"One Nation, Under God"

[SimpleMind]

Every morning I am told, in a PUBIC SCHOOL, to stand up and say that I live in a country under a God in which I do not believe. I find it offensive, and definitely toeing the line between Church and state.
For debate: Should "under God"be kept in the Pledge, and why do you think it was added in the first place in the 1950s?

[Beto]

I must apologize for the latest tone of my posts, which is probably derived from a misundertanding as to what exactly is being discussed. Let's try to clear this up.

I think I understand what you mean but I am not sure.

I hear you saying that you object to the pledge because of the fact that
1.) You don't believe in God, and
2.) You think that acknowledging the Christian heritage of our nation is toeing the line between church and state.??

Even though you're addressing SimpleMind, I'll comment anyway, if it's alright with you.

First off, what is the "pledge of allegiance" all about? Do we agree that the pledge is, simply put: "A promise or oath of allegiance to the United States and to its national flag"? Does a pledge of allegiance have to, or should, imply the recognition of the nation's religious background? The main question here is "does it have to"? Is one's allegiance to a nation necessarily tied to any particular "faith", or is it completely unrelated? Do we agree that a person can be a fervorous Catholic and not in the least bit patriotic? In the same manner, do we agree that an atheist can be very patriotic, and still recognize the nation's religious background (good or bad)? Both instances prove the relation is unwarranted.

I need to apologizet to Beto. I came across too strong. I think we are deadlocked. He said it is not his country, so I don't know if he means he lives somewhere else or that he is not a US Citizen.

Your gesture is very gracious and appreciated. I too am sorry for my "passionate" argumentation.

I'm Portuguese, and I honestly think the U.S. has many shortcomings (as does Portugal), but I can't imagine my life without its exports, so I naturally wish that all its citizens can fully enjoy what I perceive as "freedom", religious or "simply" intellectual.

I respect your right to believe in God or not believe in God. The amazing thing about the constitution is that while the writers clearly acknowledged one God, - not Shiva- or Vishnu, or Allah -- they clearly wanted to make sure that religious liberty was protected.

My opinion is that the writers of the Constitution did indeed protect religious liberty. And they did this by remaining totally neutral. Like I mentioned earlier, this neutrality was trampled upon, when "Under God" was added later, under a climate of fear over "atheistic communism". You seem to think that the current position of the Constitution, is the same as it was before the ammendment, and in agreement with the views of the founding fathers. Is this the case? Are you assuming the founding fathers simply "forgot" about "God" when writing the Constitution?

The point was not to take all religion out of the government-- but rather to not have the government impose a specific religion to be the state church, like the Anglican Church in England, which they rejected, and was why many of the first pilgrims came- to flee religious persecution in Europe.

Before the ammendment the position of the government was much like how Portugal is now. By not saying anything about religion, the government is what the citizen is, as long as the liberties of another individual aren't violated. So, to an atheist the government is atheist, and to a Catholic the government is Catholic. Do you see where I'm getting at? In all honesty, this position has been somewhat challenged as of late. For example, the Catholic church was allowed to broadcast a very Catholic christmas message, in governmental tv network. This also violates the religious neutrality intented in our own constitution. As you can imagine, there is some controversy around this, nowadays.

I think we agree that religious freedom means that the Muslim and the Buddhist and the Christian, and the atheist, and the Jehovah's Witness can practice their religion and all have the same basic liberties, to vote, to buy/own property, to get a driver's license, to have the same access to public education, or to attend a private school of their religious beliefs, or to home school, to run for public office, to keep and bear arms, and so on.

Yes, we agree on that. Realistically, however, "religious freedom" is only as good as the people, not the government, allow it to be, and I'm not seeing an atheist become president in the U.S. any time soon, however great is governing competence may be. This might be thought of as an extreme, but as long as the extreme is not achieved, "religious freedom" remains an abstract concept with different degrees of implementation. As it is, it's fairly good, but like I mentioned earlier, "religious freedom" is not the main issue being focused.

My point about Beto before, possibly not living in the US is that he claims that those who don't say the pledge are denied liberties. Maybe being in the Boy scouts, because they believe in God, but it doesn't keep one from voting, or joining the military or being patriotic, or being proud of America nor has he even given us any examples of these rights that are denied.

