes and voting, just as I'm happy (okay, not *happy*) to pay rent and to clean my apartment; but I don't have any more emotional connection to my country than I do to my apartment building. Don't see why I should.]]

I'm in the same boat as you, here.

I like to say that the only time I'm vaguely patriotic is when I watch the Olympics. But then I think it's more about picking a team and being able to root for someone than anyone else.

[Sixwing]

Dr ngo, ah, I'm with you. :)

[storitellerb]

What does seriously bother me is that I'm being asked to recite, in public, a loyalty oath to my nation. What sort of country expects that of its citizens?

I don't believe the pledge should be said in schools. We said it in my school, but I never particularly liked it and just sort of went along with it. But there is a set of circumstances where I believe some form of it (without the "under God" part preferably) should be said, and that's when someone becomes a federal employee. Here's the oath all federal employees say now. (Again, it would be much better if they left out the "so help me God" part.) Ideally, what this oath reminds people of is that their job is not to obey their boss (even if he/she is the President) or just get done what they are told, but to serve the people of the United States. While most of the people I work with take that responsibility very seriously, we could use even more of it.

[dr ngo]

Back in 1961, working as an intern (they called us something different, but we were essentially cheap summer labor) in the Map Division of the Los Angeles County Assessor's Office, I had to sign this or a similar pledge. As I read it at the time, I was binding myself not to overthrow the government of the United States on company time. Which I felt able to do, and so did.

[Leum]

I specifically asked if I could leave out the "so help me God" on my oath when I was an intern with an agency. I was told I couldn't. Decided it wasn't worth fighting the battle over, so I signed it as written. Still annoyed me.

[Froborr]

I am a contractor, so have never been asked to say it. I would most definitely refuse to say "so help me God." Wouldn't make a big deal about it, just would leave it out when I said the oath/cross it out when I sign it. If somebody commented, then the big deal might begin, because I refuse to lie in such an oath.

When I was a witness in family court once, there was no mention of God when I was sworn in, unlike on TV. I was glad of that. As it turns out, I make a poor witness--unreliable memory, and easily intimidated/confused by aggressive questioning. I am also apparently a bad candidate for juror--I got as far as jury selection once, and the judge and both attorneys clearly thought I was [insert dismissive, derogatory term for the mentally ill here] just because my moral views forbid me from finding someone guilty if there is a possibility of prison time, whether I think they did it or not.

[Leum]

my moral views forbid me from finding someone guilty if there is a possibility of prison time, whether I think they did it or not.

Not to derail, but why? I don't think I've ever heard someone say that before and would be interested to know why you believe that. I know I would probably never make it to a jury because they'd be bound to turn up views like, "first-hand witness testimony is completely unreliable," "if a crime shouldn't exist, jury nullification is entirely appropriate" (hell, just "I know what jury nullification is" would probably suffice), "I have grave doubts about the accuracy of fingerprinting," and so on.

[MercuryBlue]

What is jury nullification?

[Mmy]

@MercuryBlue: What is jury nullification?

The extraordinary power of a jury to issue a verdict contrary to the law as applied to the proven facts.[Jury Nullification Definition]

This tactic (juries refusing to find people guilty even when the state has proved its case) has long been used as a method to either a) change what people think are unreasonable laws or b) to continue to let people ignore "the law" when that law violates community standards. So, it has been, historically, both a force for change that many approve of (the Zenger case in colonial America, Dr. Henry Morgentaler in Canada) and to uphold "de facto" separate and unequal legal systems that allowed those who terrorized and killed African-Americans to evade any sort of legal punishment.

[MercuryBlue]

*nodnod* Thanks

[Froborr]

@Leum: Because prisons do not rehabilitate, do not function as deterrents, and as a means of removing dangerous people from society, they are unnecessarily cruel. I regard them as completely immoral, and knowingly helping send someone to one is therefore an immoral act.

Also, yes, first-hand witness testimony is completely unreliable, but I never got as far as being able to say that. They did say that a police officer was a key witness and ask whether I would weigh his testimony differently from anyone else's, and I said I would ignore it. That probably did not help my likelihood of being selected.

[MercuryBlue]

And like we've just been discussing on Slacktivist, prison populations are skewed black, and prison populations are often used as unpaid laborers...