Lets Take God Out Of The Pledge Of Allegiance...!

actually thats wrong

In God IS OUR Trust ... is from the star spangled banner.

Cash, I think the thing you're missing in your arguments is that the intent matters. Context matters. The things you cite are deistic and allegorical in their usage.

When you say "we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights," creator is used in a purely deistic sense... an absolute point of origin. They could have said "we all pop out of the egg with certain inalienable rights" or "we all evolved from single celled organisms with certain inalienable rights." It isn't a declaration of judeo-christian belief. Many references to a god or creator in our early history are that way and don't mean god in the "good news" evangelical sense.

"Under God" in the pledge isn't the same, nor is a monument to the ten commandments in a courthouse. They are not simply ceremonial deism. They're Christian territorial markers and the intent is to declare the United States as a Christian nation. This isn't a new fight. Secularists and theists have been fighting this cultural battle since the beginning, but I think the intent of the founders is clear... our governmet was to remain neutral in respect to religion. It has never truly been that way. Many of the founders were incensed by the hiring of Christian chaplains to open Congress with a prayer. If you're debating the history of this issue from either side it has to be with the understanding that it's never truly been one way or the other in practice, but I believe the intent of the founders in the establishment clause is clear... and I also concede that it hasn't been followed well, even from the beginning. That doesn't mean I have to be okay with it, or that the intent has some kind of statute of limitations on it.

When people make the claim that this country was founded on Christianity and that our laws are based on the bible, and try to use those claims as justification for eroding the separation of church and state even more, they're not only wrong in their claims, they're wrong in their intent. If we're going to avoid a cultural war between Christians and non-Christians we need to head back towards neutrality, and that means that those of us who find any government involvement in or endorsement of religion to be divisve and offensive will continue to fight for that neutrality, and will continue to view those who fight for those things to be enemies of neutrality and pluralism. "of the people, by the people, and for the people" needs to mean ALL the people. Not just theists.

Your argument simply defends the status quo. I'm not willing to accept the status quo and I will always argue to change it. Goverment simply can't be in the business of endorsing religion. A newly elected president using theistic language in his innaugural address isn't quite the same thing. That's an individual speaking of their individual beliefs. I personally find that distasteful but not especially troublesome. Now if that newly elected president asked everyone in his audience to place their hands over their hearts and repeat after him, I would have a BIG problem with that... just as I have a big problem with people displaying the ten commandments in courthouses... not only because it's a goverment endorsement of Christianity, but because it's there in support of something that's not even true... the notion that our laws have a biblical basis. They don't. When I hear so many people claim that they are, and claim that this country was founded on christianity then I know that evangelicals are succeeding in rewriting our history. That's something that needs to be fought against, not out of a hate of religion, but out of love for the truth.

Jefferson and Madison were huge hypocrites. Both of them professed to abhor slavery, but it was just too damn convenient to pratice what they preached at others.

God does not exist.

~Ulrika~

*Sigh*

To all of the bible thumpers, I'll just repeat the facts...

"Under God" was added to the Pledge in 1954 by Congress to combat the "Godless" (Athestic) Communists.

Some References if you don't believe me:
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067499
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

==============
God and references to dieties may have been in prior historical documents, but so was slavery, bigotry, sexism, and a lot of other bad things as well as good things. You could use your arguements to bring back racism and sexism to our country. Don't pick and choose what you want to from the facts to support your twisted arguements about what the USA is about.

And if it helps, I believe in God. I also believe in the United States of America and the freedoms we stand for. I don't stand for turning this country into a theocracy.

Hank Ramos does not exist.

~Ulrika~

hehe, can't really argue with that, but minus the slavery issue I think they were pretty enlightened. Secularism was heady stuff considering people still have a great deal of trouble grasping the concept.

So does that mean Hank Ramos is God...One nation under Hank...

Deists were Christians. Thomas Jefferson was a nut.

Heh, let me explain.

