"...one nation, without God, indivisible..."

[BurtWorm]

Theists who have no problem with "under God" being in the pledge ought to try this on for size.

[wtmusic]

1. The solution is to just leave it alone

When God gets into the democracy equation he brings a lot of unseemly baggage along

[bambo53]

2. Talibon America,,, I love the concept

When you think you understand God, all you've really done is create another idol.

[Az]

3. 10%

Roughly 10% of the US population is atheistic. Lets see what other groups we can exclude.

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.


I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, Hetrosexual,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation NonHispanic,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation (Except for Oregon, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, and Georgia),
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Feel free to add your own 10% excluded group.

Rip 5 stars off the flag if you wish to keep Under God as representational of All Americans.

[sybylla]

15. There are religious groups offended by the use of "God" too

including the Jehovah's Witnesses who cannot say the pledge at all for religious reasons. So I suggest that the percentage of offended minority is somewhere around 20%. One-fifth.

But so long as the other 80% has all their constitutional rights intact, who cares? It's not like the Bill of Rights was put there to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority or anything. I mean, pleeeeaaaase. We 20-percenters need to get a life. </sarcasm>

[HFishbine]

69. More small groups

The Schizophrenic

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And so do I.

The Blind

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,
invisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[booksenkatz]

4. That's right!

And if they're offended by those two words, then gee whiz, no one is forcing them to say them.
:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

[displacedtexan]

5. The 'one nation indivisible' is the effing point!

The individual words of the pledge were chosen very carefully. Considering that the country had survived a horribly bloody civil war only a few decades before the first pledge to the flag was adopted, don't you think the words 'one nation indivisible' were chosen specifically to keep Americans mindful of the past, as well as united for a better future?

Sticking 'under God' in the middle of those carefully chosen words was a knee jerk reaction to Communism. W might as well go back to teaching our school kids to sit cross-legged, head on knees, and hands behind heads in alphabetical order by last name. (which, BTW, was in reality a way to ID the bodies if the Russians actually attacked. I was one of those kids.)

If they had to say 'under the God of Abraham,' which we all know is what they are saying, the Supremes wouldn't even hear argumentation.

<Rant over>

[JNelson6563]

18. Hear! Hear DT!!

Good rant!

:toast:

Julie

[Az]

6. This is actually quite similar to *'s antigay ammendment

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.


Take a look at the pledge. Its mostly inclusive. One nation (thats everybody). Indivisible (you can't seperate us as a nation). With liberty and justice for all(you and me and everyone, we all get liberty and justice).

Then there is under god. Sure woulda been nice if those of us that are not under god coulda been included. Sounds like a nice place to live.

[Bandit]

7. Why not just one nation indivisible and leave out any mention of God

what-so-ever. Just like it was originally written.

[mikey_1962]

8. I have no problem with "Under God"

I also like John F Kennedy's Inaugural Speech where he said:

"belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."

AND:

"...asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."

I also like the Declaraion of Independence where Jefferson wrote:

"...and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

[BurtWorm]

9. John Kennedy's words are strictly his own

so irrelevant to a discussion of words we put in the mouths of children who don't understand them. As for Jefferson's words, I have no problem with them either, but they're also irrelevant. I'd have no problem with the phrase "under creation," which really is vague enough to mean "nature" to me, and that would be acceptable. But to use the term "God" is unacceptable to me, because God is just plain supernatural, and that's what I don't believe in.

[mikey_1962]

10. Exactly what Religion does the words "under God" establish?

Congress shall not establish a State Religion.

Kennedy was not speaking as President of the United States?

He was giving his Inaugural Speach in an official capacity. No?

[truthspeaker]

11. "under God" establishes several religions and excludes others

Establishes:
Christianity (all varieties, including Jehovah's Witnesses and LDS)
Judaism
Islam
B'hai

Excludes:
Atheism
Agnosticism
Buddhism (most varieties)
Shinto
Wicca
Hinduism (all varieties)

It also excludes those Christians who regard mixing God with politics as taking the lord's name in vain.

[mikey_1962]

21. You are confusing "establishing a Religion" with acknowledging

the general spiritual beliefs of disparate groups.

Christianity is not a Religion. It is a group of religions.

Congress is not allowed to endorse a specific religion, it is allowed to acknowledge that the vast majority of the population believes in a "Higher Power" whatever that is.

That is why all branches of government have a general acknowledgment to God....

