Prayer before Pledge of Allegiance

[Bob]

Watching CSPAN daily reminds me of the church / State proposition the left leans on.

Mostly to the left wingers, this is my question

Does Congress praying FIRST and next stating the pledge of allegiance bother you at all?

Is that putting church first and state second?

[southwest88]

Watching CSPAN daily reminds me of the church / State proposition the left leans on.

Mostly to the left wingers, this is my question

Does Congress praying FIRST and next stating the pledge of allegiance bother you at all?

Is that putting church first and state second?

No, I think the sequencing of prayer in Congress, then pledge of allegiance is traditional. (Of course, the pledge wasn't written until 1892. & it's been horsed with, in order to make it more in keeping with a 1950s CE notion of God & anti-Communism, & other mini-rants previously. The sequential changes have mostly been to the detriment of the original spirit of the thing, but that's the kind of argument you can hardly make anymore, when no one remembers past their own 10th birthday or so. & the changes to the pledge were to drench it in Godly language & spell out the US of A. as the republic to which I pledge - changes by committee, automatically get you a tin ear for language.)

It's also hard to say to what extent the prayer in US Congress invokes Yahweh. Although the majority of people in the US who profess a religious orientation claim Christianity, the same majority (last time I looked) professed to feel under threat somehow, for the rising forces of secularism & anti-Christianity, Modernity, Higher Criticism, evolution, heliocentric solar system, & on & on.

Yah, there's a lot of encrustation of language & mores in prayer - witness the now traditional styling of God as Lord - a confusion of titles, certainly, as the Creator of the Universe (& all universes everywhere, one supposes) is presumably far beyond the ken of any mere feudal vassal (I assume the language dates back to the King James Bible - very nice language, good resonance, & has echoed down through English literature. But the description by analogy king on Earth, king in the sky seems forced these days.)

The pundits & panjandrums on 24/7 news & elsewhere opine that the prayer & pledge in Congress are a kind of denatured Christian culture, & not really prayer. I tend to agree - it's mostly traditional, unless there's a hurricane, or flooding, or some other natural or human disaster to hand. Then the prayer segment takes on more reality. Otherwise, the pledge, even inoculated as it is with God talk & perhaps a defensive nationalism, typically seems more Worldly than prayer - although that may be the usual outcome, too, in the halls of power. No doubt if the two were recited in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican, the weighing would be different.

[sachem]

I don't think they should do either one.

[Peter1469]

I don't get spun up over silly stuff.

[Bob]

No, I think the sequencing of prayer in Congress, then pledge of allegiance is traditional. (Of course, the pledge wasn't written until 1892. & it's been horsed with, in order to make it more in keeping with a 1950s CE notion of God & anti-Communism, & other mini-rants previously. The sequential changes have mostly been to the detriment of the original spirit of the thing, but that's the kind of argument you can hardly make anymore, when no one remembers past their own 10th birthday or so. & the changes to the pledge were to drench it in Godly language & spell out the US of A. as the republic to which I pledge - changes by committee, automatically get you a tin ear for language.)

It's also hard to say to what extent the prayer in US Congress invokes Yahweh. Although the majority of people in the US who profess a religious orientation claim Christianity, the same majority (last time I looked) professed to feel under threat somehow, for the rising forces of secularism & anti-Christianity, Modernity, Higher Criticism, evolution, heliocentric solar system, & on & on.

Yah, there's a lot of encrustation of language & mores in prayer - witness the now traditional styling of God as Lord - a confusion of titles, certainly, as the Creator of the Universe (& all universes everywhere, one supposes) is presumably far beyond the ken of any mere feudal vassal (I assume the language dates back to the King James Bible - very nice language, good resonance, & has echoed down through English literature. But the description by analogy king on Earth, king in the sky seems forced these days.)

The pundits & panjandrums on 24/7 news & elsewhere opine that the prayer & pledge in Congress are a kind of denatured Christian culture, & not really prayer. I tend to agree - it's mostly traditional, unless there's a hurricane, or flooding, or some other natural or human disaster to hand. Then the prayer segment takes on more reality. Otherwise, the pledge, even inoculated as it is with God talk & perhaps a defensive nationalism, typically seems more Worldly than prayer - although that may be the usual outcome, too, in the halls of power. No doubt if the two were recited in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican, the weighing would be different.

I am not 100 percent on board with your super excellent post but as I am hinting, i appreciate your commentary of which parts I agree. Thanks a lot. Great job.

[Green Arrow]

I don't think the "Pledge if Allegiance" should be a thing. The founders never established something like that. It screams of fascism, which is ironic considering it didn't even exist until 1942.

[Chris]

I don't think they should do either one.

@Green Arrow, post of the day!!!

[PattyHill]

I don't think they should do either one.

Agree

[Bob]

I don't think the "Pledge if Allegiance" should be a thing. The founders never established something like that. It screams of fascism, which is ironic considering it didn't even exist until 1942.

I could see taking it out if they revoked both the 16th and 17th amendments, both much more harming.

[Bob]

Agree

Why Patty since both do no harm?