ChristiansUnite Forums

Texans vote to add 'God' to state pledge 
Bill sponsor says it reflects support for acknowledging heritage

The Texas Legislature is swimming upstream in a cultural climate that frequently denigrates the mention of "God" in public, voting to add the words "under God" to the Texas state pledge.

The 124-12 vote sent the proposal sponsored by Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, to the state Senate, where supporters say it isn't expected to have significant opposition.

"Since the time of the founding of the United States through modern times, the presence and influence of God has been intrinsically associated with the political and social culture of the United States ... (the bill) will acknowledge our Judeo-Christian heritage by placing the words 'under God' in the state pledge," according to an analysis by the state House.

A report from WFAA television noted that since 2003, public school students have been required to say the U.S. and Texas pledges and observe a minute of silence each day. They are excused if their parents make the request.

Dave Welch, a spokesman for the Houston Area Pastors Council said his organization has supported the change because it reflects "a firm belief" held by a majority of Texans.

Riddle, the author of the plan, told WND that 105 other state representatives signed onto the plan as authors or co-authors, documenting the widespread support for the effort to make the Texas pledge align closely with the national Pledge of Allegiance, which still includes "one nation under God," despite several lawsuits that have been aimed at editing the statement.

"We believe the vast majority of Texans will appreciate this," she said. "People as a whole generally appreciate our heritage, people as a whole appreciate being able to say in their pledge we are indeed one nation under God."

Welch said there was only minor opposition, from several who raised the issue of "multiculturalism."

The change would make the Texas pledge read: "Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God and indivisible."

State records show the state legislature created the pledge in 1933.

Contributors to an Austin blog expressed both support and opposition.

"Thank God! I hope this passes," wrote Jimmy Croy. "The phrase 'separation of church and state' does NOT exist in the Constitution and has been exploited for so long that it's nearly a crime to believe. Look at the condition of our nation! Society is full of the 'what can you do for me' mentality. We need to acknowledge God is in control of everything and humble ourselves."

But "Ron" wrote, "In a time of such division and trouble facing our society, why on Earth are we excluding people from pledging allegiance to our state and nation? We need to work to be MORE inclusive people. There's something seriously wrong here."

"Danny R" added, "I am so proud to be a Texan. I just hope all of the malcontents that aren't so proud won't let the door hit them on their backsides on their way out of Texas!!"

A California man, Michael Newdow, had sued over the inclusion of "under God" in the national pledge, but his claims were rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on technical grounds. He has since re-launched his efforts to have the words removed from the national pledge.

Newdow, a self-described atheist, said he did not want to third-grade daughter to have to listen to the phrase "under God" in a public school.

But five justices found Newdow did not have the legal standing to bring the case. He never married the child's mother, and she has expressed support for having "under God" in the pledge.

"To give the parent of such a child a sort of 'heckler's veto' over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase 'under God,' is an unwarranted extension of the establishment clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance," Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in rejecting Newdow's appeal.

In his new case, Newdow has been joined in the suit by three families who include atheists and claim they are offended "to have their government and its agents advocating for a religious view they each specifically decry."