"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?

[4gold]

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.

But "under God", prayers before Congress, worship services in government buildings, etc. do not violate the rights of others, so it is not a tyranny of the majority. In fact, no one is harmed by any of these things, so long as participation is voluntary.

One of the key points of liberty is that you are free to do as you want until it harms someone else. As no one is harmed by religious activity, it is no violation of liberty. You are free to participate or to ignore it.

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.

This past summer, a Hindu prayed before the US Congress. Not a single member of Congress is Hindu, and not a single member of Congress complained that their rights were being violated. If non-Hindu's rights are not violated by a Hindu prayer, I have difficulty believing that non-Christian's rights are violated by Christian prayer.

I can't read a secularist's mind, but this is what I assume they are thinking when they see a prayer in Congress: "Oh, that's just awful! Others might not believe what that person is praying, therefore we must stop it!"

Whereas when I see a Hindu prayer, a Jewish prayer, etc., what goes through my mind is, "Have at it, brother! What a wonderful country this is when all religious views are allowed at the table."

In a secular government, all religion is suppressed by law from the government. In a pluralistic government, all religion is invited.

[McCulloch]

But "under God", prayers before Congress, worship services in government buildings, etc. do not violate the rights of others, so it is not a tyranny of the majority. In fact, no one is harmed by any of these things, so long as participation is voluntary.

One of the key points of liberty is that you are free to do as you want until it harms someone else. As no one is harmed by religious activity, it is no violation of liberty. You are free to participate or to ignore it.

Just how voluntary is my participation in a public prayer held as part of a public meeting where I have business? If I were on trial, do you think that it would be OK if the judge were to open the proceedings with a prayer to Allah for guidance on the issue of justice? After all, I would be free to ignore the prayer, wouldn't I? Isn't the use of religious rites in official public forums, making a statement that the public body in question is not going to be religiously unbiased?

I have difficulty believing that non-Christian's rights are violated by Christian prayer.

They are when the prayer is a part of the official proceedings of the government. For the most part, so far, the payers have been somewhat generic, I would think.

"Oh Great Creator of us all, grant us wisdom" is not a prayer that I would find offensive. "Great Kalli, help us to smite Your enemies and proclaim Your sovereignty over the Earth" would be. Where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide what prayers to allow and which ones to prohibit? How do you keep certain groups from pushing the envelope, so to speak, in the name of religious freedom?

In a secular government, all religion is suppressed by law from the government. In a pluralistic government, all religion is invited.

In a secular government, all religious rites and practices are equally (and I believe quite rightly) kept out of official public events. Secularists do not suppresses religion, per se. They just feel that in order to maintain a pluralistic society, religions should be treated equally and that is difficult or impossible to do if some religions are officially and publicly supported.

[4gold]

Just how voluntary is my participation in a public prayer held as part of a public meeting where I have business? If I were on trial, do you think that it would be OK if the judge were to open the proceedings with a prayer to Allah for guidance on the issue of justice? After all, I would be free to ignore the prayer, wouldn't I? Isn't the use of religious rites in official public forums, making a statement that the public body in question is not going to be religiously unbiased?

Forgive me, but I am not making the connection between religious prayers and public violation of your freedoms. Do you have an example of where a prayer before a city council or Congress or judge directly and negatively affected another person? And I don't mean that a person was offended--there are plenty of things that government does that offends me.

They are when the prayer is a part of the official proceedings of the government. For the most part, so far, the payers have been somewhat generic, I would think.

"Oh Great Creator of us all, grant us wisdom" is not a prayer that I would find offensive. "Great Kalli, help us to smite Your enemies and proclaim Your sovereignty over the Earth" would be. Where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide what prayers to allow and which ones to prohibit? How do you keep certain groups from pushing the envelope, so to speak, in the name of religious freedom?

Interesting question, because this recently happened (link is biased) in Ohio. A pastor prayed "in the name of Jesus" and a few Democrats walked off the Congress floor in disgust. It was their opinion that prayers should be kept generic.

I do not think anyone's rights were violated by this prayer. They were mad. They were offended. It probably caused a schism that didn't need to be created. But that's what free speech does, too. We protect those who say things that make people mad, that offend people, and create division. Why? Because freedom means protecting even that which offends us.

If the legislature was truly appalled by a prayer that crosses the line, I think the appropriate course of action is to pass a resolution denouncing the prayer and never inviting the pastor back. Banning all government prayers on account of one prayer seems to be a bit excessive.

In a secular government, all religious rites and practices are equally (and I believe quite rightly) kept out of official public events. Secularists do not suppresses religion, per se. They just feel that in order to maintain a pluralistic society, religions should be treated equally and that is difficult or impossible to do if some religions are officially and publicly supported.