Not many Americans know that religious warfare between Christian denominations and sects were common in the American colonies before the Revolutionary War, and thousands of colonists were murdered, assassinated, ambushed, or killed in battle. In the most extreme case, a declared war broke out between the Anglican colony of Virginia and the Catholic colony of Maryland, and the militias of both colonies fought for a year along the Potomac River. (Maryland lost.)

The so-called "Founding Fathers," a ruthless, radical, activist bunch, regarded these religious problems as a threat to the revolution and the new nation -- which was off to a very shakey start in the 1780s. They were mostly Deists, which has a very Christian-like set of beliefs, but supports the ideas that the universe is a machine-like creation that humans can understand and control, and that God gave humans the gift of reason, and expects them to use it to solve their own problems. To the Deists, prayer and divine intercession were the very last resorts -- politics and economics offered solutions that God would approve of.

So the Founding Fathers had few reservations about using law, government, and military force to crush Christian misbehavior toward Christians -- and create a legacy that embraces a secular moral code of political behavior that is loosely based on Christian Deism. And generally, they succeeded.

When it came to religion, Jefferson was the most extreme of the bunch, and at various times advocated the constitutional abolishment of religious institutions altogether. Many of his contemporaries in leadership quietly agreed with him, but also recognized that it was a question of political survival -- go too far, and the mob will rise up against you.

So the United States was founded on some Christian principles, but not the ones that modern fundamentalist Christian activists like to pretend to. And the majority of Founding Fathers would be unacceptable to both FCA's and Republican interest-groups because of their beliefs and actions. The majority of them would also be unacceptable to the Democrats -- because of their other beliefs and actions.

My favorite Founding Father -- and the one who did more than anyone else to win the Revolution and insure political stability -- is Benjamin Franklin. No modern party candidate material, he. What more can you say about a physicist who, as ambassador to France, negotiated the alliance that won the war, seduced the French king and his ministers, along with over 300 French courtesans, and fathered at least thirty children? Ah, Paris....

I don't think you can really compare Deism to Christianity. They're apples and oranges. The Deist god is just a means of explaining creation. Prayer and divine intercession weren't just last resorts, they were meaningless. Deists believed that once god created the universe his work was finished, and so was his interest in the affairs of mankind. A Deist wouldn't pray because he didn't believe there was a god to listen. The notion of a personal relationship with god was in no way a Deist belief. Neither Jefferson or Madison (and undoubtedly many others) believed in the divinity of Jesus. When Bush said that his favorite philosopher was Jesus, that was something that Jefferson and Madison would have thought a very intelligent thing to say since they saw Jesus only as a philosopher, not as the son of god.

A good FAQ on Deist belief can be found here http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm



I think that's a hugely important point that people who use the religious language argument fail to take into account in any objective way. They were politicians and Christianity was the prevailing religious belief at the time. They had to pander to a certain extent. However, Deism and Christianity are so far apart in their beliefs that religious language in our early documents takes on a very different meaning when viewed from the Deist point of view.

The pledge:

some judges do have sense: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/

but naturally they're on their way out: http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/

The Constitution:

note no reference to god anywhere within the text: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

the confederate constitution DOES:
http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

Vermont constitution, VERY interesting in how it goes on at length about God and how you may and/or may not push faith on people: http://www.usconstitution.net/vtconst.html#Article3

Many words make things very messy. This is why wordy, verbose laws are a lush ground to poke for loopholes.

Even a word like "Christian" doesn't a lot to me by itself, with the numerous denominations and segregation and all that. For me, it comes down to the individual.... and personal truths. Things which you may not be able to explain, but are a part of you

what Torley said...and then some. No one is suggesting we forget the past. But, regardless of what scrolls the creators of this country relied upon to create the documents, don't you all think it is time to learn from past mistakes world wide instead of recreating them like so many civil war reinactments. Let us take a look for a sec at the problems incurred by the dominance of religion in muslim countries or perhaps even the inquisition. Hmmm...the outcome isn't good sorry if I ruined the ending for ya. Even "if" our fathers declared the bible as king (which they did not)...would that make it ok? I know I harp on Gulliver's Travels, but really, which side of God we crack our prophet on should not be in question when it comes to human politics. Once again politics and religion do not mix, because religion is based upon an individualistic fables whereas logic is based upon natural law....nothing fictional, just common sence. Plato's nemesis was not god it was his own conscience. It was common sence that guided him.

