[-V-]

Asking all Americans to pledge "under God" or be silent is anti-American.

"Under God" was added to our anthem in the 1950's because of a growing fear of communism. There are over 2 thousand religions and a few million citizens in the U.S. who don't worship any God. There is nothing more American than respecting the individual religious beliefs of all Americans by not making them feel out of place or uncomfortable in school or other public places and events.

[Badandy]

They can just choose not to say the "under god" part. I am not religious and I am a conservative (imagine that, broke more liberal's stereotypes) but I have no problem saying it. If you don't believe it, don't say it.

Besides, our government was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Why do you think God is mentioned several times in our great Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence?

[-V-]

that's your solution -- just don't say it? Would you just say "under Alah" or "under Buddha" or "under Zeus". And would you want your child to be alienated in school because he was the "weird", "Godless" kid that won't say it.

Your slipping today, that was another easy one.

[Michael DeM]

What most Christians don't realize is that putting God in public places actually diminishes God and basically encourages hypocrisy from Christians. For example, if you meet a Christian who happens to be waiting till marriage to have sex, your first reaction may be that he/she is some sort of ulra-religious zealot. But if you meet ,say, a Muslim who's waiting till marriage, then you may admire his/her faith. Why do you think this is? Because Christianity is part of the establishment. One can say he's Christian without meaning it. God has simply become a tradition. In addition, showing government preference for God discriminates against non-Christians. Besides being just plain wrong, discrimination also causes resentment among those being discriminated against. It makes the Christian faith look bad. It makes the Christian faith look exclusive rather than inclusive. Maybe Christians should listen to the words of Jesus:"Judge not, that you may not be judged."

[mikeike]

I think if you will check God is written one time in the constitution.It appeared to me they wanted a Godless constitution.

[gratelady1]

" There is nothing more American than respecting the individual religious beliefs of all Americans by not making them feel out of place or uncomfortable in school or other public places and events.

So when I was young and in school and had to recite this pledge, which included something I found difficult to believe in- "God", and it made me unconfortable, and made me feel like my church was trying to instill the fear God even more in me (I mean if God could infiltrate my school), then by your own arguement it should not be in the pledge- right? Let me add this, by the "Poisoning the well theory" if I found it hard to believe in God and it's associated with my country, then theoritically, how could I ever believe in my country? I believe if this country and all that it stands for is great, then even God would agree, he is not needed in it's pledge anymore than if you are a great christian and already guaranteed your seat next to him- like his son. Other wise it's just more brainwashing, isnt it? And why would you have to brainwash a young kid who doesn't undertsand your politics, God, or the reason he has to go to school everyday, for how long a day?

[haus]

The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson. From WikiPedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) we find:

"He was also the first Presidential candidate to be the target of a smear campaign from his opponents due to his religious beliefs. Jefferson, a Deist, was accused of being an atheist by the supporters of John Adams."

Which, is to say, he wasn't a Christian. He was raised Episcopalian, but there's little evidence to support a contention that he was Christian as an adult, during his political career.

The "Under God" bit has been almost universally misconstrued by evangelicals to mean "Under Jesus." It's rediculous. The jump is like saying that when Bin Laden says "Inshah Allah" he's praising Jesus.

Cheers --

[wimzkl]

There is significance in the fact that it is the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”) that establishes a “wall of separation between church and state” (Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists.) Obviously, our Founding Fathers, with their knowledge and close memories of religious persecution, felt it was of paramount importance.

As a Christian convert as an adult from the Unitarianism and atheism/agnosticism in which I was raised, I think we ought to do "under God" rather than say it. But, in the spectrum of issues, this is a chill-out. It's a warm day for winter. It's a good day to sketch clouds.

I can just about hear Jesus saying we ought to do "under God" rather than say it. Those who want the Christian community to unite against the 14% minority and those who demand a return of our schools to their particular brand of prejudiced knowledge and to pledge "under God," should listen to Jesus before casting any stones.