We've had over 200 years of prayers before Congress, and 50 years of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Are you suggesting that America has had a difficult, or impossible, time of maintaining a pluralistic society due to these religious invocations?

[McCulloch]

Forgive me, but I am not making the connection between religious prayers and public violation of your freedoms. Do you have an example of where a prayer before a city council or Congress or judge directly and negatively affected another person?

No, I don't. Is it your opinion that I should be made to participate in religious rituals in the service of my civic duties?

[T]his recently happened (link is biased) in Ohio. A pastor prayed "in the name of Jesus" and a few Democrats walked off the Congress floor in disgust. It was their opinion that prayers should be kept generic.

[...][F]reedom means protecting even that which offends us.

The issue is not freedom of speech. It is freedom of religion. When a meeting is begun with a prayer asking a deity's blessing on the group, then all of the participants in that meeting have participated in that rite. If, like the Jews and the Muslims, you believe that the Christian worship of Jesus is a form of idolatry, then you might feel that you have been forced to participate in that idolatry. Would you feel that a sacrifice to some god or other would also be appropriate? You could be exempted from eating the meat sacrificed to idols.

[4gold]

No, I don't. Is it your opinion that I should be made to participate in religious rituals in the service of my civic duties?

No, I think it ought to be voluntary. I think that if the majority wants the government to participate, then it ought to participate. And if the majority want the government not to participate, then it ought not participate.

The issue is not freedom of speech. It is freedom of religion. When a meeting is begun with a prayer asking a deity's blessing on the group, then all of the participants in that meeting have participated in that rite. If, like the Jews and the Muslims, you believe that the Christian worship of Jesus is a form of idolatry, then you might feel that you have been forced to participate in that idolatry. Would you feel that a sacrifice to some god or other would also be appropriate? You could be exempted from eating the meat sacrificed to idols.

What religion is that? Are there any religions that still perform sacrifices of animals?

Let's go to a more reasonable example: Let's say that I am in Dearborn, Mich., and I want to address my rental property to the City Council, and their mission statement said something like, "a city devoted to Allah and no other". To be honest, it wouldn't bother me in the least. Now, if they required me to participate in any religious laws, then I think it crosses the line.

[Nick_A]

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?

I have the highest regard for Prof. Jacob Needleman. It saddens me to believe that the days of understanding, even to the point of what one nation under God can mean, are over. Unfortunately Simone is right:

"Who were the fools who spread the story that brute force cannot kill ideas? Nothing is easier. And once they are dead they are no more than corpses." Simone Weil

In the beginning of his book "The American Soul", Prof.Needleman writes in part:

America was once the hope of the world. But what kind of hope? More than the hope of material prosperity, although that was part of it; and more than promise of equality and liberty, although that too, was an important part of it. And more than safety and security,precious as these things are. The deeper hope of America was its vision of what humanity is and can become--individuality and in community. It was through that vision that all the material and social promise of America took its fire and light and its voice that called to men and women within its own borders and throughout the world. America was once a great idea, and it is such ideas that move the world, that open the possibility of meaning in life.

It has been said that any question can lead to truth if it is an aching question. For one person it may be the question of life after death,for another the problem of suffering, the causes of war and injustice. Or it may be something more personal and immediate--a profound ethical dilemma, a problem involving the whole direction of ones life. An aching question, a question that is not just a matter of curiosity or a fleeting burst of emotion, cannot be answered with old thought. Possessed by such a question,one is hungry for ideas of a very different order than the familiar categories that usually accompany us through our lives. One is both hungry and, at the same time, more discriminating, less susceptible to credulity and suggestibility. the intelligence of the heart begins to call us in our sleep.

For many of us, such is now the question of the meaning of America. but it is also an elusive question. If we consider America only as a nation,that is, as a man made construction, then it is hard to feel any ultimacy about the problem of America. nations, as such,come and go: Persia,Rome, Byzantium have all sunk into the ocean of time. All the empires and national states of the past have come and gone in what seems like the twinkling of an eye, though in their time each appeared to itself and to the world as strong and real and enduring. And, of course, our era has witnessed the stunning disintegration of vast collectivities: the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, the political organization of Eastern Europe. Even the idea itself of "nation" may be disappearing or transmuting into what has been termed a "global web" of financial instrumentalities, electronic communication and advanced technological consumerism.

All my life I had been unable to understand or sympathize with people who seemed so passionately concerned about the privation or enhancement of America. It had often seemed to me hypocrisy, a mask that covered the all-too human fears for ones personal safety or comfort, sometimes mixed with the kind of self righteousness that had turned me away from the religions of church and synagogue. but I was even more troubled by people who attacked America and who were always arguing about hidden conspiracies, intentional injustices that were built into "the system" and so forth. Why, I wondered, were they not just as concerned about the human condition itself? And about their own incomprehensible mortal life on earth? They made me feel I was selfish to have such questions burning in me.

