Semi-clueless Republican calls Francis Bellamy an atheist.

Over at they’ve posted a transcript of Rep. Ron Paul’s (MD) speech in which he urges his fellow representatives to support the Pledge Protection Act (HR 2028) that he cosponsored. It’s full of the usual bluster and misinformation we’ve come to expect from the idiots that support this sort of legislation including the implication that this bill is pro-states rights even though its focus is very narrowly limited to a single issue, but it also contains a very enlightening example of how the same person can both have a clue and be clueless at the same time:

Ironically, the author of the pledge of allegiance might disagree with our commitment to preserving the prerogatives of state and local governments. Francis Bellamy, the author of the pledge, was a self-described socialist who wished to replace the Founders’ constitutional republic with a strong, centralized welfare state. Bellamy wrote the pledge as part of his efforts to ensue that children put their allegiance to the central government before their allegiance to their families, local communities, state governments, and even their creator! In fact, the atheist Bellamy did not include the words “under God” in his original version of the pledge. That phrase was added to the pledge in the 1950s.

Paul’s quite correct that Bellamy wouldn’t have been happy with the change to the Pledge that added the words “under God” as he wasn’t happy with the other changes that occurred while he was alive such as making the pledge specifically to the flag “of the United States of America” as he had intended this pledge to be usable by any nation. He’s also largely correct on the sort of government that Bellamy wanted to see America turn into, which is part of what makes a Republican defending a Pledge originally written by a socialist so ironic. So how could someone who’s so clued in on what Bellamy would have wanted also be so clueless about the fact that Bellamy was a Christian Socialist and a Baptist minister? I suspect Paul’s apparent ignorance of this fact is more a matter of political convenience that actual lack of knowledge. It’s a much easier sell to his argument to his fellow Christians if he can convince them Bellamy was one of those evil atheists than if he admits that Bellamy was a fellow Christian. After all, what’s a little white lie if it helps to ensure the national pledge continues to contain an implied endorsement of belief?

3 thoughts on “Semi-clueless Republican calls Francis Bellamy an atheist.

  1. Thanks for your comment about how Congressman Ron Paul recently misinformed Congress while speaking for the Pledge Protection Act.  His errors about Francis Bellamy, author of the Pledge of Allegiance, include the claim that Bellamy was an atheist. Bellamy was a religious wacko (more on that below and at ).

    I was the first one to call their attention to their error, and a google search or google news search for “the atheist Bellamy” shows only my correction along with the error that is maintained at Rockwell’s site (and another mistaken website that linked to LewRockwell).

    I have communicated with Rep. Paul and asked him to correct the errors, however the errors are still at Rep. Paul’s official website

    I also alerted Lew Rockwell to the errors, however the errors are still repeated on at

    After Mr. Rockwell was alerted to the errors, he wrote that he would not print these corrections, he did not deny them, and he persisted in posting
    the errors on his website.  I then asked Mr. Rockwell to convey to Rep. Paul (and to everyone who prints Rep. Paul’s errors) my standing challenge to publicly debate their errors, and their knowledge of the history of the pledge, and their views about the pledge today.

    So far, neither party has had the guts to take up my challenge and they both seem headed for defeat.  Hearing nothing within a week, I will announce my victory (by default).

    I have personally met Rep. Paul and I admire him.  I supported him and voted for him when he was the presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party. I hope that Rep. Paul will speak again in Congress and tell the true history of the Pledge and display photographs of the original pledge for all Congressmen and for all Americans to see.

    Does any public official have the guts to do it?  Does any media or website that prints Rep. Paul’s errors have the guts to do it?

    I hope Rep. Paul will change his mind and oppose the pledge, and oppose government schools.

    Bellamy was not an atheist. Far from it. Bellamy was a preacher, and a member of the Society of Christian Socialists, and was expelled from the
    ministry for giving speeches such as “Jesus the Socialist” (finding a copy of that speech is harder than finding photos of the original Nazi-style salute to the flag).

    So, Bellamy was theistic and he was a religious wacko.

    According to Bellamy’s granddaughter, he would have resented the addition of the words “under God” in 1954.  Research indicates that she might be incorrect.

    While it is true that the first pledge did not contain the phrase “under God,” the accompanying articles for the first Pledge program did contain
    many religious references. A historic discovery may have just been made in that the phrase “under God” is in Bellamy’s original article/speech next to the first Pledge (Youth’s Companion, September 8, 1892, and see the article therein “The Meaning of the Four Centuries”).

