Christian lawyer gets his panties in a bunch over historical display of Pledge without “under God.”

I’m told by many Christians that their insistence on keeping the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance isn’t an issue of trying to force their religion down everyone else’s throat, but actually an issue of history. The words have “historically” been there so they should remain there, they argue. All the while ignoring the fact that the words were not part of the original Pledge and weren’t inserted until some 60 years after it was initially published. Still, if it’s really a historical issue then you’d think that there shouldn’t be a problem with a historic display of a copy of the Pledge which was published prior to the 1954 change which inserted these two divisive words. For at least one Christian lawyer by the name of Jim Hertz down in Frankfurt, Illinois it seems the issue isn’t about history at all. He’s upset that the Frankfort Village library, which has just such a display, doesn’t include a note indicating why the words “under God” are omitted and he finds the historical display to be offensive and “intellectually dishonest.” He wants the library to either include such a note or replace the “outdated” display with a current version. So far the library has refused to do either, but the staff are more than happy to answer questions about the display when asked including why the words are missing. It seems poor Jim is the first person to complain about it.

Under God absence stirs library debate – The Daily Southtown

Hertz, a lawyer, said he has offered to donate to the library a framed copy of the Pledge of Allegiance that has the words “under God.”

“(Library officials) pretty much told me they would accept the donation but probably sell it at a fundraiser,” he said. “I also pointed out to them that I found their copy of the pledge for sale for $5 on what I would call anti-Christian Web sites.”

If the board refuses to do either, he said he might run for the library board in the spring.

“We might put together a slate of candidates who will better reflect the wishes of the people of Frankfort,” Hertz said. “It seems to me (library trustees) they are not meeting the wishes of the people by not posting a corrected copy of the Pledge of Allegiance. In my opinion, the board is not taking this very seriously.”

We’re sorry, Jim, but sometimes it’s difficult to take overly zealous folks like yourself all that seriously. Surely there are more important things you could be wasting your time on than persecuting a library because it’s displaying a historical document you disagree with. Oh, that’s right, there’s little that’s more important than ensuring your religion is properly endorsed by the government as much as possible.

14 thoughts on “Christian lawyer gets his panties in a bunch over historical display of Pledge without “under God.”

  1. What’s this world coming to?  Historical documents in a library?  Oh, the horrors.

    It’s bad enough they’re trying to rewrite history, do they really feel the need to purge it altogether?

  2. Oh lets call a spade a spade…

    Historical Revisionism.

    Feh! Why is it that most Xtians are so insecure in their faith that they feel the need to make everyone think the same as them lest they be tempted to stray?

    Seriously, what scares this nutjob so much that history needs to be censored?

  3. For at least one Christian lawyer…

    More could be on the way. Last week one of the cable channels (CNN?) interviewed Jerry Falwell, who was announcing his plan to establish a Christian Law School or a law school for Christians. J.F. indicated that graduates of his school would have to pass the bar exam – just like atheists.

    Even if J.F.‘s school doesn’t receive ABA accreditation, it’s graduates would be able to practice provided they pass the state bar examination.

  4. Hertz, who has lived in Frankfort for a year, said he found the outdated version, with no note indicating it was not the current version, to be offensive and “intellectually dishonest.”

    If the document is not identified as historic, it is an odd omission (as if a list of Constitutional amendments didn’t include anything after 1954).  If it is, in fact, dated (which the story seems to imply it is not), then Hertz is a goofball.

  5. The article *does* note that it’s an old, historic print, would should certainly let someone infer that it’s not meant to describe the Pledge as it stands.

  6. Someone should tell Mr. Hertz, “If he’s so excited about religion, why doesn’t he fly a plane into a masque, or the library?” 
    Extremism is a dangerous thing in he hands of simple people.

  7. We all know that the words were inserted in 1954, so it certainly is a historical document.  But doesn’t anybody wonder why they refuse to post the updated version?  Whay are they so adimit about posting the pre-1954 version exclusively?  If the library kept a copy of the constitution published prior to any ammendments, and refused to accept the current version, wouldn’t you wonder what was going on?  Unless this library were completely unaware of the post-1954 pledge (unlikely and pothetic for a library), then the only other conclusion would be that the board is bias.  I don’t think the lawyer is upset about the fact that the old pledge exists.  He is upset that the library has rejected the new one, because of two words – “under God”.  If that doesn’t show prejudice, I don’t know what does.

  8. Why is it that most Xtians are so insecure in their faith that they feel the need to make everyone think the same as them lest they be tempted to stray?

    Well John,
    If we were insecure, we would stay home and keep quite.  We are obviously very confident in our beliefs to be challenging the mainstream.  A good example of a religion that is insecure is the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Their members are not permitted to even socialize with any non-JW’s.  Why?  Because the Jehovah’s Witnesses have changed and manipulated the real Bible that Christians use.  If a JW comes to my door and discovers that I am a Christian, they are trained to leave immediately.  That is insecure.  Christian’s are confident, because what we beleive is the truth.  We don’t want to MAKE anyone share in our belief.  That would defeat the purpose.  We share it because it’s good news.  We stand up for things like the pledge and protecting marraige (preventing same-sex marraige), because we are secure in our faith.
    A closing question: Why are people so offended by Christians caring?  I have never been upset at anyone for sharing something they felt was important.  I would question their character if they did not.

  9. We don’t want to MAKE anyone share in our belief.

    In that case, Josh, no one should be MADE to say “under God” or MADE to conform to YOUR ideas of marriage.

  10. “Religions are conclusions for which the facts of nature supply no major premises.”

    —Ambrose Bierce, Collected Works (1912)
    (Quoted at the top of this webpage.)

    Obviously does not believe that the Christian religion is true.

    “SATAN, n. One of the Creator’s lamentable mistakes, repented in sashcloth and axes. Being instated as an archangel, Satan made himself multifariously objectionable and was finally expelled from Heaven. Halfway in his descent he paused, bent his head in thought a moment and at last went back. “There is one favor that I should like to ask,” said he.
    “Name it.”
    “Man, I understand, is about to be created. He will need laws.”
    “What, wretch! you his appointed adversary, charged from the dawn of eternity with hatred of his soul—you ask for the right to make his laws?”
    “Pardon; what I have to ask is that he be permitted to make them himself.”
    It was so ordered.”

    …Yet he believes that Satan exists. ( strictly a biblical character) .
    P.S. The Bible does not say that the angels were created before man.  In fact it is much more likely that they were created after man.

    —Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary

    “Under the rules of evidence as they now exist in this country, no single assertion in the Bible has in its support any evidence admissible in a court of law. It cannot be proved that the battle of Blenheim ever was fought, that there was such as person as Julius Caesar, such an empire as Assyria. “

    —Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary

    Does this guy seriously think that Julius Caesar did not exist…or even Assyria?  I’m starting to question his credibility.

    P.S. Contrary to Bierce’s remarks, the Bible is the one of the most well supported historical document of it’s time.  To reject it on the basis of evidence would be to reject nearly all of history.  Even things you read in the newspaper this morning.


  11. Wow, Josh, what a cogent and incisive retort to my comment.  We’ll have to add this to the over three hundred proofs of God’s existence:


    (1) Ambrose Bierce did not believe the Christian religion to be true.
    (2) But he believed that Satan exists.
    (3) And he said silly things about Caesar and Assyria, too.
    (4) Therefore, God exists.

  12. We’ve been over the argument that the Bible is one of the most well supported historical documents bullshit argument before on this site. I’m not going to rehash it again here. Hit the archives, Josh. Your claim is bullshit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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