Non-oxy morons: Adding God to the Texas Pledge


How did I miss this folderol?

By: Riddle H.B. No. 1034

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the pledge of allegiance to the state flag.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 3100.101, Government Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 3100.101. PLEDGE. The pledge of allegiance to the state flag is: “Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God and indivisible.”
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

That’s right, kids! Texas, which complained of religious coercion in its Declaration of Independence from Mexico, now has a proposal to add “one state under God” to the Texas Pledge (where it now says “one and indivisible”).

It’s the sort of bill that generally gets bottled up and not acted on. Rep. Dianne Riddle, R-Houston, is playing to some constituency different from most Texans, but then, the entire lege has been doing that lately.

I don’t know what the status of the bill is. The bill was referred to the Committee on Culture, Recreation and Tourism in the House. A hearing on the bill was held on March 20, but so far the bill is still in committee. Alas, many yahoos have jumped on to cosponsor the bill.

Here’s a good analysis of how silly the proposal is, from Capitol Annex: “Legislation seeks to tamper with pledge.”

Tip of the old scrub brush to Prof. Howard Friedman at The Religion Clause.

More below the fold. Riddle also sponsors a bill to give the death penalty to child abusers, a move that would likely encourage child abusers to murder their victims, according to many observers.  From an editorial in the Austin American-Statesman on March 7:

Riddle is the Legislature’s queen of symbolic gestures. Besides the death penalty for pedophiles bill, she sponsored a measure to add “under God” to the pledge to the Texas flag and supported the slogan “In God We Trust” on the House message board. State Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, another culture warrior of some repute, headed the successful effort in the Senate to have “In God We Trust” permanently etched in the Senate chamber.

As with the death penalty provision for repeat child abusers, the references to God on message boards and in the pledge to the flag are difficult issues to oppose. They are the perfect symbols for election campaigns, and members oppose them only at peril to their political careers.

Politicians in Austin and Washington make their careers on such symbolic issues. In the end, it doesn’t matter much that a religious slogan is displayed on the message boards or added to the pledge to the flag. There’s no real damage in that.

8 Responses to Non-oxy morons: Adding God to the Texas Pledge

  1. Jamie True's avatar Jamie True says:

    Thinking that this is one nation under god is a logical fallacy. This is not one nation or one state or even one neighborhood under god if 100% of the country does not believe in god. There are 35 million atheists in the US. They need to stop trying to make our kids recite a lie.

    How would they feel if I got the government to allow me and other atheists to go into churches and insist that kids recite a pledge of non-allegiance to god? That is the equivalent of what this goofy, illogical, and illegal pledging practice is. Never mind that its also sacrilegious to pledge allegiance to a flag or a state (false idols) when you should only be pledging allegiance to god.

    If someone decides to be religious, they should know all the facts that surround it, not just listen to a zealot that will warp the truth to support their cause.

    Like

  2. Ed Darrell's avatar Ed Darrell says:

    I think Dr. Schultz is correct here:

    The problem lies when men try to revise history and destroy that which has been validated from this country’s inception.

    But I believe his accuracy suffers when he then proceeds to try to revise history and destroy that which has been validated from this country’s inception, as when he says:

    It was conceived as a Christian Republic. Seeking to remove Christianity from the public forum and institutions while also limiting the practice of Christianity is in essence an attack upon the United States itself for if the foundations are destroyed it cannot stand. History is replete with affirmations of this country being a Christian nation from the writings of the founders and even Supreme Court rulings. The current mad dash towards a secular/atheist/socialist country should bring to mind Nikita’s slip of the lip about destroying us without firing a shot. That can only happen through infiltration and it would appear that much of the humanist and Communist manifesto precepts have gained ground since the 60’s. Under God was only recently added to the national pledge in an attempt to cleanse it of its Communist roots. Whether we add or delete God from anything is insignificant in the long haul. The Founders asked God to have this country placed under the Christian God and His Son’s providence.

    All of that latter language is factually incorrect so far as I can determine.

    Like

  3. Houston Dave's avatar Houston Dave says:

    Neither party is the party of God. They both eat out of the same bowl. Dr. Schultz is still right though.

    Like

  4. Clay Potts's avatar Clay Potts says:

    Republicans control the State and National government. Is it only coincidence that America’s prominence in the world, its domestic tranquility and its war records have declined greatly? I don’t think so. So much for the Republican party being the party of God.

    Vote for honesty and integrity. Vote for a Democrat.

    Like

  5. The faith does not need validation by secular institutions. The faith has plenty of validation from before this country was even a gleam in the framers’s eyes. The problem lies when men try to revise history and destroy that which has been validated from this country’s inception. It was conceived as a Christian Republic. Seeking to remove Christianity from the public forum and institutions while also limiting the practice of Christianity is in essence an attack upon the United States itself for if the foundations are destroyed it cannot stand. History is replete with affirmations of this country being a Christian nation from the writings of the founders and even Supreme Court rulings. The current mad dash towards a secular/atheist/socialist country should bring to mind Nikita’s slip of the lip about destroying us without firing a shot. That can only happen through infiltration and it would appear that much of the humanist and Communist manifesto precepts have gained ground since the 60’s. Under God was only recently added to the national pledge in an attempt to cleanse it of its Communist roots. Whether we add or delete God from anything is insignificant in the long haul. The Founders asked God to have this country placed under the Christian God and His Son’s providence. He took them at their word and this country will always be under that providence. However, we must remember that like Israel He blessed them when they were obedient and appreciative of His providence but did not when they denied Him or rebelled against Him. Is it only a coincidence that as we have turned our backs on Him that our prominence in the world, our domestic tranquility and our war records have declined greatly? I don’t think so. We ask God to bless our nation. The polls and surveys show that most of us believe in God but we kick Him out of our schools, homes, government and so on. Sorry, but that is akin to asking the doctor that you just smacked in the face to please give you that shot you need to survive. God bless America? He can’t right now but would if we would return to our roots. Just adding the words under God to a public document is not enough. Shalom!

    Like

  6. mpb's avatar Pam says:

    Divisibility proof map http://ykalaska.wordpress.com/2006/03/31/where-in-alaska-relative-to-us-48/

    One thing I don’t understand about those who would add “under God” or the 10 Commandments, etc. is Why people would think their religion needs validation by a secular institution? If their belief needs mundane validation, it isn’t very strong to begin with (and how does one validate faith?). If the supreme being needs validation, then there must be something more supreme?

    Like

  7. Ed Darrell's avatar Ed Darrell says:

    Yes, but that “divisibility clause” is considered to have been mooted by Texas’ readmission after the Civil War. In any case, it’s pretty much a dead issue now.

    Though, from time to time, Alaskans who tire of Texas’ bragging about this thing or the other thing, threaten to split Alaska in half, making Texas the third largest state in the union in area.

    Like

  8. The Texas pledge has “one state and indivisible”? This is particularly ironic, since there is a clause, included in the admission of Texas to the Union, allowing it to divide itself into as many as five states if it so chooses.

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.