July 3, 2002
There is a simple and quite meaningful solution to the uproar over the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declaration on the congressionally modified (for purely political purposes) Pledge of Allegiance with its reference to a nation "under God"--let's all learn anew and recite regularly the preamble to the Constitution of the United States. The high school seniors in my first-period Advanced Placement American government and politics class have been doing just that for the past several years.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
January 26, 1992
Reader Max St. Yves ("Allegiance of Refugees Should Be to U.S.," Dec. 22) missed the point. Proper political representation can only be achieved if elected officials are sensitive to the aspirations of the community. Although there is no question that naturalized citizens should swear loyalty to the United States, only a hypocrite would claim he did not wish he could improve on the conditions in his native country. Sen. (Edward M.) Kennedy recently passed a bill tailored to facilitate the immigration of his Irish countrymen into this country.
March 31, 2004
When Francis Bellamy, the socialist Baptist minister, wrote the first version of the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892, he probably didn't envision it ever becoming a political issue. As a socialist, he was trying to encourage the nation's youth to embrace nationalism, most likely as a preliminary step to getting them to accept his socialist ideals. It is somewhat ironic to note the support that the pledge is often given by modern conservatives. I firmly agree with Pauli Peter (letter, March 29)
October 20, 2003
Re "Court Must Buck Political Pressure in Pledge Case," Commentary, Oct. 15: At first glance, Erwin Chemerinsky's argument about the need to leave out the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance seems fair. However, under scrutiny, the argument doesn't hold up. The main reason is that Chemerinsky smuggles in liberal assumptions that the writers of the Constitution never intended. When the framers of the Constitution wrote the 1st Amendment, the intention was never to remove religion from the public sphere; rather, it was simply to not have a particular denomination and, by extension, religion, be supported by the government.
June 28, 2002
Re "Pledge of Allegiance Violates Constitution, Court Declares," June 27: The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was absolutely right in its ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance. The phrase "under God" belongs there no more than "under Allah" or "under Isis." Religion is a private, sacred connection between an individual and his or her God or gods. Government has no right to intrude in any way on the very personal choice to worship a divine being or not to worship at all. Those who are threatening the family that brought the lawsuit are certainly not living up to the ideals of love and tolerance expressed in most religions.
January 13, 2002
Christopher Reynolds, always insightful, eloquent, concise and delightfully funny, has outdone himself with his article ("Looking Back, Going Forward," Dec. 30). His comment regarding the "remarkable bargain" that is "struck every time an American pledges allegiance" is the clearest description I've seen of what last year meant to us as Americans. Susan Spano's comment about how empty it was to have no airplanes in our night sky also struck a chord. Tears streamed down my face on the first night after Sept.
July 22, 2009 |
When a spiffy, $621-million visitors center opened at the U.S. Capitol last year, a number of lawmakers were taken aback by what they didn't see: the words "In God We Trust." Doing what members of Congress do when they're upset, Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Gold River) introduced legislation to get the words, along with the Pledge of Allegiance, etched into the walls of the complex.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
May 6, 1993
Pledge of Allegiance update: One nation under lobbyists--we should not blame God for our problems. DONALD W. GOTTSCHALK Arcadia