How do we want the 97% majority in Iraq to treat the 3% that are Christian. We should treat our 14% minority as we would have the Iraq 97% do unto the 3% that are Christian. If that means not pledging "under God," then that is what we should do. Still, we are a diverse nation so I can't say that "Asking all Americans to pledge "under God" or be silent is anti-American."

I ask liberals I know to be more conservative and I ask conservatives I know to be more liberal. That is American. Anti-American is when you don't respect other's beliefs no matter what they may be.

[Atheista]

First of all, Jesus didn't give us the standard "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That idea is expressed in every major religion, most ofwhich pre-date christianity. Secondly, there is no way to prove the man ever said that because he never wrote anything(illiterate?). Third, the word "God" never appears in the constitution or the bill of rights. The constitution mentions a "creator" because the founders were Deists and so this is the god of nature they are referring to and not the Judeo-christian deity. Lastly, taking "under God" out of the pledge and returning it to its original form is a very American thing to do as it respects the separation of church and state which Jefferson deliberately enshrined in the first amendment to keep fanatics like you out of power. www.atheistactivist.org

[-V-]

First of all, Jesus didn't give us the standard "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That idea is expressed in every major religion, most of which pre-date christianity. Secondly, there is no way to prove the man ever said that because he never wrote anything (illiterate?). Third, the word "God" never appears in the constitution or the bill of rights. The constitution mentions a "creator" because the founders were Deists and so this is the god of nature they are referring to and not the Judeo-christian deity. Lastly, taking "under God" out of the pledge and returning it to its original form is a very American thing to do as it respects the separation of church and state which Jefferson deliberately enshrined in the first amendment to keep fanatics like you out of power.

terrific post Atheista! That's what I call progressive, out-of-the-box thinking. The time for injecting a dose of reality into the mindsets of everyone under the spell of organized religion is long overdue.

I'd like to start a new thread dedicated to the atheist point of view. I'm sure some people here would like to challenge your ideas. I'm sure we would all learn from it.

[halg]

I think if you will check God is written one time in the constitution.It appeared to me they wanted a Godless constitution.

er, no. I think you mean the Declaration of Independence ("creator" is used there). The constitution is a roadmap for government, not a political thesis like the declaration.

Just my opinion.

[Michael DeM]

I haven't yapped here in a while, so here goes ...

The argument is about removing the phrase "Under God" from the pledge of Allegiance? I have another idea.

Let's remove the Pledge of Allegiance from the U.S. period. I have never heard of any country having a "pledge of allegiance" ... much less to a piece of cloth, which in turn represents the blood (that's the red part) of a lot of young boys and girls in the name of promoting capitalism, oil, and destruction of Earth's environment.


I don't know, Halg. I still get a warm feeling inside from looking at the flag. To me, the Pledge of Allegiance in some way instills in oneself a feeling of genuine patriotism (not to be confused with the nationalism that has been used to further war and other destructive aims). Nevertheless, I agree with you and WP about the "under God" part. What does it mean to have the words "One nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or to have "In God We Trust" on our money? Does it somehow imply that people who don't believe in God or at least that particular deity are less a part of this nation? Is it less patriotic to have religious beliefs that don't involve the deity known as "God"?

One time I was thinking to myself, "Is it really such a big deal that we have mentions of God in some of our public institutions? After all, I believe in God. I like reading 'In God We Trust' on the coins. Saying 'One nation under God' makes me feel good. People who don't share my beliefs can't be that offended by it; it's not hurting them personally." Then the question came into my mind: What if the Pledge of Allegiance went, "One nation under no god whatsoever"? What if the coins read "In no god we trust"? I know that I wouldn't like that at all, and I'm sure that most Americans who believe in God wouldn't tolerate that for one second, even if the tables were turned and they were the ones in the minority.