Speaking of religion and politics not mixing...

Congratulatory letter to Bush from Dr. Bob Jones III

Dear Mr. President:

The media tells us that you have received the largest number of
popular votes of any president in America's history. Congratulations!

In your re-election, God has graciously granted America—though she
doesn't deserve it—a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. You have
been given a mandate. We the people expect your voice to be like the
clear and certain sound of a trumpet. Because you seek the Lord daily,
we who know the Lord will follow that kind of voice eagerly.

Don't equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil.
You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise
your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you.

Had your opponent won, I would have still given thanks, because the
Bible says I must (I Thessalonians 5:1. It would have been hard, but
because the Lord lifts up whom He will and pulls down whom He will, I
would have done it. It is easy to rejoice today, because Christ has
allowed you to be His servant in this nation for another presidential
term. Undoubtedly, you will have opportunity to appoint many
conservative judges and exercise forceful leadership with the Congress
in passing legislation that is defined by biblical norm regarding the
family, sexuality, sanctity of life, religious freedom, freedom of
speech, and limited government. You have four years—a brief time
only—to leave an imprint for righteousness upon this nation that
brings with it the blessings of Almighty God.

Christ said, "If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am,
there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my
father honour" (John 12:26).

The student body, faculty, and staff at Bob Jones University commit
ourselves to pray for you—that you would do right and honor the
Savior. Pull out all the stops and make a difference. If you have
weaklings around you who do not share your biblical values, shed
yourself of them. Conservative Americans would love to see one
president who doesn't care whether he is liked, but cares infinitely
that he does right.

Best wishes.

Sincerely your friend,

Bob Jones III
President

BJIII:lw

PS: A few moments ago I read this letter to the students in Chapel.
They applauded loudly their approval.

When I told them that Tom Daschle was no longer the minority leader of
the Senate, they cheered again.

On occasion, Christians have not agreed with things you said during
your first term. Nonetheless, we could not be more thankful that God
has given you four more years to serve Him in the White House, never
taking off your Christian faith and laying it aside as a man takes off
a jacket, but living, speaking, and making decisions as one who knows
the Bible to be eternally true.

http://www.bju.edu/letter

Allah bless the United States of America!

Buddha bless the United States of America!

Vishnu/Brahma/Shiva bless the United States of America!

Confucius bless the United States of America!

Satan/Lucifer/Shaitan bless the United States of America!

Jesus bless the United States of America!

The Goddess bless the United States of America!

Gaia bless the United States of America!

Yaweh bless the United States of America!

[fill in the blank] bless the United States of America!


hint - don't we have better and more important things to worry about with this government?

Religion of ANY kind does NOT belong anywhere in government - in its policies or its documents. Period. It's a simple conflict of interest!

THANK YOU! NO one has ever held a gun to your head and MADE you say the word (yes, a mere word, god) BUT There are those that are attempting to make it so that WE (read we, as any who so chose to utter that word) are IN violation of the law....Notice... no ONE EVER passed a law stating ANYONE had to utter those words, but now those who have the choice to NOT utter them are passing laws so anyone else CANNOT utter them. And they say we put them in an oppressive society. Freedom of speech means you can, or chose NOT to utter anything you might agree or disagree with, but once you pass a law that states that something is unutterable, as opposed to being something ANYONE can chose to not say. You cross the line from freedom of speech to fascism. The fucking word Nazis WILL win, thats the sad point. Sadder still is this....4 years ago, an electoral college win meant nothing to them, and for four years, the world listened to them rant and rave the GWB was NOT a popular or mandated president... NOW he won by THE LARGEST MARGIN in the history of the NATION, and what do they say? "Its not that large of a win, it's not truly a mandate" I guess that what I am so diametrically opposed to is those that use the freedoms our constitution allows them, to publicly, or privately use the rights that document and the Bill of Rights gives them, to tear down the basic building blocks of this nation. (Paradoxically, if we had LOST all the wars the liberals have spoken against, they would NOT have the right to speak against those military actions)