And so I was astonished and strangely joyous when I finally turned directly to studying the history of America and found almost everywhere that the men and women who carved out the ideals of America were driven by the same transcendent questions that had always been my own as well. I began to see that for many of these men and women, America meant the struggle for conditions of life under which these ultimate questions could be freely pursued.

This glimpse of the motive of the founders was at first very fleeting and insubstantial. Time and again this perception of mine was overwhelmed by the "authority" of the accepted views about everything pertaining to America. Historical knowledge and theory, political and economic opinions about the meaning of past and present events--the old as well as the latest views about America--covered over that glimpse into the origin of the American experiment. Even the accepted views about the religious motivations of the founders clouded the issue--in fact, these commonly accepted views were the most distracting of all. They equated the religious impulses of our forefathers with the religion I knew from my own childhood, a religion that was simply dull and oppressive.

A NEW BEGINNING

America is the fact, the symbol and the promise of a new beginning. and in human life, in our lives as they are, this possibility is among the most sacred aspects of existence. All that is old and already formed can continue to live only if it allows within itself the conditions for a new beginning. Life itself is the mysterious , incomprehensible blending of the old, of what already is, and what is coming into being. The question of America is there: if America loses the meaning of its existence and if, in fact, America is now the dominant cultural influence in the world, then what will become of the world? The question of America leads all of us directly into the question of the purpose and destiny of human life itself in this era.

THE WORLD OF IDEAS AND THE DISEASE OF MATERIALISM

Our world, so we see and hear on all sides, is drowning in materialism, commercialism, consumerism. But the problem is not really there. What we ordinarily speak of as materialism is a result, not a cause. The root of materialism is a poverty of ideas about the inner and outer world. Less and less does our contemporary culture have, or even seek, commerce with great ideas, and it is the lack that is weakening the human spirit. This is the essence of materialism. Materialism is a disease of the mind starved for ideas.

Throughout history ideas of a certain kind have been disseminated into the life of humanity in order to help human beings understand and feel the possibility of the deep inner change that would enable them to serve the purpose for which they were created, namely, to act in the world as conscious,individual instruments of God, and the ultimate principle of reality and value. Ideas of this kind are formulated in order to have a specific range of action on the human psych: to touch the heart as well as the intellect; to shock us into questioning our present understanding; to point us to the greatness around us in nature and the universe, and the potential greatness slumbering within ourselves; to open our eyes to the real needs of our neighbor; to confront us with our own profound ignorance and our criminal fears and egoism; to show us that we are not here for ourselves alone, but as necessary particles of divine love.

These are the contours of the ancient wisdom, considered as ideas embodied in religious and philosophical doctrines, works of sacred art,literature and music and, in a very fundamental way, an indication of practical methods by which a man or woman can work, as is said, to become what he or she really is. Without feeling the full range of such ideas, or sensing even a modest, but pure, trace of them, we are bound to turn for meaning.

Prof. Needleman understands the meaning and value of "In God We Trust." Unfortunately he is in a small minority that seems to be getting smaller.

[Beto]

Let's go to a more reasonable example: Let's say that I am in Dearborn, Mich., and I want to address my rental property to the City Council, and their mission statement said something like, "a city devoted to Allah and no other". To be honest, it wouldn't bother me in the least.

That is, of course, your prerogative. Do you presume your perspective on that issue holds more value, or truth, than a Christian who would be bothered by that mission statement? Or an atheist? If not, than I guess all perspectives are to be respected, and how do you suppose that can be accomplished? Please them both with your "pluralist" approach, if you can.

I must reiterate that the problem here is the principle of the thing, and some people hold their principles dear. You shouldn't presume too quickly that others shouldn't be bothered by something that doesn't bother you.

Do you read contracts when you sign them? Suppose one clause implied, or clearly stated, that by signing it you agree to be an atheist ("By signing this document I confirm that I am an atheist"). Would you sign it? Does it have any practical consequence? Can you relate that situation with a pledge of allegiance that implies you believe in gods or in a god? Can you see how the benefits of both instances are denied to you unless you betray your principles?

[MagusYanam]

Nick_A:

It strikes me that you do not seem to be understanding what Professor Needleman was trying to say.

Our world, so we see and hear on all sides, is drowning in materialism, commercialism, consumerism. But the problem is not really there. What we ordinarily speak of as materialism is a result, not a cause. The root of materialism is a poverty of ideas about the inner and outer world. Less and less does our contemporary culture have, or even seek, commerce with great ideas, and it is the lack that is weakening the human spirit. This is the essence of materialism. Materialism is a disease of the mind starved for ideas.

