"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]

You left out the option of; "I don't care"
Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion and if the majority prefer it then fine. It doesn't affect my life in the slightest.

"Religious freedom" must encompass both types of freedom, and whether or not the majority prefers it, or if you're directly affected, is irrelevant. Do you not agree that all must enjoy "religious freedom"? If all are to enjoy "religious freedom", no one faith, or lack thereof, should be recognized as "true" by the state.

[Skeptic]

All must enjoy the freedom of practicing their religion without fear of persecution. It doesn't matter who sees them practicing. Freedom of religion makes no stipulation that you can only practice in private where nobody will see you, So as to avoid offending someone. Practicing your religion in public is not the same as forcing your religion upon someone.

As previously mentioned God is a generic term. By being "One Nation Under God" the country is not recognizing any particular religion. We all assume it means Christianity because we have this false notion that the US is a Christian nation founded on Christian values. Most people don't realize that many of the founding fathers were Deists or Atheists. The slogan really only excludes Atheists and we really shouldn't care since we aren't a religion.

[Beto]

The slogan really only excludes Atheists and we really shouldn't care since we aren't a religion.

I know what you mean, but personally, I'm european and I'm glad my country doesn't force me to lie. Because that's what's happening when you pledge your allegiance to a nation, and that pledge implicitly has you saying you're religious, regardless of where you stand on the matter. It's one thing to know it doesn't mean much, in practical terms, it's quite another to value the principles we stand for, and our intellectual integrity. Again, this is about having "religious freedom", not just "freedom of religion".

[Salt Agent]

While the commonality of the phrase can make it easier to ignore and discount, it also reinforces the sense of a state religion. "In God We Trust" is our nation's motto, and is printed on our national currency. Would this happen in a country truly dedicated to not having a state religion? I doubt it.

As another poster pointed out, "In God We Trust" was more of a response to Atheistic Communism, and affirming that as a country we declare to the world that we are not Atheist or Communist. It has nothing whatsoever to do with establishing a state religion.

You seem to be making the claim that if we were dedicated to not having a state-sanctioned/ state established religion -- like the church of England -- that we wouldn't put have such a motto. ??

That would only be if the founding fathers were predominately atheists, or agnostics. Most of the founding fathers were either deists or Trinitarian Christians.

I will point out that 'God' is a very generic term, and can equally be used for Hinduism, or Judaism, or Christianity, or even Islam

Greetings, goat.

I respect your opinion and have seen some excellent posts
However, this is relativism and pluralism. You say they can be used equally. The fact that Oprah Winfrey and Depak Chopra and Madonna use it that way doesn't come close to making it true.
I don't think you mean to imply that the founding fathers who wrote the Declaration of Independence, believed for a moment that they were referring to Shiva or Vishnu, or the Islam God Allah, do you???

I don't think you believe that the framers of the Constitution had in mind /intended that their colleagues, fellow writers could see one nation under God to mean or include the Hindu God of malnutrition, or One nation under the God of Islam.

This goes back to the bogus relativistic notion that basically all religions are the same or teach basically the same thing. Such a statement is not only offensive to Hindus but also to Muslims, Jews and Christians. Hinduism is Pantheistic -- 330 million gods. Judiasm and Christianity share Yahweh, Jehovah God. Allah is a generic word in Arabic for god, but specifically the Moon God. Aside from all the historical pagan cultish roots of Islam, Muslims themselves that Allah is never once named or described as Love, nor is he eminent and personable/ knowable.

The fact that the majority of naive Christians in your country may think Allah is the same as Yahweh, is as telling as the fact that the majority of these same people can't name the ten commandments, and that the majority of Americans polled erroneously think "separation of church and state" is in the constitution.

Here is one case in point.

Agreed. That's why I said it was a church/state issue. I wasn't trying to suggest that we should ignore the constitutional breach caused by the phrase. I should've cleared that up, sorry.

Would you kindly clarify what phrase you mean, and what constitutional breach?

The context was that the founding fathers were of various faiths, but the vast majority of them believed in the creator God -- though arguably not all were Christian, and that the culture at the time was not so pluralistic and relativistic and thus there was not the need to spell everything out, and then write a disclaimer so every religious sect wouldn't be offended. They wanted to be able to practice their faith without an official govenment religion, or the government telling them how to worship.

An example of this is in this country in Central Europe, where 99% of the country is culturally Catholic, and the church tells people on the radio how to vote, and for whom to vote.

To all the kind, civil and intelligent atheists I have met, the vast majority of them live in America, or are trying to move there, because they have the freedom to not believe in God, but they also enjoy the other benefits of living in a culture that was at least founed on Judeo-Christian values/beliefs.


respectfully,

Salt Agent.

[McCulloch]

The fact that the majority of naive Christians in your country may think Allah is the same as Yahweh,

Arab Christians refer to God as Allah. Islam and Christianity believe that there is one God. They may believe different things about that one God, but if there is and can be only one God, then really it is the same God, whether you refer to it by the Germanic derived term, God or the Arabic term, Allah.

is as telling as the fact that the majority of these same people can't name the ten commandments, and that the majority of Americans polled erroneously think "separation of church and state" is in the constitution.