The Supremes have "..God Bless this Honorable Court", Congress has the prayer each day. And The President take his oath on a Bible.

None of the actions establishes a religion

[truthspeaker]

24. the President is not required to swear his oath on a Bible

Allowing the use of the Bible in that context is acknowledging the religious beliefs of many Americans.

Putting the words "under God" into the pledge, by statute, is establishing religion for all Americans.

[mikey_1962]

31. Not true.......

To be a member of a Religion you must follow the specific dogma the that religion follows...

If monotheisism was a religion a Imam could say a Roman Catholic Mass.

[truthspeaker]

32. who ever said monotheism was a religion?

Monotheism is a religious belief shared by several (but not all) religions.

[mikey_1962]

50. True that is why Congress can acknowledge it without

establishing a specific religion.

[truthspeaker]

55. the first amendment doesn't say "specific religion"

it says "religion". Belief in a god is a religious belief.

[mikey_1962]

62. That makes my point....

it is a religous belief and not a religion. Religions (and this is 12 years of Catholis School talking) are very dogmatic.

[truthspeaker]

64. your definition of religion is wrong

and it reminds me of the definitions used by people who claim "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship!"

Be that as it may, if Congress endorses a particular religious belief, then it is endorsing religion. Not a particular religion, but a particular religious belief.

[Bandit]

12. Why not say under Gods then

Why limit it to a monotheist deity. What about all of us that believe your God is jealous of our Gods and he admitted it himself when he said he was a jealous God and also a God of War. My Gods are not that way and I don't wish to pay fealty to one that is. Why should this government make my children pledge to a God that IMHO is not a pleasant God, but a God filled with rage and jealousy.

[mikey_1962]

22. my point exaclty under God or under gods ....

does not a Religion make

[BurtWorm]

26. Don't capitalize the R.

You're misleading yourself. Religion doesn't have to be specific.

[mikey_1962]

39. To be unconstitutional it does

[truthspeaker]

I guess if you spill ink on the first amendment

and read it while blind and drunk, sure.

[mikey_1962]

44. Hey there

Let's not get down on an honestly earned drunk.

[BurtWorm]

42. Back that up.

Please. :hi:

[Bandit]

33. But it most certainly does

If the term under God were to be left out what would be the result? How would America suffer? By inserting the phrase under god it suddenly becomes devisive and religious by concept. The mere mention of God is bringing religion into the mix. God=Religion no getting around that. Name any religion without some form of God. Why bring religion into it at all?

[mikey_1962]

43. God does not equal religion....

A religion is an organized institution sharing specific rituals and dogmas... I don't think God is very dogmatic (except where it comes to fundamental laws of the universe)

[BurtWorm]

45. You are not addressing the case law I pointed out to you below.

The Supreme Court has been reading "religion" very differently from you.

[BurtWorm]

13. You don't see the difference between a president saying what he believes

and a schoolchild being compelled to say a pledge (which supposedly, for constitutional reasons, he doesn't "have to" to say, but what child is competent to choose not to say something out of principle when fitting in is a large part of being a schoolchild?)?

By the way, what religion does the "under God" bit establish? In the context of the law, it establishes an official religious stance opposite of "godlessness." It was intended to be a pointed affirmation of godliness. And as such, it should be unconstitutional.

[Az]

14. So you are saying it is meaningless?

Seems kind of silly to swear an oathe to something meaningless. Particularly when it is surrounded by such high meaning terms. Whats it doing there if it means nothing?

[mikey_1962]

23. No not exactly...

I am merely saying that it does not establish a religion

[Az]

48. While not all religions include a god

A god is pretty much a standard building block of many religions. You don't find stamp collectors basing their groups on theistic doctrine.

This notion that establishing a god in an oathe is not a religious test is pretty silly. God is as tightly tied to religion as anything can be. Its indistinguishible to most except for those trying to formulate an argument to include him/her/it in secular arenas.

[mikey_1962]

51. I agree...

My ancestors in Ireland worshipped trees and rocks....

[Bandit]

73. A rose by any other name is still a rose

:shrug:

[HydroAddict]

16. Nice paraphrased 1st Amendment there...

"Congress shall not establish a State Religion."

In actuality it states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion back in the 50's when they changed the POA.

[mikey_1962]

17. Exactly what RELIGION was that?

[HydroAddict]

19. Did you not read the other four replies to your post?

But to answer your question, all monotheistic religions, Christian, Judaism, Muslim, etc.