Throughout history ideas of a certain kind have been disseminated into the life of humanity in order to help human beings understand and feel the possibility of the deep inner change that would enable them to serve the purpose for which they were created, namely, to act in the world as conscious,individual instruments of God, and the ultimate principle of reality and value. Ideas of this kind are formulated in order to have a specific range of action on the human psyche: to touch the heart as well as the intellect; to shock us into questioning our present understanding; to point us to the greatness around us in nature and the universe, and the potential greatness slumbering within ourselves; to open our eyes to the real needs of our neighbor; to confront us with our own profound ignorance and our criminal fears and egoism; to show us that we are not here for ourselves alone, but as necessary particles of divine love.

First off, I'll start with my criticism of Professor Needleman on the basis that what he seems to want to be attacking here is not materialism - people can be materialists (in the sense of humanists or scientific-naturalists) and still have deeply orienting experiences which 'help human beings understand and feel the possibility of the deep inner change that would enable them to serve the purpose for which they were created'. Just because you don't need material proof of God doesn't mean you can't have existentially-orienting experiences.

Professor Needleman has an extremely good point here. The individual person has to be involved in some kind of search for meaning. That being said, it should be a meaning that completely individuates them rather than merely yoking them to a generality. When someone is forced to accommodate a generality which does not come out of her, which she doesn't see as integral to herself, she suffers. Which is why his insistence on some existentially-orienting cognitive ideal of a nation (in this case, America) puzzles me. America is an inherited history, a set of customs, habits and traditions which develop our social behaviour, but I haven't ever heard of anyone who took the generality of America personally (except perhaps Stephen Colbert, and he was obviously joking).

There's something to be said for the separation of Church and State - when they are combined the way they are here in the Pledge of Allegiance, it is so easy for people to disconnect religion from themselves. Christians shouldn't be supporting the Pledge of Allegiance as it is, they should be outraged by it - my faith is not damaged by the Pledge of Allegiance, but it reduces theism (not to mention patriotism) to something incredibly silly, a few words you can mutter in your sleep at 8:26 in the morning! Is that really what you want?

[JoeyKnothead]

It is not the governments job to legislate god into government. Placing this wording in the pledge is a stupid attempt by xians to legislate their beliefs into government. It is a divisive move, clearly meant to single out those who do not believe in a sky daddy. The same is true for the placement of god on our money.

If god was so powerful, and the bible so true, then why do xians feel the need to place these references anyway? Xians always claim they are being persecuted, but they have no qualms at all with persecuting others through the courts.

It is time xians realize their fairy tale does not belong in government.

One of the funniest laws here in Georgia is you can't buy beer on Sunday in many/most places. This is clearly an attempt to get government to block the free will of the people. When confronted with this fact all the governor could say is that it teaches time management. How stupid is it that something is legal 6 out of 7 days, and oh by the way, that 7th day happens to be Sunday?

Get xians out of government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm not denying that atheists don't believe in God.

I never said you did.

You are missing the point. It would violate religious freedom if everyone were forced to say it, but they're not. You don't have to say the pledge- that my friend is the religious freedom being demonstrated of one nation under God. Just because a nation recognizes one God, does not in any way mean or imply that that country doesn't allow freedom of religion.

"Religious freedom" isn't "freedom of religion". I thought this was clear by now. Everyone has a right to have a pledge that symbolizes their patriotism without violating their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Some people have multiple gods, some have none, and right now they don't have the right to feel as patriotic as the others.

If the notion of one nation under God bothers you, just don't say the pledge.

This seems very selfish to me.

I don't know how much more freedom of religion you expect. More people are recently concerned about offending some Muslims over the word Christmas.

Don't get me started on Christmas.

If their principles are so strong, then just stand up for your principles, and take some heat, like Christians do, for what you believe.

"Take some heat"... people used to "take heat" on top of a pile of wood, when standing up for their principles, so please drop the victim act.

The pledge is about patriotism, no other implication is warranted.

If you feel so persecuted and oppressed that you can't join the Military because you don't say the pledge, then move to Holland.

"Then move to Holland"?... This deserves no comment. And where did I mention the military? Is that all that "patriotism" means to you?

It is very clean, the people are very courteous and pleasant,

That's nice.

herione is legal,

If you mean heroin, it's not legal. Drugs aren't "legal" in Holland. Soft drugs are controlled substances.

the chocolate is some of the best inthe world and everyone speaks English already.

I'll take your word for it.

With respect,

Salt Agent

I don't think you're respecting many of your countrymen, by not acknowledging their right to feel as patriotic as everyone else.

Well said!

And if I may add, who thinks a child in school who doesn't say the pledge ain't gonna get picked on?

By placing 'under god' into the pledge, I am no longer able to pledge my allegiance to this nation, which I love so much. While I can't change the pledge, I mark out the words 'in god we trust' on every bit of the money that passes through my hands.