On The Pledge Of Allegience

[JoeyKnothead]

Why is it so necessary to include the words "under God" in the pledge? The addition of these words into the pledge force many people to be unable to pledge their allegience to their own nation. Why is it more important to have a devisive term in a pledge that declares we are indivisible?

[East of Eden]

The same thing happened with our national motto, chosen by the Founders: "E pluribus Unum" not"in God we trust." This point may already have been made. Also, the writer of the pledge was a socialist, and would never have approved of adding religion to the Pledge.
Godless Pledge and Dollar

The wishes of the pledge writer are irrelevant, short of him having some sort of "as-is" copyright.

[micatala]

The same thing happened with our national motto, chosen by the Founders: "E pluribus Unum" not"in God we trust." This point may already have been made. Also, the writer of the pledge was a socialist, and would never have approved of adding religion to the Pledge.
Godless Pledge and Dollar

The wishes of the pledge writer are irrelevant, short of him having some sort of "as-is" copyright.

Whose wishes should count? Can we not also dismiss the wishes of those who want to include "under God" just as easily?

Can we dismiss the wishes or intent of the founders when they wrote the constitution just as easily?

[East of Eden]

Whose wishes should count? Can we not also dismiss the wishes of those who want to include "under God" just as easily?

If they were the minority, yes.

Can we dismiss the wishes or intent of the founders when they wrote the constitution just as easily?

The founders would have had no problem with the motto, as it doesn't constitute the establishment of a religion.

[Bio-logical]

Whose wishes should count? Can we not also dismiss the wishes of those who want to include "under God" just as easily?

If they were the minority, yes.

Can we dismiss the wishes or intent of the founders when they wrote the constitution just as easily?

The founders would have had no problem with the motto, as it doesn't constitute the establishment of a religion.

For a quick frame of reference:

"congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This is the 'religion' clause of the first amendment. The establishment clause is the first part, the free exercise clause is the latter.

My question then is how can a government adopt a motto like "in god we trust" or insert "under god" into a pledge of allegiance and in doing so not 'respect an establishment of religion'?

It seems quite obvious that in god we trust is most definitely respecting an establishment of religion, as a matter of fact it is respecting the establishment of religion. Establishment meaning institution not the action of establishing.

Main Entry: establishment
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: business, institution
Synonyms:
abode, building, company, concern, corporation, enterprise, factory, firm, foundation, house, institute, office, organization, outfit, plant, quarters, residence, setup, structure, system, workplace

Placing "in god we trust" on our money and adopting it as a national motto is showing a direct and preferential respect to the establishment of monothestic religions. Capitalizing the "G" in "god" establishes that the religious establishment being respected is the group of Abrahamic religions.

By putting "Under God" into the pledge of allegiance, the government not only respected the establishment of Abrahamic religions , but it inserted the ascertation that not only is there a god, but which god it is that governs over our country. The pledge is not simply a motto, but instead an oath to defend our country and a vow of loyalty to it.

Loyalty, allegiance, fealty, all the same thing. Swearing loyalty to "one nation, under God" seems to be an explicitly religious, monotheistic and Abrahamic oath to me.

So now, that being said, I ask you to support your claim that our motto doesn't constitute an establishment of religion. My question is, how does it not?

*edit for spelling and grammar errors

[East of Eden]

Whose wishes should count? Can we not also dismiss the wishes of those who want to include "under God" just as easily?

If they were the minority, yes.

Can we dismiss the wishes or intent of the founders when they wrote the constitution just as easily?

The founders would have had no problem with the motto, as it doesn't constitute the establishment of a religion.

For a quick frame of reference:

"congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This is the 'religion' clause of the first amendment. The establishment clause is the first part, the free exercise clause is the latter.

My question then is how can a government adopt a motto like "in god we trust" or insert "under god" into a pledge of allegiance and in doing so not 'respect an establishment of religion'?

It seems quite obvious that in god we trust is most definitely respecting an establishment of religion, as a matter of fact it is respecting the establishment of religion. Establishment meaning institution not the action of establishing.

Main Entry: establishment
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: business, institution
Synonyms:
abode, building, company, concern, corporation, enterprise, factory, firm, foundation, house, institute, office, organization, outfit, plant, quarters, residence, setup, structure, system, workplace

Placing "in god we trust" on our money and adopting it as a national motto is showing a direct and preferential respect to the establishment of monothestic religions. Capitalizing the "G" in "god" establishes that the religious establishment being respected is the group of Abrahamic religions.

By putting "Under God" into the pledge of allegiance, the government not only respected the establishment of Abrahamic religions , but it inserted the ascertation that not only is there a god, but which god it is that governs over our country. The pledge is not simply a motto, but instead an oath to defend our country and a vow of loyalty to it.

Loyalty, allegiance, fealty, all the same thing. Swearing loyalty to "one nation, under God" seems to be an explicitly religious, monotheistic and Abrahamic oath to me.

So now, that being said, I ask you to support your claim that our motto doesn't constitute an establishment of religion. My question is, how does it not?