[mikey_1962]

25. these are religions as disparate as can be...

they are not a Religion, because by definition they have different beliefs

[truthspeaker]

28. you're avoiding the point

Yes, they are several different religions (although not "as disparate as can be - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have the same source and share many things in common). But they are all religions, and should not be endorsed by the government.

[mikey_1962]

46. You are making my point

You cannot take a Rabbi and have him say a Catholic Mass... they are too radically different from each other. Therefore establishing one automatically excludes the other...

[truthspeaker]

56. right, and establishing both excludes many others

[HydroAddict]

37. Okay, if you want to get schemantic...

Re-li-gion n.

1 a.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

This definition applies to Christians, Jews and Muslims, does it not?

[mikey_1962]

52. Yes but...

The difference between these religions is greater than their similarities...

Besides if Congress did make Lutheranism the "official" would that exclude all the other monotheist churches ...YES

[mikey_1962]

53. Yes but...

The difference between these religions is greater than their similarities...

Besides if Congress did make Lutheranism the "official" would that exclude all the other monotheist churches ...YES

[HydroAddict]

63. I'd buy that argument if...

the first amendment stated
"...no law respecting an establishment of similar religions..."

But it doesn't. Is it your contention that Jefferson had a different definition of religion in his day?

[BurtWorm]

20. Religion

doesn't have to be specific to be established or respected apart from irreligion, for example.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Idiom:
get religion Informal
To become religious or devout.
To resolve to end one's immoral behavior.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[mikey_1962]

27. Yes but........

A religion has rituals and dogma that must be followed in order to be a memeber of thet particular Reliigion.

By your definition a Rabbi could demand to be a Catholic Priest

[truthspeaker]

29. He's not saying they're the SAME religion,

he's saying they are all religions. And they are. Whether you call Christianity one religion or many, it still involves religious beliefs.

[mikey_1962]

34. Thats my point....

The Constitution say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Acknowledging a group of beliefs is not the same as establishing a specific religion to the exclusion of all others.

[BurtWorm]

35. That's not how the Supreme Court has been seeing it.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html#1


This interpretation has long since been abandoned by the Court, beginning, at least, with Everson v. Board of Education, 10 in which the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ''aid one religion'' or ''prefer one religion over another,'' but as well those that ''aid all religions.'' Recently, in reliance on published scholarly research and original sources, Court dissenters have recurred to the argument that what the religion clauses, principally the Establishment Clause, prevent is ''preferential'' governmental promotion of some religions, allowing general governmental promotion of all religion in general. 11 The Court has not responded, though Justice Souter in a major concurring opinion did undertake to rebut the argument and to restate the Everson position. 12

[truthspeaker]

36. yes, it is

Establishing a group of religions to the exclusion of all others is exactly the same as establishing one specific religion to the exclusion of all others.

[dpibel]

66. What a difference a word makes

You are arguing that, absent the identification of a particular sect -- Lutheranism is your example -- a reference to UnderGod does not violate the first amendment. In other words, to violate the first amendment, the state must make a law establishing a religion. You have just quoted the first amendment. Would you please point me to the use of the indefinite article in there? Because I can't find it.

You argue that "under god" acknowledges the existence of some god or another, and you're not particular about which one (even knowing that, in this great Christian country, everybody knows which one).

Please square that with "establishing of religion." It pretty much says what it says, doesn't it? It doesn't say, "establishing of a religion," which is the required reading for your interpretation that it's fine as long as it doesn't say "under a Baptist god."

You are here replicating the argument on another thread that you must identify a particular sect of Christianity in order to be establishing religion (leaving aside the issue discussed in the preceding paragraphs), since they all believe such different things. But they're all Christianity. You can't really call yourself a Christian if you don't, for instance, believe that Jesus existed, was the corporeal manifestation of god, and died for your sins, now can you? Pretending that Christianity is not a religion is a pretty novel, but entirely unconvincing, argument.

Do you think that there's a religion called "Islam"? Because the same argument that you make applies equally well to that religion. People are not Islamic, they're Sunnis or Shias. Does that work for you?

[mikey_1962]

54. But if Conress endorsed one the others would be excluded

So to be monotheistic in and of itself is not being religious

[BurtWorm]

30. We're not talking about a *particular* religion.

What makes you think a particular religion is what the 1st Amendment is about?