    A recent search of the internet indicated that the above webpage is the only source on the internet for Bellamy’s scary speech.

    It seems like an oversight that the phrase “under God” was not in the original pledge. In that sense, there is no “secular” Pledge of Allegiance
    and there never was. Bellamy was a self-proclaimed national socialist and the purpose of the pledge was to promote a government takeover of education, and to eliminate all of the better alternatives, in order to create an
    “industrial army” (a Bellamy term) openly modeled on the military to nationalize the economy and establish a utopian society of Christian
    socialism, as described in the book “Looking Backward” by Edward Bellamy, cousin and cohort of Francis. The pledge was a prayer for a utopian society of Christian socialism even before it was explicitly deified in 1954. The Bellamy ideas were dystopian hell here and abroad.

    Bellamy claimed that he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there. However the legacy of his government takeover of education was racism and segregation imposed by law and taught as official policy in government schools. It was behavior later displayed by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.  The racism and segragation in government schools continued even after WWII and into the ‘60s, even beyond.  Bellamy never told anyone to leave government schools “because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.”

    Those schools still exist to this day.  Bellamy was a bigot.

    Edward Bellamy’s book was an international bestseller and influenced the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (62 million killed), the People’s Republic of China (35 million killed), and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (21 million killed). (Death tolls from the book “Death by Government” by Professor R. J. Rummel).

    Believe it or not, “our” pledge was the origin of the salute of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

    The original single right arm salute was no less worshipful idolatry then if the left arm had been extended also. That is the mentality that led to its adoption by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The claim that it was an old Roman salute is a myth.

    The right hand over the heart is no less worshipful idolatry then if the left hand were crossed over the right, in another clearer position of prayer.

    In 1942 Congress officially recognized the Pledge, but gave it the modern and-over-the-heart gesture. There is probably one overriding reason why
    Congress interfered: to make everyone drop the straight-arm salute, which
    was becoming very embarassing and very revealing.

    Congress’ 1954 act deifying the national socialist’s pledge should not have
    been a choice between “theistic socialism” or “atheistic socialism,” but Congress compounded its 1942 mess in government schools with the 1954
    tweaking. A choice between two evils is still evil. Through bizarre ignorance, the updated pledge’s deification of government is more accurate in paying homage to Bellamy’s monstrous establishment of theistic socialism.

    Another error in Honorable Ron Paul’s comment is “Today, most Americans who support the pledge reject Bellamy’s vision and view the pledge as a
    reaffirmation of their loyalty to the Framers’ vision of a limited, federal republic that recognizes that rights come from the creator, not from the state.”

    Most Americans support the socialist’s pledge and support Bellamy’s vision of a massive government-school monopoly, as well as the social security system and other widespread socialism.  Bellamy has succeeded in duping even Republican Congressmen into boastfully reciting the socialists pledge, supporting his government schools, social security and massive spending. One reason for that is because Bellamy’s government-school monopoly taught most
    Americans and most Congressmen propaganda about the pledge, and cajoled everyone into robotically chanting it daily on cue from the government, like Pavlov’s lapdogs of the state.

    Also, most Americans and most Congressmen have never seen the rare photos of the pledge.  Government schools never show them.

    The separation of school and state is as important as the separation of church and state. The government should not run Sunday school, nor Monday school through Friday school.

    On September 27th, the U.S. Supreme Court will confer about a case urging that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.  The case is Wonschik v. U.S. and I have filed an Amicus Brief in that case.

    Wonschik might end the “Pledge Protection Act” before the act starts. It is a race to see which happens first.

    A motion to recuse might result in the recusal of the entire U.S. Supreme Court. The motion expands arguments that resulted in the recusal of Justice
    Scalia. It is the first time in history that a motion to recuse addressed each Justice. The motion to recuse discusses the history of the Pledge and the Court’s segregation cases.

    Let’s restore the pledge to its pre-1892 version.

  2. By the way, I hope you will encourage your readers to tell Rep. Paul and Lew Rockwell that you are aware of my standing challenge to publicly debate their errors, and their knowledge of the history of the pledge, and their views about the pledge today.  Ask them if they have accepted my debate challenge, if they have corrected the glaring “atheist” error, and if not, then why don’t they have the guts to do so?

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.