One Nation "Under God"

[Tchocky]

Reciting the pledge always seemed strange to me. When we moved back to Ireland nobody believed that it was a real thing.


It's strange for a nation that is supposed to pride itself on freedom of expression and religion-free government keeps a rote-learned expression of theistic nationalism.


Then again, what do I know. We had prayer in schools and that was bloody weird too

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

My way? When was the last time in the most recent history that anyone was hauled off for not reciting the pledge?

Then, again, we should have no problem in removing this final stain of the McCarthy era, right?

Remember the good old days were not so good. Have they gotten better?

For a lot of people, yes I think they most certainly have. In fact, I don't think that an honest argument could be made that they haven't for the people. Minorities can eat and sit where they like, homosexuals are not rounded up and arrested, men and women are not put on trial for not being American enough, women are paid equally for equal work. I should remind you that Leave it to Beaver was not a documentary series.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Reciting the pledge always seemed strange to me. When we moved back to Ireland nobody believed that it was a real thing.


It's strange for a nation that is supposed to pride itself on freedom of expression and religion-free government keeps a rote-learned expression of theistic nationalism.

Thank you. See, I knew that, eventually, somebody was going to get it.

Then again, what do I know. We had prayer in schools and that was bloody weird too

They had that stateside too. In fact, the Regent's Prayer was said in New York City Public Schools up until 1962:

Almighty God,
we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee,
and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents,
our teachers and our country.

[Sailor Steve]

The original pledge: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
-Francis Bellamy, 1892

Bellamy was a Christian Socialist and Baptist minister, yet he didn't see fit to put in "Under God". Of course he also changed his mind about putting in "equality and fraternity".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

My way? When was the last time in the most recent history that anyone was hauled off for not reciting the pledge?

Four years ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022303889.html

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Four years ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022303889.html

Huh. I wasn't aware of that. Interesting.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

As for In God We Trust on the currency, that was the result of a petition from Reverend M. R. Watkinson shortly after the start of the American Civil War, where he thought it was super important for the Union to recognize Almighty God on it's currency, regardless of the separation of church and state. Frankly, it should never have been put there in the first place. Take it off too.

US currency is not controlled by the government. The US Federal Reserve is a private holding, not a public (aka governmental) one. As such, they can put whatever they like on there without needing to conform to any "separation of church and state" - though that in and of itself is not in the US Constitution. The idea that it should be taken off as well is a statement that one (or many) private citizens have the right to tell another private enterprise what it must do to "conform". If you take issue with US currency - don't use cash. But your opinion that the "separation" bit has any bearing on the current design of physical US currency is incorrect.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

US currency is not controlled by the government. The US Federal Reserve is a private holding, not a public (aka governmental) one. As such, they can put whatever they like on there without needing to conform to any "separation of church and state" - though that in and of itself is not in the US Constitution. The idea that it should be taken off as well is a statement that one (or many) private citizens have the right to tell another private enterprise what it must do to "conform". If you take issue with US currency - don't use cash. But your opinion that the "separation" bit has any bearing on the current design of physical US currency is incorrect.

Regardless of the technicality, it still is the central bank of the United States of America, and it should still be religiously neutral. Someone told this "private institution" that it should put the words on the currency, I can tell it to take it off. Door swings both ways.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Huh. I wasn't aware of that. Interesting.

I wasn't either. I just stumbled on it while looking up the original pledge.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

So i'd argue that religion actually plays an important part in society in keeping these people from acting like complete jackwagons.

Historically, religion usually promoted a more advanced culture. One big issue was the majority of common people were uneducated. Great philosophers, usually non religious, believed religion, using tools of great fear and guilt were needed to control the masses. Great doctrines were created to terrorize people into following the creeds of the church. Course, the elite didn't want to educate the masses as a whole, so they needed other tools. Take the early christian church, hell wasn't a doctrine and hardly believed except for a few groups that had great pagan influence. When Rome decided it best go christian, it implemented the more pagan hell of eternal torture, made it doctrine and people lived right because they lived in great fear. I guess one could argue cultures of wealth and education have little need of religion.

Many of us here can remember growing in a more religious culture. I didn't grow up in a religious family, but culture taught us God was always watching us and we never got by with anything. This constant eye in the sky did have some effect even on non religious. We prayed in school, the 10 commandments were posted.

I think it's clear that as we've become secular, morals have terribly decayed. Even if religion is a mere placebo effect, it does work keeping people in line.
Lacking religion, the US education system failing, poverty growing, morally we seem to have gone to new lows. Course, we also know from the past, those that have great beliefs can sink to moral lows against people they disagree with. I had a very religious grandmother, can remember her spanking me hard with a switch saying in "in Jesus name" Can remember often her saying I would go to hell for being a bad boy.

Another big reason for govts to promote God is too promote their righteous God given justice, such as the US vs. the USSR during the cold war, Iraq war, etc. People are more willing to fight and die if they have the right God.

Anyway, my beliefs are best protected when the beliefs of others are protected. If I can't pray or acknowledge my God, then you can't either, if I can, then so should you. That's why I believe in total separation of church and state.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Then, again, we should have no problem in removing this final stain of the McCarthy era, right?



For a lot of people, yes I think they most certainly have. In fact, I don't think that an honest argument could be made that they haven't for the people. Minorities can eat and sit where they like, homosexuals are not rounded up and arrested, men and women are not put on trial for not being American enough, women are paid equally for equal work. I should remind you that Leave it to Beaver was not a documentary series.

There should be no problem removing it. I have no issue with that. Just the issue of drumming it up year after year. But I think I'm more so tired of hearing how someone is offended.

You look at the good old days in a different way then myself. No doubt the individual freedoms of all walks of life are better off. (women claim there is not equal pay but that is another thread). When I refer to the good old days I speak of summertime lemonade and rope swings over the pond. Lynching blacks is not what I speak of when referring to the good old days.

I don't need be reminded Leave it Beaver was not a documentary series. The comment was not necessary nor pertinent to the conversation.

[Ducimus]

Just sayin'. What great shape our country must be in when we have time to debate a decades old pledge, that a good portion of the nation has probably ceased to recite anyway. In this day and age being a constitutionalist is bad, and puts you on a DHS watch list, so discussing the pledge is futile after a certain point anyway.

[Armistead]

Archie Bunker

"God Bless America"

You gotta love Archie

[Oberon]

Could elect Glenn Beck and have "One nation under Gold"

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Could elect Glenn Beck

Please no....

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Regardless of the technicality,

A private entity doing what it wants with what it controls is hardly a "technicality". Someone breaking into your home, eating your food, loading your stuff into your car and driving away with it is stealing only because of the "technicality" that they don't have a right to do so. What private rights - based on ownership of property - do you really think should not apply?

Internet use in the US is used by almost every citizen - perhaps it should be purged to make it religiously neutral? Heck, streets are public - should churches not be allowed to be seen from the street, otherwise a public road with only a protestant church on it are no longer "neutral". How far will you go to eradicate the rights of a private entity to be religious in or on its own "property"?

it still is the central bank of the United States of America

That is the technicality.
You choose to use it - that is your choice. Don't like what a private enterprise does, don't use what they own. Or do you, by virtue of owning a car, have a right to tell the car manufacturer how they will advertise, what there logo must be, etc?

Someone told this "private institution" that it should put the words on the currency, I can tell it to take it off. Door swings both ways.

True - and they can choose to listen to you - or not - as they please. They can - and have so far - chosen to NOT be "religiously neutral".