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html#1

''Probably,'' Story also wrote, ''at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.'' 8 The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment. 9

This interpretation has long since been abandoned by the Court, beginning, at least, with Everson v. Board of Education, 10 in which the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ''aid one religion'' or ''prefer one religion over another,'' but as well those that ''aid all religions.'' Recently, in reliance on published scholarly research and original sources, Court dissenters have recurred to the argument that what the religion clauses, principally the Establishment Clause, prevent is ''preferential'' governmental promotion of some religions, allowing general governmental promotion of all religion in general. 11 The Court has not responded, though Justice Souter in a major concurring opinion did undertake to rebut the argument and to restate the Everson position. 12

[mikey_1962]

38. The founding Fathers did not want a State Religion

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Saying the words under God does not establish anything....

[truthspeaker]

40. is belief in God a religious belief or not?

[mikey_1962]

47. Religous belief yes, a Religion no

[truthspeaker]

57. and establishing a religious belief is (wait for it)

establishing religion. Whether establishing one specific religion or a group of religions, once you give legislative endorsement to a religious belief you are establishing religion.

[BurtWorm]

41. So now you're just going to restate your "argument?"

Might as well quit arguing then. I've already responded to this very same idea. I don't want to just go around in circles.

[mikey_1962]

58. My argument

the words "under God" does not establish a religion... pretty simple (I think)

[truthspeaker]

60. simple, but besides the point

You're adding an extra "a" in the establishment clause. It's "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Not "a religion"; "religion". Congress shall make no law endorsing religion, period. The government stays neutral, thus all of us are free to worship, or not, as we choose. It's that simple.

[BurtWorm]

61. But merely restating it does not make it anymore convincing than it was

when you first stated it. Especially in light of the Supreme Court's own reasoning, which holds that "religion" is not specific to any one religion but generalized to mean "religious belief." If you will read the commentary on the law I cited, you'll see that your view was the majority's view for a while, but it is not longer. Of course that could change, but in order for it to do so, the Justices will have to be vastly more explicit about their reasoning than you have been.

[EV1Ltimm]

65. my two cents...

"under god" establishes the christian, jewish and islamic religions for one simple reason... that's his name. Allah, Jehovah, Yehwah -- god for short.

I think Under 'A' God would work for your argument, but that's not what's in the pledge.

[mikey_1962]

71. Yes but..

If Congress did accept Islam as the "official" State Religion would not that exclude the others?

There are more differences than similarities

[stepnw1f]

49. Sorry, but God should be excluded to be inclusive...

of all taxpaying citizens. What's the problem? You can still believe in your own God. Churchs are not being shut down. People are playing into fears that this legal issue will trigger hate mongering against churchs. Contrary. It is Unconstitutional to include God. This is a fair compromise.

[truthspeaker]

59. it's more than a compromise it ensures freedom for ALL

Do you really want the government to start taking sides? What if you end up on the wrong side? Remember, it was Baptists, then a small minority sect, who were gung-ho on the establishment and free exercise clauses, because they didn't want to be excluded.

How can you expect to keep your freedom of religion if you won't let me have mine?

[mikey_1962]

67. I donot want an "official religion"

All I am saying is the saying the words "under God" does not establish any religion.

[truthspeaker]

68. and you are wrong

"under God" means monotheistic religions are official, and all other faiths are second-class.

Basically you're saying that it's OK to have several official religions. That's just as bad as having one.

[stepnw1f]

72. I am saying take God out of the Pledge

[mikey_1962]

74. Not really...

"under God" is not necessarily monotheistic, if it said under 'a' God then it would be...

Jefferson said "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" thats ok by me, doesn't really tell you whether there was one or more.

Catholics believe that there are three entities to God. Monotheism? sort of.

Nation of Islam believes that a retired postal worker from Detroit became another God... not really monotheism. (I grew up in Detroit, trust me there is no God there)

I just believe that with all the huge differences in myriad of religions we have, the words "under God" to me means something very different than it does to someone of the Wahabee Islam sect. For this reason the words are not establishing religion

[Az]

70. It certainly excludes some

And that is the issue. One Nation, Indivisible, and All are at odds with Under God. They are logically opposed within the context of our diverse society. Under God divides our nation. Now you can have a nation under god which excludes those that do not share your position or you can have an inclusive nation which promises freedom of thought and justice for all.