The Pledge of Allegiance

[acludem]

I support removing the phrase "under god" from the Pledge. This phrase was not in the pledge of allegiance as originally written by a Methodist minister. It originally read "one nation, indivisible..." The "under god" was added by Dwight Eisenhower during the height of McCarthyism so we would not be godless commies. This is not, has never been "one nation under god" First of all, which "god" are we under? Allah? Yahweh? Jehoveh? How about Buddha? And which version...Catholic? Methodist? Baptist? Mormon? Muslim? Buddhist? My pledging allegiance to one nation under god are we then forced to believe in a god? I'm an agnostic, and I know several people who are Atheists...Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison were all Deists...would be they be expelled today?

We are not "one nation under god" we are "one nation" so let's pledge to be something we are and instead of something we should not be.

 

[jimnyc]

Been beaten to death already:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=613

 

[jon_forward]

this country came about because folks wanted religous freedom, so I feel in a way we are bound to it, 'under G-D ' the way I see it is ment to be the supreme being that you answer to. Far as Im concerned different name same being anyway. so would this not make us" one nation under G-D " G-D being that many named supreme being? If you dont believe in a supreme being say the pledge but skip the under G-D, easy enough. the same could be said of the dollar bill.....in G-D we trust......:cof:

 

[acludem]

For the record "In God We Trust" did not appear on paper money until the 1950s when Eisenhower put it there...it was in the same package of changes that affected the Pledge, and since this has been beaten to death, I'll bring up something else.

acludem

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
For the record "In God We Trust" did not appear on paper money until the 1950s when Eisenhower put it there...it was in the same package of changes that affected the Pledge, and since this has been beaten to death, I'll bring up something else.

acludem

Eisenhower put it there? It was sent through congress, all the president did was approve it.

The "In god we trust" goes back much farther than that when discussing US currency. The whole idea behing placing that on the money started in the 1800's. The first US currency to bear this inscription was in 1864.

 

[janeeng]

Sorry! but I think it's SICK to remove it - as well as the 10 commandments and everything else!!!!!

As a kid, we always did the pledge of allegiance!
the statue of 10 commandments, well, sad too, those that didn't like it, should just not have bothered to look at it.
Just as the FLAG, not wanting it waved in areas for fear of bothering some - TOUGH! this is OUR Country, this is OUR FLAG, no like - GET OUT!!! it's just a shame that all that is taken out of this Country to cater to some!!! Again, you can look back to 9/11 and those that have asked "how could God let this happen" well, these are some simple reasons why, his name has been taken out of people's lives.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by acludem
I support removing the phrase "under god" from the Pledge. This phrase was not in the pledge of allegiance as originally written by a Methodist minister. It originally read "one nation, indivisible..."

I'm all for taking the 'indivisible' part out... but maybe that's just my Southern heritage bleeding out!

 

[Psychoblues]

"Under God" denotes a religious preference or recognition. We, whether you want to recognize it or not, are a nation with a government that chose in it's very beginning to be devoid of religion. You say, they say , I say as this relates to religion is a many times debated subject. Our founding fathers rejected religion as a premise or foundation for our government. Do a little reading, PLEASE.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
"Under God" denotes a religious preference or recognition. We, whether you want to recognize it or not, are a nation with a government that chose in it's very beginning to be devoid of religion. You say, they say , I say as this relates to religion is a many times debated subject. Our founding fathers rejected religion as a premise or foundation for our government. Do a little reading, PLEASE.

Perhaps a little reading is in order: from the Declaration of Independence to the settlement treaty with Britain to the Constitution itself, there are references to divinity, "our Lord" and "their Creator"...

to whom, do you suppose, they refer???

 

[MtnBiker]

Our founding fathers were looking into the future, they were thinking of Franklin D. Roosevelt the creator of the New Deal.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Our founding fathers were looking into the future, they were thinking of Franklin D. Roosevelt the creator of the New Deal.

