One nation under God?

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by jestercel85

Yes I am quite well aware of what goes on in a bank, I am not an idiot, however I am not directly carrying, nor touching, the money so I am alleviated of any burden of conscience.

And yes I also knew the etymology of the word Good. However it is a corruption so hey more power to it.

Was there something I said you took offense to? You seemed to be taking a defensive tone, perhaps I misread that.

I think he was trying to imply that you're not effectively 'boycotting' paper money by using your debit card, so there's not point in not carrying cash unless you're a vampire and are physically harmed by items adorned with god's name or something.
Furthermore, the word 'good' isn't really a 'corruption' of 'god' in the sense that implies negative change, but is more a derivative of it. Associating positive things with the word 'good' also associates them with god, suggesting thereby that god is a positive thing.

[Drake Dun]

It's a symbolic gesture, not a boycott.

And the word "good" does not come from "God". I can see how you could get this impression from a cursory glance at its etymology, but read more closely and you'll see why it could not be and is not the case.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...earchmode=none

"Lulz", on the other hand, is a corruption of "LOL".

Drake

[Dreggas]

To address the OP. The "Under god" part was inserted in the 1950's by an act of Congress. It was meant to distinguish us from "the godless commies". In fact the original pledge carried no reference to a specific deity and was written by a baptist minister (go figure). It contained no reference to a deity because that was believed to be wrong, and there was the belief in the "seperation clause".

The actual root of the seperation clause was Thomas Jefferson. In a response to a letter received from what was then the equivalent of todays "fundamentalist evangelicals" he did say that in effect this would be a wall against state sponsoring of any religion. Why? Because that was the initial reason for the puritan migration to the colonies, as well as a lot of other migrations, people were being persecuted for their beliefs. As such when the bill of rights came and the amendments were proposed the freedom of religion (or lack thereof) was established to protect the exercise of religion from the interference of gov't.

As to the founding fathers all being christian, most were deists, thus they did not refer to a concrete "god" in the constitution but the belief in the creator. Yes, revisionists would like you to believe they were all god-fearing christian men but the majority were aristocratic, renaissance/enlightenment thinkers. Thus they drew more from Voltaire and less from the King James version of the bible. Some even held outright disdain for the church and religion (see ben franklin and the original hellfire club).

Yes there was arguement, however the argument was believed to have been put to rest until the revisionists started their "crusade" (an appropriate word) to try and change what is taught in schools and why there is this argument today.

As to whether it is constitutional, to my mind no it's not constitutional. In fact the pledge in its entirety may not be constitutional (it was not even written until the latter 1800's) but that's another debate. If we are looking for intent then the words of Jefferson spell out clearly that the intent was seperation of church and state including free exercise of religion without state interference (in other words it's not illegal to be a pastafarian believing in the flying spaghetti monster, at least not yet).

To sum up "One nation under god" = unconstitutional per the intent.

[viscus]

Originally Posted by jestercel85

Yes I am quite well aware of what goes on in a bank, I am not an idiot, however I am not directly carrying, nor touching, the money so I am alleviated of any burden of conscience.

And yes I also knew the etymology of the word Good. However it is a corruption so hey more power to it.

Was there something I said you took offense to? You seemed to be taking a defensive tone, perhaps I misread that.

Offended? No, it just struck me as being deliberately obtuse.

[viscus]

And by the way, I'm not a believer. I just really don't care about official references to religion so long as no one is censoring me as a heretic or forcing me to go to church.

There are so many other issues that our energy would be better spent on, like the climate crisis we have on our hands, the existence of the CIA, that the US military's idea of "defending our freedom" is bombing countries that don't have an air force, and that some cities are so violent that it's not safe to be in certain places even in broad daylight.

[jestercel85]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

I think he was trying to imply that you're not effectively 'boycotting' paper money by using your debit card, so there's not point in not carrying cash unless you're a vampire and are physically harmed by items adorned with god's name or something.
Furthermore, the word 'good' isn't really a 'corruption' of 'god' in the sense that implies negative change, but is more a derivative of it. Associating positive things with the word 'good' also associates them with god, suggesting thereby that god is a positive thing.

Ok lets just get this out there, I live with an English major, I considered being one myself for a little while. English has almost always been my strongest subject even though science is my favorite. Explaining the etymology of words, the way they are used, or anything of that nature is pointless, chances are I either already knew it or when I found that I did not I made the effort to find out before I spoke on it. I don't like giving an opinion unless I know what I am talking about. I was being a smart ass when I said what I did about the corruption of the word.