The point I'm trying to make is that there's no place for national symbols and slogans that make some people feel out of place or discriminated against, especially if you wouldn't want to have the same done to you. Religious freedom is of tremendous value to Americans, but it can't be compromised by the subtle coercion that comes about from blurring the lines between church and state.

[KRITER]

God shood be took off everything having to do with the government fed or state.out the pledg,off the money,nothing to do with religion on government buildings or papers.
Theres spose to be and shood be a seperation of church and state.
A person runing for office shoodnt hav to talk about wether they god beleevers or not.A person wants to see or talk religion go to church.There nothing unAmerican about taking god out the government.

[KRITER]

Puting religion in the government is pushing religion on other people.Just cuz thairs other countrys that hav religion in thair government dont meen we hav to.
And just cuz its been in the government along time dont make it rite cuz its rong now and was rong then.A person can worship anything they want.Its a personal choice.Forcing it on others makes it look bad.

[lynchbug]

I would have to put in my thoughts, of course, being a member of the Clergy, and so, naturally, given to knowledge of the existence of The Goddesses and the Gods from direct experience.

I like spirituality, for myself, it is a wonder each and every day. I think my neighbors who are spiritual, reap rewards, regardless of who they happen to pick to be their God.

But, being yet vain and self-serrving as the culture at large seems to be, there is a danger in Public promotion of spirituality, and far more danger in the promotion of Religion, which is literally, a body of law given by Deity.

Do I like to see the Creche or a huge Menorah, or a large candlestand of Kwanzaa Candles in public in the Winter Solstice time? I sure do! Do I like to see Depictions of the Oak King, or Pere Noel then? I sure do!

But, what of those whose chosen faith is a faith that we are born, we live, we die, and the worms eat us and all is done? It is just as valid as my own. It can foster the growth of a heroic ethos in a person, who must without guidance or ongoing contact with Deity choose the beneficial from the detrimental on only the basis of their science, or, just their hunches.

I am not a Paulist, and so, I care not for the purpose he promulgated of not giving offence to one's neighbor. But, I am in my spiritual tradition charged with doing no harm.

So, although I believe our Nation needs more spirituality, everwhere, in each waking and dreaming moment, I must consider if I create a harm to my neighbor by using public land for a religious display.

The Invisible Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan are a religious body. When they Illuminate a Cross, many feel harmed.

When I dance and drum in the light of the Moon, I create a late night ruckus, and it could be a harm or a frightful sight to see a group of naked women behaving thus in a National Forest.

So, I love those things that remind us we are more than flesh, but, I also feel for those who have concluded we are no more than flesh. I do not wish my spirituality to burden anyone and create a harm.

Do we outlaw these things? Do we let them die the slow death of disfavor?

I love spirit, because I am spirit and flesh, and the Goddess is Spirit, when She is not both Spirit and flesh. But, for Government to use the trappings of the Spritual would be natural, for Spiritual beings.

However, the symbolism gets specific, except for those who have no deity, and then they feel immersed in an alien culture.

I say, if you have a Church, and want a Creche, build it big and light it brightly (with solar power) on the lawn!! If your Coven wishes to dance skyclad under the Full Moon, do, and make a great bonfire if regulations and fire safety permit, but do it in a fallow corner of a neighbor's field or wood, off the public way.

And if you hold no thought of Deity, well, Fence off an area of Private Ground somewhere, and place your thesis on a placard therein!

Freedom of Spirituality for all, but not on the Commons. (The Stocks and Pillories were generally on the Commons....LOL)

I would except from such restraint, in perpetuity, and for freedom of religion of the Brave and the True, who in their Posthumous State, have wished their graves to be marked with a symbol of their Spritual Tradition; our National Cemeteries, the Final Liberty of just and fearless women and men.

Don't buy their frakkin books. Save a tree, and reduce the carbon footprint!

