FYI Pledge written by a baptist minister to honor a famous leftist who was also his cousin. (Francis Bellamy who was honoring author of Looking Backward, Edward Bellamy)

Also, the phrase under God was inserted during the heights or depths of the cold war.

The Pledge of Allegiance a Short History

The pledge doesn't say 'Allah' or 'Jehovah' or 'Vishnu', it sayd 'God', which is what Christians generally call one part of their triumvurate deity. It does not even say 'your god or gods'. Furthermore, the 'God' to which those who inserted it into the pledge were referring was the Christian God. Ergo, the Pledge of Allegiance is also a pledge of Christianity.

Hey - everyone gets to be right this time! "God" is generic and needn't refer specifically to Christianity; the insertion of "under God" into the Pledge was the result of a campaign by the Knights of Colombanus (or Colombus as I believe they are inexplicably called in this country) and the reference is, therefore, Christian at least by implication (they were hardly going to insist that it be "one nation, under the Christian God..." - and, trust me, the K of C did not mean Allah); and this debate has degenerated into the splitting of hairs. Who's getting the next round?

In 18th and 19th century America the bible was a quite common textbook in schools.

The separation of church and state is what Athiests want; to establish their religion. There is a church in Texas which meets on Sundays which is an ATHIEST church- It can be a religion as much as Christianity or Hinduism.
In fact anything a man adopts as the main aim in his life can become his ''religion''.
To demand separation of state and religion precludes many practising Christians or of other religions from participating in their Government. A state is the people and that state consists of people of all walks of life. Christians obey God and follow him. It follows that they also use their beliefs as their guide for life on earth. It isn't moralising, no more than an atheist believing there is no God. It's just the life they choose. And if unbelievers don't like that, well tough. The situation can be reversed-Christians don't like believing there is no God. We are a world of many different cultures and beliefs. BUT it must be remembered, that the Constitution was founded upon the basic tenets of Christian doctrine of tolerance, trust and love for all men.
It is right we should honour God. After all, though many many may not recognise Him, He dosen't cease to exist because they refuse to acknowledge Him. And to ignore God on the grounds that He has no right to be involved in State affairs is a nefarious challenge. After all, if He created the world, I think He has every right to be involved or at the very least, acknowledged. God tells His children they are to be the salt of the Earth. They are to be the ones who stand out. I prefer a Christian leader to an Atheist anyday. Why? Because a Christian- a TRUE Christian is upright in all his ways before GOD. What does an atheist hold to? Without a set guide, they trust their hearts. And God says, the human heart is deceitfully wicked above all things.

I'm Catholic, and I want seperation of church and state, why should non-believers have to be subjected to religion against their will?

CP

Granted, Thomas Jefferson was a bit of an atheist, but I don't think the was advocating atheism - or trying to establish it as a state religion - when he defined the separation of church and state. Besides, it doesn't matter what atheists might want - or Catholics - or anyone else. Separation of church and state is what we have - and have had since this country was established.


What a curious thing to say. Anyone from any "walk of life" can participate in our government. All the First Amendment does is ensure that no one's "life guide" is officially sanctioned or endorsed by the government nor established as a state belief. If one doesn't like the fact that Christianity is not the official religion of the United States - and never will be - well, as you say, tough.


Interesting observation. Totally untrue, but interesting. The Constitution was founded upon the basic rights of the individual - as expressed through the humanist movement which was then sweeping Western Europe and the American Colonies. Let me remind you of an earlier contribution to this thread - which you obviously read before posting:



Back to your post:
Fortunately for you, this is not a theological debate. While your closing homily rather departs from the issue, it is worth pointing out that, though many may recognize God, She doesn't start to exist because they decide to acknowledge Her. If She did create the world, She has clearly taken little interest in human affairs since and probably doesn't give a damn (literally ) whether She's dragged into the affairs of one particularly arrogant country or not.


Actually, a second century writer claims that a prophet sometimes considered a spokeperson for and/or mortal incarnation of God (depending on one's adherence to the three-for-the-price-of-one dogma) may once have said that those listening to a particular sermon were the salt of the earth (depending on your translation). God Herself has been particularly silent on all seasonings - as well as pretty much everything else in world. This Sunday School level "God say this" and "God says that" nonsense is one very good argument for the separation church and - well, the rest of human experience.


Well, as it's almost infinitely unlikely, that's an easy statement to make. I have yet to meet a TRUE Christian anywhere in nearly fifty years - and I'm fairly widely travelled. Until such time as one of those turns up, I prefer a leader of any denomination (or none) who has a bit of human decency and a strong ethical code, regardless of its source - and would definitely prefer an unrepentant athiest to, say, a devout (and, therefore, to my rational mind, certifiably insane) Christian dispensationalist.

I think I misunderstood . Yes, I do believe that it is better to have a religious president, that way I can better understand and judge is morals, I can kind of see where he is coming from.

CP

God is specific in that its clearly singular and masculine.

I suppose those who believe in multiple gods or a feminine goddess can just bit their lips though. We wouldnt want these heathens to interfere with the majority form of religion in this country.

I think "divine authority" or "higher power" or something more abstract is in order but, of course, most christians (and possibly jews and muslims) would prefer to keep it as. If they cant pledge allegience directly to jesus or allah at least they can strongarm everyone into monotheism.

I could sure use some REAL evidence that there is ANY majority form of religion. It's not a given that it would be any one of them, and it's precisely because of this that most people would argue that in a DEMOCRATIC society, we must keep national endorsement of any one religion considered a taboo. IF you endorse any of them you MUST endorse them all. At some point history fails to teach us anything and we must look around us and deal with the reality that exists right now. Right now, there is no clear majority religion.

IF the fragmented house of Christianity is supposed to be considered that one religion, let us understand that if we DID endorse any one of the various Christian sects, that we would have yet another layer of national contention perhaps an even worse one than we do now.

My reasoning is that regardless of whether a "Christian" or Judeo-whatever denomination is on the same page with regards to the fact that the Bible is seen as a universal reference for "proper living", the splitting of hairs becomes inevitable and a nearly insurmountable hurdle for the "rest of the journey on the way to unifying church and state".

I would argue that even if we were all "Christian" (In quotes to attempt to all-include Bible-centric religion) we would never "satisfy" the concept of a union between church and state, and it is therefor an exercise in futility from step 1, defeated before it can start.

GOD in the standard linguistic use is masculine and singular, but most people whom I know refer to the term GOD in a purely androgynous fashion, where they would not seek to soil the concept of GOD with either gender exclusive to the other.

I hope nobody hopes to keep the religious "balance of forces" As-Is... it would in my mind (opinion I know) demonstrate a grevious lack of conscientiousness to our fellow man (here, using the word man to mean all of mankind...P.C.), and I wonder if Omni-theism is not actually a higher goal, where ultimately that "universal code of ethics" is really built into the government. I think that if it was, we would have less exploitation of ANYTHING in the name of capitalism or any variation thereof.