On The Pledge Of Allegience

[JoeyKnothead]

Why is it so necessary to include the words "under God" in the pledge? The addition of these words into the pledge force many people to be unable to pledge their allegience to their own nation. Why is it more important to have a devisive term in a pledge that declares we are indivisible?

[East of Eden]

You previously quoted an entire section of my response - except for the part about cognitive dissonance. I see this as a form of quote mining, where you don't include parts of a response that you have no answer for. I notice this is very common among some of the Christians on this site. To me it represents an inability to take in all the information, where parts that are "uncomfortable" are merely left out, or glossed over.

Demonstratably untrue by virtue of my post above, where one Thomas Tudor Tucker states an opinion contrary to mine.

then we are bound to the notion that government should not make religious proclamations. Whether this proclamation includes His Noodliness, or some other preferred god, it should not be a function of government.

Your opinion, and a minority one.

Lacking that, I'd say many will give thanks to the soldiers and others that help make this such a great nation. Family, friends, colleagues. The list is endless.

OK, just wondering. Maybe, thank you, random chance?

An ancient document can't fully or accurately consider a new, current age.

Do the laws of physics get less true as time goes on?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 151:

You previously quoted an entire section of my response - except for the part about cognitive dissonance. I see this as a form of quote mining, where you don't include parts of a response that you have no answer for. I notice this is very common among some of the Christians on this site. To me it represents an inability to take in all the information, where parts that are "uncomfortable" are merely left out, or glossed over.

Demonstratably untrue by virtue of my post above, where one Thomas Tudor Tucker states an opinion contrary to mine.

Yet you did so with mine.

then we are bound to the notion that government should not make religious proclamations. Whether this proclamation includes His Noodliness, or some other preferred god, it should not be a function of government.

Your opinion, and a minority one.

Let's look at my words in context, without the mining...

If we hold to the Constitution (which I don't necessarily do) then we are bound to the notion that government should not make religious proclamations. Whether this proclamation includes His Noodliness, or some other preferred god, it should not be a function of government.

My point is that by holding to a document that says there should be no establishment of religion, we then must require that no establishment of religion occurs. Placing the term "In God We Trust" on our money is to establish a religious position.

So, by reading a document in a way that allows one to establish a national religion, "God", while that document itself says we shouldn't, is an example of the cognitive dissonance I speak of.

Sure, there's examples aplenty where folks would legislate their preferred religious beliefs, this however doesn't address that the Constitution says we hadn't oughta.

Also, just because an opinion is in the minority doesn't address the accuracy of said opinion. Yours is an argumentum ad populum.

Lacking that, I'd say many will give thanks to the soldiers and others that help make this such a great nation. Family, friends, colleagues. The list is endless.

OK, just wondering. Maybe, thank you, random chance?

I don't consider good folks dying for my freedom as random chance.

An ancient document can't fully or accurately consider a new, current age.

Do the laws of physics get less true as time goes on?

We're not discussing physical properties but how one interprets the Constitution. However, where humans have written these laws, and these laws are in error, they are likely to remain in error. I make a distinction here between the actually properties (laws) of physics, and humans writing down their understanding of such.

The Bible mentions slaughtering animals for God. Does this remain in effect?
The Bible mentions those with poor eyesight not entering churches. Does this remain in effect?
The Bible mentions folks not wearing mixed fabrics. Does this remain in effect?

[East of Eden]

Yet you did so with mine.

You're being a bit paranoid.

So, by reading a document in a way that allows one to establish a national religion, "God", while that document itself says we shouldn't, is an example of the cognitive dissonance I speak of.

That is ridiculous, but it is a good example of the cognitive dissonance you speak of.

Sure, there's examples aplenty where folks would legislate their preferred religious beliefs

You mean like the religious belief that says we are endowed by our Creator with certain rights?

Also, just because an opinion is in the minority doesn't address the accuracy of said opinion. Yours is an argumentum ad populum.

I didn't say that makes it right, I said that makes it law.

I don't consider good folks dying for my freedom as random chance.

I was referring to how you believe we got here, rather than God.

The Bible mentions slaughtering animals for God. Does this remain in effect?
The Bible mentions those with poor eyesight not entering churches. Does this remain in effect?
The Bible mentions folks not wearing mixed fabrics. Does this remain in effect?

No, no, and no. See Galations. This may also surprise you, but when Jesus told Peter to walk on water, that doesn't apply to me either. It's all about context.

[DeBunkem]

of all of the posts I have made on this thread, the one I would really like o see would be examples of these so called non-sectarian prayers. I have as yet been unable to find any but if you could post one, or more preferably a few or a source for finding them I would greatly appreciate knowing what you are talking about when you mention them.

Madame, methinks thou referest to antiquated Englishe, but prithee findest what thou seekest.

[DeBunkem]

Mentioning God is not a religious act? How come only the religious go about getting folks to accept their God?