I approach the matter realistically, not as it should be, or as the government says it should be. Realistically, children that don't want to say the pledge (because the parents don't want to, and they have as much right as religious people to orient their children according to their own convictions) are asked to leave the classroom while the others pledge their allegiance to the nation. One doesn't have to be a psychologist to understand the implications of this. And this reverts to the issue at hand. Why is "allegiance" connected to "religion" in the pledge, if this wasn't even the intention of the original writers of the Constitution?

If you don't agree with the pledge because of the phrase about one nation under God, by all means don't say the pledge. It isn't like if you refuse, you will put on some list and then denied entrance to a liberal university, or there will be a red flag by your SAT scores.

People that believe in the intended religious neutrality of the original Constitution (and what makes the current pledge unconstitutional) have every right to fight for it.

As you have seen by now, students get teased because of the brand of shoes they wear, K-Mart jeans, or some off-brand, and to say that this is what happens to Jehovah's witnesses who also don't say the pledge is well, really, really a moot point. What about kids who play in the band.??? icon_confused2

Have you ever heard any jokes about band geeks??? Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
What about just plain nerds? Think kids who dress funny, or whose parents are poor?
What about dumb jocks??? Have you ever heard of anyone being teased or "labeled" because they were the star of the football team but were in remedial math.??? icon_blink
What about a Christian girl or guy who is in the university and gets heckled publicly by the professor because they refuse to believe frog to professor Darwinian Evolution. Do you think the student who refuses to say the pledge has it any worse than that? Think

To me, all that seems beside the point. As far as I know, the Constitution remains neutral to all these matters.

I seriously doubt whether Goat or Beto or Achilles or Confused are really too concerned about what others think regarding their deep beliefs.

What I don't like is having my deep... convictions... misrepresented. I'm sure you understand the difference.

Most of the intelligent atheists I know are pretty secure in their atheism... Wink Wink Some aren't and they end up becoming Christians. hehehe. The case can be made for the Christians as well. Some of them end up becoming atheists or Jews.

It takes all sorts, I guess.

Here's another way to look at it. So, say some one gives you some grief about not "being patriotic". Ask them what being patriotic means. Tons of people of all different walks of life have left countries, and their families and culture to come to America because no other country offers more religious freedom along with so many other benefits and opportunities, lower taxes, great education, good medical care, opportunities to start a business, etc, other than Canada.

Is this not the heart of the matter? The implication in the revised (and I can't stress this enough) pledge that to be patriotic, one has to either believe in gods... or fake it?

So ask yourself..."What's the worst that will happen if you don't say the pledge?" You may have someone say you're an atheist or Jehovah's witness. icon_confused2 d'oh! So, aren't you that already.

It's the principle of the thing. How many times do we stand up to our convictions, even when nothing much is gained or lost, beyond our intellectual integrity?

Then ask yourself the alternative??? What other country could I live in that is atheist/communist, and are the benefits of living there worth more than all the opportunities and advantages of living in the states.

That remains irrelevant to the question of "patriotism". The alternative is simple... change the pledge to its original form, like the founding fathers wrote it.

So the part about "Under God" was added in the 50's to counter against the atheism of the Cold War and Russia.

See? Attrocious misrepresentation of the whole philosophy, right there. That's what a straw man is, and I'm sure you don't mean to use them in your argumentation. How does "lack of belief in deities" relate to the animal drives that have always generated war and suffering? Can you prove there's a correlation? Don't you agree that the leaders of "atheist communism" tend to deify themselves, or the state? It's just a different form of "worship", and not in the slightest bit similar to what is seen today in secular european nations.

The bottom line is that the constutition doesn't say anything about separation of church and state, but you still have religious liberty to practice whatever religion you want. Say the pledge if the peer pressure is too great. If if isn't, then don't say the pledge.

The pledge is about "allegiance", and it should focus only on that, so no convictions are needlessly violated in the process, as it was meant to be. For the sake of argument, suppose the pledge said something like "one nation, for white people, etc..." So if you're black and you don't like the pledge, don't say it? Any way you slice it, the pledge is discriminating people, and I'm sure that's not what the founding fathers wanted.