[jestercel85]

Originally Posted by viscus

Offended? No, it just struck me as being deliberately obtuse.

I see, well I am sorry it came across that way, I didn't mean to seem stupid. I was simply putting forth my opinion on the matter. I personally disagree with them placing that motto on our money, and I don't want to deliberately, and physically handle it unless I have to.

[Bella Sophia]

Originally Posted by Xombie

In my government class, we've been studying many cases involving the separation of church and state. Do you think the portion of the American pledge "one nation under God" is unconstitutional?

oooh, I've never thought of that. You know what, I think it is now!

[Opteron_Man]

I think that believing in any supernatural being is completely ridiculous.
As an Atheist, I believe in reality not the scribbling of savage ruthless men from two thousand plus years ago. No, I believe in science FACT.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by Opteron_Man

I think that believing in any supernatural being is completely ridiculous.
As an Atheist, I believe in reality not the scribbling of savage ruthless men from two thousand plus years ago. No, I believe in science FACT.

Right...... but that wasn't the question.

[le_revenant]

I thought we all agreed back in '75 that it would be:
"One Nation Under a Groove!"

Right on baby!

[Wormboy]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

The "under god" was only added in the 50's if I'm correct. The In God We Trust was also something invented around the 50's.

Very true, this was to counteract the fact the communists were atheists of sorts (they didn't want people worshiping anyone but them :P) Communists were viewed as godless and, in order to stick one to the communists and give America another paper tie to hold itself together, we decided to be under 'god'. No sign nor proof of God has been found or agreed upon by anyone, however it seems to be the general idea that he's above us. >_> <_< Good thing I have a roof...

[LogisticWolf]

It should be one nation by the people for the people


Keep God out of it.

[Tumor]

"God under one nation" sounds closer to the truth. And even that's far from it.

[acidxrainbows]

I pretty much think so. I don't think that just because the "founding fathers" based this country on the idea of a "Christian nation" doesn't mean we should still have these beliefs foisted upon us today. They also believed in oppressing women and having slaves.
But I just say "I don't pledge allegiance to any flag, the United States of America, or to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under no-one, invisible, with liberty and justice for some."
No one even notices.

[Drake Dun]

The founding fathers didn't base the country on the idea of a Christian nation. Some were religious, some weren't, but they were secularists pretty much to the last man.

[HumanePain]

Two opinions:

a) Regarding the OP's question: Students become self directing and make their own choices at various ages, but until they are legal adults their parents decide (indirectly) the general curricula and format of school for their children. So the "inconsistency" of the pledge as it applies to some schools and not others (or lacks enforcement) is due to the local mores. If the local population constitutionally decides (by electing those who express religious attributes) that it is ok, it is constitutional. We could theoretically all vote tomorrow that a Klingon Pledge to the Empire is required, and it would constitutional, if it was passed as a ballot measure.

b) Regarding the founding fathers, remember: if they were smart enough to lay down the architecture for a successful government, they obviously understood social dynamics, and thus they most likely saw parallels in church as a social entity equal to and possibly greater than a secular government. They wanted to protect against an influence that would undemocratically override the lawmaking decision process.

Just my two cents worth.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

We could theoretically all vote tomorrow that a Klingon Pledge to the Empire is required, and it would constitutional, if it was passed as a ballot measure.

It's got my vote.

[Drake Dun]

The constitution cannot be overridden by vote. It has to be amended if you don't like what it says. That's how things are set up.

[raggedyanne]

Well, this group provides a lot of information about separation of church and state and secular issues:
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer

Dear mods,
I am in no way asking people to leave our dear site or advertising another group. These dudes just rock.

[blackwater1110]

I remember reading a Times issue where the frond cover said in big letters, "ONE NATION UNDER...?" I always thought it was presumptuous that we even had to be 'under' something in the first place. Why not leave it as it was originally, "one nation, indivisible?" The ironic part is that, by doing so, you would be showing us to be indivisible by petty issues. Ah well, the whole thing is just political indoctrination anyway, we ought to throw it out.

[Wormboy]

I always just said

I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the divided states of America, and to the tyranny, which comfortably sits, one nation, under Canada, over Mexico, with taxes and morality for sale.

[blindNsect]

I'm proud to be a godless commie.

[acidxrainbows]

As an afterthought, just going with separation of church and state in general, I once heard a quote that went, "Kindly remove your commandments from my school, courthouse, and the rest of my tax-funded property." I like that.