*edit for spelling and grammar errors

'Establishment' would be like the Church of England in the UK, where there is no lack of religious freedom. Which church is established? The founders assumed America to be a Christian nation but didn't want a particular Protestant denomination to be established. The motto doesn't do that, the Supreme Court benediction doesn't do that, the Congressional opening prayer doesn't do that, and the depiction of Moses and the Ten Commandments on the doors of the Supreme Court doesn't do it.

See Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, appointed by James Madison, "the father of the Constitution":

1868. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

[JoeyKnothead]

Mentioning God is not a religious act? How come only the religious go about getting folks to accept their God?

To say a reference to God is not a religious act is as goofy a thing as I've ever known.

I think this shows the cognitive dissonance required to maintain religious belief.

[East of Eden]

Mentioning God is not a religious act? How come only the religious go about getting folks to accept their God?

To say a reference to God is not a religious act is as goofy a thing as I've ever known.

lWhere in the world does the Constitution say the government can't mention God? That is just crazy. Our whole form of government is founded on the idea that 'we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights'.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 147:

Mentioning God is not a religious act? How come only the religious go about getting folks to accept their God?

To say a reference to God is not a religious act is as goofy a thing as I've ever known.

lWhere in the world does the Constitution say the government can't mention God? That is just crazy. Our whole form of government is founded on the idea that 'we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights'.

By cutting it out, you kinda prove my point about cognitive dissonance.

I merely noted that mentioning God is a religious act. Whether God is mentioned specifically is not even the point.

If we hold to the Constitution (which I don't necessarily do) then we are bound to the notion that government should not make religious proclamations. Whether this proclamation includes His Noodliness, or some other preferred god, it should not be a function of government.

There's also the issue of holding to ancient documents to decide what we do in the here and now.

[East of Eden]

By cutting it out, you kinda prove my point about cognitive dissonance.

Don't know what you mean here.

I merely noted that mentioning God is a religious act. Whether God is mentioned specifically is not even the point.

If we hold to the Constitution (which I don't necessarily do)

It is the law of the land whether you hold to it or not.

then we are bound to the notion that government should not make religious proclamations. Whether this proclamation includes His Noodliness, or some other preferred god, it should not be a function of government.

So why did this happen:

On 25 September 1789, Elias Boudinot of Burlington, New Jersey, introduced in the United States House of Representatives a resolution "That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness." The House was not unanimous in its determination to give thanks. Aedanus Burke of South Carolina objected that he "did not like this mimicking of European customs, where they made a mere mockery of thanksgivings." Thomas Tudor Tucker "thought the House had no business to interfere in a matter which did not concern them. Why should the President direct the people to do what, perhaps, they have no mind to do? They may not be inclined to return thanks for a Constitution until they have experienced that it promotes their safety and happiness. We do not yet know but they may have reason to be dissatisfied with the effects it has already produced; but whether this be so or not, it is a business with which Congress have nothing to do; it is a religious matter, and, as such, is proscribed to us. If a day of thanksgiving must take place, let it be done by the authority of the several States." [1]

Citing biblical precedents and resolutions of the Continental Congress, the proponents of a Thanksgiving celebration prevailed, and the House appointed a committee consisting of Elias Boudinot, Roger Sherman, and Peter Silvester to approach President Washington. The Senate agreed to the resolution on 26 September and appointed William Samuel Johnson and Ralph Izard to the joint committee. On 28 September the Senate committee reported that they had laid the resolution before the president. [2] Washington issued the proclamation on 3 October, designating a day of prayer and thanksgiving.


BTW, who do atheists give thanks to on Thanksgiving?

There's also the issue of holding to ancient documents to decide what we do in the here and now.

What does the age of an idea have to do with it's truth?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 149:

By cutting it out, you kinda prove my point about cognitive dissonance.

Don't know what you mean here.

You previously quoted an entire section of my response - except for the part about cognitive dissonance. I see this as a form of quote mining, where you don't include parts of a response that you have no answer for. I notice this is very common among some of the Christians on this site. To me it represents an inability to take in all the information, where parts that are "uncomfortable" are merely left out, or glossed over.

I merely noted that mentioning God is a religious act. Whether God is mentioned specifically is not even the point.

If we hold to the Constitution (which I don't necessarily do)

It is the law of the land whether you hold to it or not.

Yet we see violations all the time, by religious and non-religious alike, to such a degree we have to have a Supreme Court to sort it out. My point is that folks are not bound to ancient documents, as evidenced by the many violations that occur.

then we are bound to the notion that government should not make religious proclamations. Whether this proclamation includes His Noodliness, or some other preferred god, it should not be a function of government.

So why did this happen: >snip for brevity, but I read it all<

A majority Christian nation passing laws that reflect the Christian ideology? Getouttahere.

Sounds like the old "do as I say, not as I do" game.

BTW, who do atheists give thanks to on Thanksgiving?

His Noodliness.

Lacking that, I'd say many will give thanks to the soldiers and others that help make this such a great nation. Family, friends, colleagues. The list is endless.

There's also the issue of holding to ancient documents to decide what we do in the here and now.

What does the age of an idea have to do with it's truth?

I don't so much deny the Constitution's "truth", I deny its religious based interpretation. An ancient document can't fully or accurately consider a new, current age.