[grammasanity]

There was a reason our founding fathers separated church and state! The efforts in the last administration to blur the line need to be undone. But not by removing God from the National Anthem. That's part of history, Just like the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul.
When I was an atheist, back in the 60's, before LSD, I never had any trouble with believers, with sacred music, or any thing at all, really. That was a far more god-oriented time than this. If you truly don't believe and feel great without God, why does it offend you that others value the comfort and/or guidance of religion? Every society needs a cultural myth to hold them together. I think youth reacts to the current myth by saying, "I don't believe that." Then they find something they can believe in. To spend a lot of time saying what you don't believe in is pretty trivial, when you could be saying what you do believe to be right and important.

[-V-]

Are you DOUBTING the Founders documents, like the Constitution and the Declaration etc...?

Some words of wisdom from some founding fathers:

"lighthouses are more useful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin

"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it" - John Adams

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" - Thomas Jefferson

[-V-]

We don't see these "Words of Wisdom" do we son?

http://affiliates.art.com/get.art?P=13946430&L=8&Y=1&A=504682&GCID=C15529x020

We don't see the Men in prayer at Omaha Beach, Gettysburg, along the Oregon Trail, at Cape Canaveral when Christy McAullife and friends were killed, or at the SIGHT OF 9/11!!

Wisdom is also realizing what THOSE Founders meant, as they were talking RELIGION, not the concept of God himself!!

me painting a portrait of you with your head up your ass would probably be more accurate than someone's painting of Washington praying.

and neither is there any wisdom in my not stepping on cracks, or under ladders, or any man, including myself praying for any possible deity to help me survive the battlefield

superstition, desperation,
but not wisdom,
son

none of which speaks to our forefather's clearly intended separation of church and state -- God and Constitution

[charleslb]

Asking all Americans to pledge "under God" or be silent is anti-American.

"Under God" was added to our anthem in the 1950's because of a growing fear of communism. There are over 2 thousand religions and a few million citizens in the U.S. who don't worship any God. There is nothing more American than respecting the individual religious beliefs of all Americans by not making them feel out of place or uncomfortable in school or other public places and events.

I agree with you 100%, however I think that the better question would be is making non-Christians and non-theists feel disincluded with references to the Christian deity in the Pledge really consistent with being devout, in a spiritual and loving sense?

If one cultivates a gentle and loving form of spirituality, well, shouldn't he/she want to refrain from trampling on the sensibilities of secularists with allusions to the Divine in the Pledge or by posting the Ten Commandments in public spaces? A practitioner of a compassionate type of spirituality would not feel it to be such a big imposition on his need to witness to his faith to keep God out of the schools and national anthem if this would spare a goodly number of people's feelings. Yep, being spiritual, in the best sense of the word, means caring more about other peoples feelings than your own egoistic need to cram your beliefs down their throats. Religious rightists who feel driven to impose their religiosity on everyone else should examine their true psychological motives, perhaps they'd realize that their efforts to rudely rub their fellow man and woman's face in God and to legislate society's morality according to their intolerant interpretation of holy writ isn't really all that spiritual.

:sunny:

[Tom's Fork]

I am not entirely sure, but I believe the first person in history to have the words "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you," was not Jesus, but rather five hundred years earlier, in China: Confuscius.

In fact, the moral and legal basis of all societies everywhere are built on the concept. I won't murder you, if you don't murder me....

[Wizard777]

I am not entirely sure, but I believe the first person in history to have the words "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you," was not Jesus, but rather five hundred years earlier, in China: Confuscius.

In fact, the moral and legal basis of all societies everywhere are built on the concept. I won't murder you, if you don't murder me....

Very good! Zarathustra was the first in montheism to present that sentiment in a do unto others form. I'll have to check on his exact phrasing of it. I like and use the more modern phrasing of Jesus. But I think that's something Zarathustra picked from the Magi. He is frequently misatributed as being "the Father of the Magi." Though he was Magupaiti, meaning Master Magi or Master of the Magi. The Magi is not his creation. He merely converted them. The Magi actually predate Faridoon (an Eden like Ancient Persia) and go back to the Ancient and Accepted Masters of the Orient.