You mean the same mistake that Jefferson had?

[pwsoldier]

As another poster pointed out, "In God We Trust" was more of a response to Atheistic Communism, and affirming that as a country we declare to the world that we are not Atheist or Communist. It has nothing whatsoever to do with establishing a state religion.

True, but the exclusion of nonbelievers from our national identity could be seen as religious establishment by elimination, as could the use of the singular "God" in spite of the fact that some theist religions don't believe in one all-powerful God, but many. The way I see it, it's rather difficult not to assume reference to the Abrahamic God in the Pledge.

The fact that the majority of naive Christians in your country may think Allah is the same as Yahweh, is as telling as the fact that the majority of these same people can't name the ten commandments, and that the majority of Americans polled erroneously think "separation of church and state" is in the constitution.



Here is one case in point.

Agreed. That's why I said it was a church/state issue. I wasn't trying to suggest that we should ignore the constitutional breach caused by the phrase. I should've cleared that up, sorry.

Would you kindly clarify what phrase you mean, and what constitutional breach?

While the Constitution doesn't specifically call for "seperation of church and state" in those specific terms, that seperation is necassary in order to prevent the state sponsorship of a religion, which is specifically addressed in the Constitution. Once you start incorporating religious elements into the political arena, you're putting yourself on a slippery slope towards exactly the type of religious affiliation that the Constitution forbids. Perhaps I was erroneous in using the word "breach" to describe it, but I don't think I was that far off the mark. How do we determine when religion has become incorporated into government and politics on an unconstitutional level? I say we avoid having to make such a determination by keeping religion out of the picture entirely.

[Salt Agent]

The way I see it, it's rather difficult not to assume reference to the Abrahamic God in the Pledge.

The fact that the majority of naive Christians in your country may think Allah is the same as Yahweh, is as telling as the fact that the majority of these same people can't name the ten commandments, and that the majority of Americans polled erroneously think "separation of church and state" is in the constitution.

While the Constitution doesn't specifically call for "seperation of church and state" in those specific terms, that seperation is necassary in order to prevent the state sponsorship of a religion, which is specifically addressed in the Constitution. Once you start incorporating religious elements into the political arena, you're putting yourself on a slippery slope towards exactly the type of religious affiliation that the Constitution forbids.

Really? That's clearly not how the founding fathers saw it. In fact, religious elements, specifically from Judeo Christianity, and the Bible, have been incorporated into many aspects of the political arena, from the pledge of allegience to carvings in marble all over Washington, public prayers by Washington, Lincoln, and a national day of prayer, thanksgiving, national Christian heritage week, and others.

And for the record, the constitution does not forbid religious affiliation. It protects it. It says that Congress shall not establish a state religion. What you seem to be advocating/ wanting is an atheist state where all reference to God, specifically Yahweh, are banned.
Interestingly, You don't seem to mind other religions that have many Gods.

How do we determine when religion has become incorporated into government and politics on an unconstitutional level? I say we avoid having to make such a determination by keeping religion out of the picture entirely.

I respect your viewpoint, and particularly respect your military service, which has helped ensure that you and the rest of the people in the US have the right to worship God or not, or worship Mithras or not.
I think Kim Jong Il, Stalin, Marx, Castro and Putin would soundly agree with you.

There is always that annoying problem of wanting a country that "keeps religion out of the picture entirely", but not wanting to move to any countries like that, Cuba, China, Viet Nam, and then there are all the "reasons" why not.

My friend, we call that a double standard. I know the postal system is better there, and the roads are much better, and the services and liberties are so, so, so much better, the medical care is three times higher, but so is the quality, and there are more options, and you can buy a car with cash and get it the same day. Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention that the military you serve in allows Muslims, athiests, Catholics, Hindus, Jews, and followers of Zarquon, Mormons and Christians. The prisons there are better conditions than the military in much of Central Europe.

For what it's worth, I was in Russia before communism collapsed, and lived there 1 year after. I now live in Post-Communist Central Europe, where I see the permanent scars on a culture from 45 years of atheism. Believe me, friend, you should spend six months living in a place like that, and then complain about the religious influence in America.

Thank-You for your service and sacrifice to keep the US the country that it is.

Salt Agent.

[Goat]

The way I see it, it's rather difficult not to assume reference to the Abrahamic God in the Pledge.

The fact that the majority of naive Christians in your country may think Allah is the same as Yahweh, is as telling as the fact that the majority of these same people can't name the ten commandments, and that the majority of Americans polled erroneously think "separation of church and state" is in the constitution.

While the Constitution doesn't specifically call for "seperation of church and state" in those specific terms, that seperation is necassary in order to prevent the state sponsorship of a religion, which is specifically addressed in the Constitution. Once you start incorporating religious elements into the political arena, you're putting yourself on a slippery slope towards exactly the type of religious affiliation that the Constitution forbids.

Really? That's clearly not how the founding fathers saw it. In fact, religious elements, specifically from Judeo Christianity, and the Bible, have been incorporated into many aspects of the political arena, from the pledge of allegience to carvings in marble all over Washington, public prayers by Washington, Lincoln, and a national day of prayer, thanksgiving, national Christian heritage week, and others.