[4gold]

Every morning I am told, in a PUBIC SCHOOL, to stand up and say that I live in a country under a God in which I do not believe. I find it offensive, and definitely toeing the line between Church and state.
For debate: Should "under God"be kept in the Pledge, and why do you think it was added in the first place in the 1950s?

Yes, "under God" ought to be kept in the Pledge. While I know that you find it offensive, I have found that offensive reactions are not enough legal reason to reject something in the US. I find tax dollars being spent on abortions to be highly offensive, but being offended by it does not make it any less legal.

"Under God" was written in the 1950s to present the US as a nation opposed to the godless Communists, if my history recollection is correct.

Unlike several others, I do not believe the US was ever intended to be formed as a secular form of government. I do not believe there was even one secular founding father, meaning there was not a single founding father who wanted religion to be completely separate from the state. What the founding fathers intended, I believe, is a government where Judeo-Christianity was the predominant religion, but that no one sect of Judaism or Christianity was superior to another.

[McCulloch]

Unlike several others, I do not believe the US was ever intended to be formed as a secular form of government. I do not believe there was even one secular founding father, meaning there was not a single founding father who wanted religion to be completely separate from the state. What the founding fathers intended, I believe, is a government where Judeo-Christianity was the predominant religion, but that no one sect of Judaism or Christianity was superior to another.

Maybe it is true that the founders of the United States intended that the country would be run under some kind of generic Judeo-Christian basis. It is clear that they did intend that the country be run on a more secular basis than any other country at the time. That was a novel idea. Most countries at the time had some form or prescribed orthodoxy. The experiment was a resounding success. Secularism, the idea that governments should avoid promotion or suppression of religions and that religions should not be officially represented in government, has turned out to be a practice that leads to a stable society that respects rights and encourages freedoms.

Sadly, the nation that took such a bold step in that direction in the eighteenth century had partially reversed itself in the mid twentieth. Other developed countries, less bold perhaps, have gradually come to see the wisdom of secularism and have in many cases surpassed the USA in this area.

I personally doubt that the founders of the USA would have expected that Americans more than two hundred years later, would be arguing about what they had intended rather than what is the best course of action should be. And yet, it seems that what they intended is the primary focus in discussions about US constitutional issues.

[4gold]

Secularism, the idea that governments should avoid promotion or suppression of religions and that religions should not be officially represented in government, has turned out to be a practice that leads to a stable society that respects rights and encourages freedoms.

Secularism rejects all religious participation in government. Pluralism accepts all religious participation in government. Both ways agree that the promotion or suppression of one religion or another should be avoided.

I disagree that secularism respects rights and encourages freedoms. I think it is quite the opposite! Secularism seeks to demote the majority religion, rather than uplift the minority religions. It is oppressive, IMO.

Sadly, the nation that took such a bold step in that direction in the eighteenth century had partially reversed itself in the mid twentieth. Other developed countries, less bold perhaps, have gradually come to see the wisdom of secularism and have in many cases surpassed the USA in this area.

Again, I respectfully disagree with you. Secularism is oppresive, IMO. So to state that other countries have surpassed the US in secularism seems to be an undesirable trait to me and entirely unimpressive.

I personally doubt that the founders of the USA would have expected that Americans more than two hundred years later, would be arguing about what they had intended rather than what is the best course of action should be. And yet, it seems that what they intended is the primary focus in discussions about US constitutional issues.

Again, I have to respectfully disagree with you. If the people of the US agree that the best course of action is secularism, then we ought to amend the Constitution. Simply ignoring the Constitution and enforcing a secular government violates the First Amendment clause.

[Beto]

Secularism, the idea that governments should avoid promotion or suppression of religions and that religions should not be officially represented in government, has turned out to be a practice that leads to a stable society that respects rights and encourages freedoms.

Secularism rejects all religious participation in government. Pluralism accepts all religious participation in government. Both ways agree that the promotion or suppression of one religion or another should be avoided.

I disagree that secularism respects rights and encourages freedoms. I think it is quite the opposite! Secularism seeks to demote the majority religion, rather than uplift the minority religions. It is oppressive, IMO.