I guess what bothers me the most is, put into historical perspective, the sinking of the Andrea Doria was considered by most liberals as "The cost of doing business in a time of war" Given that mentality, then the World Trade Center attacks are just "The cost of business in a time of terrorism" At the sinking of several Atlantic crossing vessels, and pleasure cruise ships, put into perspective, we need another 8-10 9-11's to equal the death toll to spurr congress and the world to accepting us entering WWII

Fine, don't utter the word "God" but don't fight those who chose to fight for the right for you to say "I don't want to say that"

Thats what pisses me off the most, is while I fight for ANYONES right to utter or NOT utter their beliefs, I MUST FIGHT for that right, but if I chose to state I believe in a GOD. I just broke every amendment, and every constitutional article. (Selective bias, the same that caused the civil war)


I am SO TIRED of any constitutional argument about religion. The Aetheists conveniently chose to neglect that the constitution is about FREE PRACTICE, and clearly states that the gov't shall pass no law governing said free practice, giving them free right to protest!

BUT said law does not apply to the rest of the continental union, because that means Freedom of religion only applies to their SHORT majority

They claim thier supportive crew of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, JQ Adams, were just theists. Yet these same people used SEVERAL monotheistic statements to garner the will of the people. For them thats fine, but these same people condemn Bush for using the EXACT SAME tactics. Not only are they blasphemers, but total hypocrits! And God Bless those Blasphemerous Pagans!

You simply don't get it Cash. You're free to say whatever words you want... you are NOT FREE to coerce others into saying it. Aside from that, your arguments don't really make a hell of a lot of sense. Do you quote your own posts while responding to yourself often? Time to cut back on the booze dude.



You're not in violation of any laws by saying the word. That's just paranoid idiocy. Pledge allegiance to your toenails for all I care. Just stop trying to indoctrinate others in your toenail worship!

Dog does not exist!

~Ulrika~

God should not be referenced in anything dealing with the government. Period.

That's just pure right wing spin and it makes me laugh. He only won by a 2.9% margin which is hardly the largest margin in history. He had the most votes cast for him because we had record voter turnout. He also had the most votes cast against him of any candidate in history. Stop listening to right wing talk radio and use your brain.

Bush won with the smallest margin of victory for a sitting president in U.S. history in terms of the percentage of the popular vote. (Bush received 2.9% more than Kerry; the closest previous margin won by a sitting President was 3.2% for Woodrow Wilson in 1916.) In terms of absolute number of popular votes, his victory margin was the smallest of any sitting President since Harry S. Truman in 1948.

It is right wing spin, although the left wing spin is to downplay the election results at every opportunity (...which that last paragraph does ). Facts yes, but there's other facts to look at as well. The high turnout makes it a better representation of what the nation wanted (thus the "stronger mandate" argument), and the popular vote was won in addition to the electoral this time around...

Questioning the results now is a little ridiculous isn't it? And even if Kerry had scraped by to win the electoral votes, we'd have another "popular vote loser" winning, but losing in the popular vote count by a much greater margin than Bush lost it in 2000. I don't see why this topic still comes up. It seems pointless now...the election indicates that Bush's support has increased in four years, not the reverse, it's clear. Saying "Well, not as much as the support has increased for past re-elected presidents!" is moot and hints of desperation to find a negative spin on the election.

I'm not questioning the results (even though they are questionable). I'm countering BS with actual statistics. I've heard a lot of people make the claim that Bush won by the largest margin in history, and using that to justify the notion that he has a "mandate," meaning "the rest of you sit down and shut up. We have a mandate!" Pfft. If winning by the smallest margin in history gets you a mandate, what will we do if someone wins by a huge margin? Throw out democracy entirely and pronounce them king? It's exactly that "we have a mandate" mentality that caused "under god" to be inserted into the pledge (just to bring it back full circle). Our two party system is supposed to be about compromise and consensus building... not half the population lording over the other half.