And for the record, the constitution does not forbid religious affiliation. It protects it. It says that Congress shall not establish a state religion. What you seem to be advocating/ wanting is an atheist state where all reference to God, specifically Yahweh, are banned.
Interestingly, You don't seem to mind other religions that have many Gods.

How do we determine when religion has become incorporated into government and politics on an unconstitutional level? I say we avoid having to make such a determination by keeping religion out of the picture entirely.

I respect your viewpoint, and particularly respect your military service, which has helped ensure that you and the rest of the people in the US have the right to worship God or not, or worship Mithras or not.
I think Kim Jong Il, Stalin, Marx, Castro and Putin would soundly agree with you.

There is always that annoying problem of wanting a country that "keeps religion out of the picture entirely", but not wanting to move to any countries like that, Cuba, China, Viet Nam, and then there are all the "reasons" why not.

My friend, we call that a double standard. I know the postal system is better there, and the roads are much better, and the services and liberties are so, so, so much better, the medical care is three times higher, but so is the quality, and there are more options, and you can buy a car with cash and get it the same day. Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention that the military you serve in allows Muslims, athiests, Catholics, Hindus, Jews, and followers of Zarquon, Mormons and Christians. The prisons there are better conditions than the military in much of Central Europe.

For what it's worth, I was in Russia before communism collapsed, and lived there 1 year after. I now live in Post-Communist Central Europe, where I see the permanent scars on a culture from 45 years of atheism. Believe me, friend, you should spend six months living in a place like that, and then complain about the religious influence in America.

Thank-You for your service and sacrifice to keep the US the country that it is.

Salt Agent.

You are taking the scars of the ideology of "THE ALL POWERFUL STATE" and imposing it on atheism. THE ALL POWERFUL STATE, which Putin is trying to reimpose in my opinion, has nothing to do with atheism, but rather with ideology
They replaced God with Lenin.

I be you would find living in Saudia Arabia, or Afganistan under the taliban, or in any overtly Islamic country equally disturbing to you.

[pwsoldier]

While the Constitution doesn't specifically call for "seperation of church and state" in those specific terms, that seperation is necassary in order to prevent the state sponsorship of a religion, which is specifically addressed in the Constitution. Once you start incorporating religious elements into the political arena, you're putting yourself on a slippery slope towards exactly the type of religious affiliation that the Constitution forbids.

Really? That's clearly not how the founding fathers saw it. In fact, religious elements, specifically from Judeo Christianity, and the Bible, have been incorporated into many aspects of the political arena, from the pledge of allegience to carvings in marble all over Washington, public prayers by Washington, Lincoln, and a national day of prayer, thanksgiving, national Christian heritage week, and others.

I'm not pretentious enough to believe that the Founding Fathers got everything everything right. If there were Christian elements put into our political infrastructure at the start of our country, then they were erroneous to do so. The
Constitution may not have specifically forbidden it, but Christian symbolism can easily lead to state-sponsorship of Christianity, and can even more easily be misconstrued as such.

And for the record, the constitution does not forbid religious affiliation. It protects it. It says that Congress shall not establish a state religion. What you seem to be advocating/ wanting is an atheist state where all reference to God, specifically Yahweh, are banned.

The constitution forbids government bias towards religion. You're right, this doesn't forbid affilitation, but it does make universal affiliation prudent. That is, open recognition of non-Christian religions. And frankly, I don't see that happening on a level beyond possibly incorporating a Menorah into the winter displays.

Interestingly, You don't seem to mind other religions that have many Gods.

No, I don't. Nor do I have any problems with monotheistic religions. It's the one-sided government affliliation with Christianity that I have issues with. It woudldn't be any different if the religion in question were, for example, Hinduism. If the Hindu faith were getting millions of dollars of the taxpayers money and the names of all the Hindu Gods where incorporated into patriotic fervor while all other religions were left in the cold, I'd be just as opposed to it.

How do we determine when religion has become incorporated into government and politics on an unconstitutional level? I say we avoid having to make such a determination by keeping religion out of the picture entirely.

There is always that annoying problem of wanting a country that "keeps religion out of the picture entirely", but not wanting to move to any countries like that, Cuba, China, Viet Nam, and then there are all the "reasons" why not.

My friend, we call that a double standard. I know the postal system is better there, and the roads are much better, and the services and liberties are so, so, so much better, the medical care is three times higher, but so is the quality, and there are more options, and you can buy a car with cash and get it the same day. Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention that the military you serve in allows Muslims, athiests, Catholics, Hindus, Jews, and followers of Zarquon, Mormons and Christians. The prisons there are better conditions than the military in much of Central Europe.

One of my first memories is standing on the Berlin Wall at age four right after the collapse of the Iron Curtain. Trust me, I know what atheist political ideologies have done to the world. The government I'd like to see in America doesn't suppress religion and push atheism down peoples' throats. People should be free to worship as they choose. It is 100% possible to maintain such a society while keeping religious influence and symbolism completely out of the government itself.

[Beto]

Salt Agent, would you be perfectly fine with having "One nation, Under the gods" in the pledge of allegiance?