It's not oppressive. What it does is recognize that it is impossible to provide the same opportunities to all religions. For example, like I mentioned earlier, the portuguese government recently allowed the broadcast, in a public tv network, of a Catholic christmas message. Obviously the same opportunity could not be given to all religions. It was obviously more expensive than most religious organizations can afford (and if nothing was paid it's even worse, since others would simply be, and may have been, denied the same opportunity). I don't think that, realistically, a government can be pluralist and indiscriminatory. Thus the only fair solution is secularism.

EDIT: I was using the word "pluralism" as you defined it, but after reading McCulloch's post I think you may have indulged us with a rather personal, and possibly misrepresenting, definition. My post should be read with that in mind.

[McCulloch]

Secularism, the idea that governments should avoid promotion or suppression of religions and that religions should not be officially represented in government, has turned out to be a practice that leads to a stable society that respects rights and encourages freedoms.

Secularism rejects all religious participation in government. Pluralism accepts all religious participation in government. Both ways agree that the promotion or suppression of one religion or another should be avoided.

I disagree that secularism respects rights and encourages freedoms. I think it is quite the opposite! Secularism seeks to demote the majority religion, rather than uplift the minority religions. It is oppressive, IMO.

According to Webster, pluralism is a condition in which many cultures coexist within a society and maintain their cultural differences. I believe that secularism, the exclusion of organized religion from government and government from religious sponsorship, is the only way to successfully maintain a pluralistic culture. Secularism does not seek to demote the majority religion or to uplift the minority religions. Secularism is the doctrine that governments should not concern themselves with religious matters at all. Practitioners of various religions (and none) are free to practice their religions (or not), thus secularism encourages freedoms. Secularism does not impose even the majority religion or a generic religion on the non-religious or those in religious minorities, thus secularism protects rights.

Secularism is oppressive, IMO.

In what way is secularism oppressive? Oppression is defined as the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. In what way then that by having the government be uninvolved with religions and keeping religions out of governments, do you feel that you are the victim of cruelty or injustice?

Again, I have to respectfully disagree with you. If the people of the US agree that the best course of action is secularism, then we ought to amend the Constitution. Simply ignoring the Constitution and enforcing a secular government violates the First Amendment clause.

Do correct me if I am wrong, but didn't all of the presidents since Jefferson and the members of the Supreme Court all agree that the First Amendment means that government should be secular?

[4gold]

According to Webster, pluralism is a condition in which many cultures coexist within a society and maintain their cultural differences. I believe that secularism, the exclusion of organized religion from government and government from religious sponsorship, is the only way to successfully maintain a pluralistic culture. Secularism does not seek to demote the majority religion or to uplift the minority religions. Secularism is the doctrine that governments should not concern themselves with religious matters at all. Practitioners of various religions (and none) are free to practice their religions (or not), thus secularism encourages freedoms. Secularism does not impose even the majority religion or a generic religion on the non-religious or those in religious minorities, thus secularism protects rights.

Webster's definition deals with culture or society. I am talking about the difference between a secular government and a pluralistic government. Obviously, we are a pluralistic society.

For example, a secular government, by definition, would forbid all prayers before Congress. A pluralistic government would allow all religions to pray before Congress. A Judeo-Christian government would allow all religions to pray before Congress, with a preference toward Judeo-Christian prayer.

In what way is secularism oppressive? Oppression is defined as the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. In what way then that by having the government be uninvolved with religions and keeping religions out of governments, do you feel that you are the victim of cruelty or injustice?

I think prayer is one example. In a secular government, Congressional prayers are squelched. In a plural government, government is free to pray. Prayers harm no one, and therefore add no burden to those who do not believe in prayer.

Do correct me if I am wrong, but didn't all of the presidents since Jefferson and the members of the Supreme Court all agree that the First Amendment means that government should be secular?

Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison participated in a government where the church WAS the state. Every Sunday, the two of them attended Christian-only worship services inside the House of Representatives. Jefferson remarked that he supported this act as Constitutional, since it was voluntary and each sect of Christianity could lead the services. Jefferson also held worship services inside executive buildings, and worship services were also held inside the Supreme Court.