To say a reference to God is not a religious act is as goofy a thing as I've ever known.

lWhere in the world does the Constitution say the government can't mention God? That is just crazy. Our whole form of government is founded on the idea that 'we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights'.

The Constitution itself never mentions God or a "Creator." The Declaration mentions one, but our form of government is based on the Constitution, not the Declaration.

[Bio-logical]

of all of the posts I have made on this thread, the one I would really like o see would be examples of these so called non-sectarian prayers. I have as yet been unable to find any but if you could post one, or more preferably a few or a source for finding them I would greatly appreciate knowing what you are talking about when you mention them.

Madame, methinks thou referest to antiquated Englishe, but prithee findest what thou seekest.

Thanks? I'm not sure what this means.

[Bio-logical]

Whose wishes should count? Can we not also dismiss the wishes of those who want to include "under God" just as easily?

If they were the minority, yes.

Can we dismiss the wishes or intent of the founders when they wrote the constitution just as easily?

The founders would have had no problem with the motto, as it doesn't constitute the establishment of a religion.

For a quick frame of reference:

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

This is the 'religion' clause of the first amendment. The establishment clause is the first part, the free exercise clause is the latter.

My question then is how can a government adopt a motto like "in god we trust" or insert "under god" into a pledge of allegiance and in doing so not 'respect an establishment of religion'?

It seems quite obvious that in god we trust is most definitely respecting an establishment of religion, as a matter of fact it is respecting the establishment of religion. Establishment meaning institution not the action of establishing.

Main Entry: establishment
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: business, institution
Synonyms:
abode, building, company, concern, corporation, enterprise, factory, firm, foundation, house, institute, office, organization, outfit, plant, quarters, residence, setup, structure, system, workplace

Placing "in god we trust" on our money and adopting it as a national motto is showing a direct and preferential respect to the establishment of monothestic religions. Capitalizing the "G" in "god" establishes that the religious establishment being respected is the group of Abrahamic religions.

By putting "Under God" into the pledge of allegiance, the government not only respected the establishment of Abrahamic religions , but it inserted the ascertation that not only is there a god, but which god it is that governs over our country. The pledge is not simply a motto, but instead an oath to defend our country and a vow of loyalty to it.

Loyalty, allegiance, fealty, all the same thing. Swearing loyalty to "one nation, under God" seems to be an explicitly religious, monotheistic and Abrahamic oath to me.

So now, that being said, I ask you to support your claim that our motto doesn't constitute an establishment of religion. My question is, how does it not?

*edit for spelling and grammar errors

'Establishment' would be like the Church of England in the UK, where there is no lack of religious freedom. Which church is established? The founders assumed America to be a Christian nation but didn't want a particular Protestant denomination to be established. The motto doesn't do that, the Supreme Court benediction doesn't do that, the Congressional opening prayer doesn't do that, and the depiction of Moses and the Ten Commandments on the doors of the Supreme Court doesn't do it.

See Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, appointed by James Madison, "the father of the Constitution":

§ 1868. Probably 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.

I fail to see your support for the assertion that the definition of "Establishment" as used in the first amendment is the act of declaring an official state religion and not simply giving an official nod to one.

"respecting the establishment thereof" seems pretty clearly to indicate that a law simply gives preferential treatment of one religious establishment over another.

[East of Eden]

Just wondering how you anti-God mention people feel about the great seal of the US, which since 1782 has had the motto 'Annuit cœptis' (Providence has "approved of (our) undertakings.")

This also rather undercuts the idea of the Founders as deists, since deism believes God does not intervene in the affairs of human life.

[JoeyKnothead]

Just wondering how you anti-God mention people feel about the great seal of the US, which since 1782 has had the motto 'Annuit cœptis' (Providence has "approved of (our) undertakings.")

This also rather undercuts the idea of the Founders as deists, since deism believes God does not intervene in the affairs of human life.

Violating the Constitution is violating it, regardless of when it happened. That said, I'm not much for requiring folks in the here and now to abide by the edicts of the ancients.

We gotta decide for ourselves whether we will allow theology to be the law of the land or not. As it stands, them danged ol' theists have the upper hand. Don't make it right though.

[East of Eden]

Just wondering how you anti-God mention people feel about the great seal of the US, which since 1782 has had the motto 'Annuit cœptis' (Providence has "approved of (our) undertakings.")

This also rather undercuts the idea of the Founders as deists, since deism believes God does not intervene in the affairs of human life.

Violating the Constitution is violating it, regardless of when it happened.

The same people who wrote the Constitution violated it with the US seal???

That said, I'm not much for requiring folks in the here and now to abide by the edicts of the ancients.

The age of an idea has nothing to do with its truth.

We gotta decide for ourselves whether we will allow theology to be the law of the land or not.

Mentioning God isn't theology.