 

[Psychoblues]

Then WHY, may I ask, was there ever any reference to any separation of "Church and State"? Personally, I'm not against the proliferation of any religion in this country. But you indicate that you might be. I still believe that the wall between our government and our many religions should be upheld. I surely don't desire any compellation from any quarter which of these religions I should embrace.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Then WHY, may I ask, was there ever any reference to any separation of "Church and State"? Personally, I'm not against the proliferation of any religion in this country. But you indicate that you might be. I still believe that the wall between our government and our many religions should be upheld. I surely don't desire any compellation from any quarter which of these religions I should embrace.

Your statement:

"Our founding fathers rejected religion as a premise or foundation for our government. Do a little reading, PLEASE."

was not about what you believed nor what you wanted. And since you challenged to do a little reading I reply that in a substantial number of writings such as those above and various other documents there is certain rebuttal to your contention that our nation was founded "devoid of religion".

It was not in it's gestation, infancy nor the next several hundred years devoid of any link to a higher power named God or our Lord. It was merely free. There is a difference.

 

[Psychoblues]

Nice obfuscation, but not an answer to my question. Need I repeat it?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Nice obfuscation, but not an answer to my question. Need I repeat it?

Your question being why was there any reference to a separation between church and state? I don't need to answer that question because you did not state where you think those words appear in a document upon which this country was founded. Let me know where it appears, I'll answer the question then.

And my post was not obfuscation, it was clarification. You did not produce one document in which a ruling body in this country- before, during or after it's creation - wrote the words "separation of church and state" but I can come up with a dozen or so which use the words "God", "Lord", "Creator" and/or "divine".

 

[jimnyc]

I love it when she gets feisty! And she's 100% correct here!

 

[Psychoblues]

This is not comedy central. Are you telling me that you are not familiar with the "separation of church and state" premise upon which this country is founded and upon which we still stand today? Given the beliefs of a few of our founding fathers we'd all be quakers. A few more and we'd all be atheists. Are you familiar at all with those most important individual's beliefs and writings? I certainly don't intend to go back to History and American Politics 101 with you.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
This is not comedy central. Are you telling me that you are not familiar with the "separation of church and state" premise upon which this country is founded and upon which we still stand today? Given the beliefs of a few of our founding fathers we'd all be quakers. A few more and we'd all be atheists. Are you familiar at all with those most important individual's beliefs and writings? I certainly don't intend to go back to History and American Politics 101 with you.

Bzzzzzzzzzzz. Wrong!

Clipped for your reading pleasure!

By Sue Ella Deadwyler

David Barton authored a book we all need to read and keep as a reference. The title is Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, first published in 1996. By 2002 it was in the second printing of the third edition. As the title indicates, it reveals the original intent of the U.S. Constitution and emphasizes that the Founding Fathers never intended for Christianity to be purged from public, political or private life. In fact, they explicitly warned that the form of government outlined in the Constitution could be maintained only in a society based on moral absolutes of the Scriptures.

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That's as clear as a bell. It simply prohibits Congress from intruding into our public or private religious freedom. It does not allow for its current application and misinterpretation that Christian expression and practice should be banished from the public.

The false notion of a "wall of separation of church and state" has been force-fed the public so long, that it's been accepted as truth. If this were Russia, it would be the truth, because that concept was in the constitution of the U.S.S.R. But, the United States has no constitutional prohibition against religious expression. However, since 1947, courts have misinterpreted the First Amendment and consistently pushed Christianity out of the public forum. Religious freedom had been legal for 150 years until the 1947 Emerson v. Board of Education Court decision stated, "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable." That wrong interpretation 56 years ago was the granddaddy of future court decisions that, until this day, continue the attack on Christianity, especially in schools and the work place.

 

[jimnyc]

This is not comedy central.

It's not? I was starting to think so reading some of your posts!

 

[Psychoblues]

Then the confusion between governments and religions continue to plague us with wars, economically and politically? Not to mention with real blood and real lives. The separation is real and for good cause. Are you protecting America or your religion? They are quite different, you know?