This practice was eventually abandoned by the Civil War, but I think you would agree with me that this was certainly not evidence of a secular government. I don't believe a secularism crept into the US government until the 1930s or so.

[McCulloch]

Webster's definition deals with culture or society. I am talking about the difference between a secular government and a pluralistic government. Obviously, we are a pluralistic society.

Why should government be pluralistic, trying to balance and treat each religion fairly? Much easier and fairer to be secular.

For example, a secular government, by definition, would forbid all prayers before Congress. A pluralistic government would allow all religions to pray before Congress. A Judeo-Christian government would allow all religions to pray before Congress, with a preference toward Judeo-Christian prayer.

I see no reason why a religious rite should be part of the governments' activities. Nothing should prohibit a member of the government from participating in his or her particular faith, but that is not the business of government.

In what way is secularism oppressive? Oppression is defined as the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. In what way then that by having the government be uninvolved with religions and keeping religions out of governments, do you feel that you are the victim of cruelty or injustice?

I think prayer is one example. In a secular government, Congressional prayers are squelched. In a plural government, government is free to pray. Prayers harm no one, and therefore add no burden to those who do not believe in prayer.

To my knowledge, no one is prohibited from prayer. What is prohibited is leading others in religious rites as part of the business of government. I don't think that it is burdensome, cruel or unjust to ask that each member's religious rites be done privately (as Jesus taught concerning prayer) and not be made into something that those who do not share the faith must be forced to participate in.

[4gold]

Why should government be pluralistic, trying to balance and treat each religion fairly? Much easier and fairer to be secular.

IMO, government should not be secular because I believe secularism is more oppressive than pluralism.

You bring up a separate good point, though. Is secularism more fair? Each religion is equally rejected by government. I think I have to concede that secularism is probably more fair than pluralism. Let me think about that one for a while.

I see no reason why a religious rite should be part of the governments' activities. Nothing should prohibit a member of the government from participating in his or her particular faith, but that is not the business of government.

I have no problem with this opinion, and if it were the majority opinion of the nation, I would have no problem with this being the law of the land. Where I have a problem is when the minority tries to bring the majority down.

To my knowledge, no one is prohibited from prayer. What is prohibited is leading others in religious rites as part of the business of government. I don't think that it is burdensome, cruel or unjust to ask that each member's religious rites be done privately (as Jesus taught concerning prayer) and not be made into something that those who do not share the faith must be forced to participate in.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a secular government, if Congress were led in prayer, the person who authorized the prayer would be fined or thrown in jail for contempt. In a pluralistic government, if Congress does not pray, there would be no penalty. To me, the government that offers more religious freedom is the pluralistic one.

[McCulloch]

I see no reason why a religious rite should be part of the governments' activities. Nothing should prohibit a member of the government from participating in his or her particular faith, but that is not the business of government.

I have no problem with this opinion, and if it were the majority opinion of the nation, I would have no problem with this being the law of the land. Where I have a problem is when the minority tries to bring the majority down.

One of the beneficial things about representative constitutional governments, is that there are measures taken to avoid the tyranny of the majority. These measures in the USA start with the Bill of Rights, the first so many amendments to the Constitution, and in Canada the Bill of Rights and Freedoms. In each, we have agreed to abide by a system that says even if the majority is in favour of a particular policy, it will be considered unconstitutional if it violates the rights of others.

To my knowledge, no one is prohibited from prayer. What is prohibited is leading others in religious rites as part of the business of government. I don't think that it is burdensome, cruel or unjust to ask that each member's religious rites be done privately (as Jesus taught concerning prayer) and not be made into something that those who do not share the faith must be forced to participate in.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a secular government, if Congress were led in prayer, the person who authorized the prayer would be fined or thrown in jail for contempt. In a pluralistic government, if Congress does not pray, there would be no penalty. To me, the government that offers more religious freedom is the pluralistic one.

In a secular government, no members of the government will be required to participate in the religious rites not of their own choosing. In a pluralistic government, as you describe, if someone decides that there should be religious rites in the House, all members rights to their own freedom of religion will be violated. So, to me, the government that respects each person's religious rights and freedoms is the secular one.