This is CNN, the channel that misspelled Cesium as Sezium when they were talking about radioactive isotopes. The same channel that misplaced Switzerland when they were talking about terrorism (you can find the pic on Snopes).
I was thinking of writing a letter to the editor saying that, as a Christian, I don’t necessarily want the government requiring belief in God as a test of loyalty.
But I’m sure I’d get hate mail, and teachers have to keep a low profile. Once I got the parents seeing me as ‘that teacher who’s against God,’ forget about contract renewal.
That’s just the thing. The government does not require that the Pledge be said. Even if the school does broadcast the Pledge no one is forced to say it. I remember several kids in my school who stayed seated and abstained. In High School they didn’t even broadcast it or say the Pledge before class.
I just don’t see the problem.
The Constitution does not say that people must not be forced to participate in a particular religion or declaration of faith but rather that the government may not prohibit nor endorse a religion. This is, to me, a clear case of government endorsement of religion and I find it offensive that pointing out this unconstitutional behavior is branded as unpatriotic. Rather, I believe the opposite is true.
Well, I went to the Mariners’ game last night (1-0, Mariners over A’s, ohyeah) and we sang “Take Me Out To The Ballgame” only. But we sang it beautifully. 
Regarding the OP: I think the statement “The federal government has not traditionally been neutral towards God” is an accurate one. But then, this entire country was “traditionally” more religious than it is now, because the rise of secularism is mostly a 20th (and 21st) century phenomenon. The Founding Fathers (or most of them) were Deists who believed in God (though they believed the governance of men was a matter for men, not God). There used to be a lot more religion in government than there is to day, though vestiges remain, like “In God We Trust” and the session-opening prayer in both houses of Congress. (And I specifically do not include “under God” in the pledge as such a “vestige” because IMO it’s not – it was added in 1954.)
I have no problem with people who want every single aspect of every single thing that even touches the government to be strictly secular. I don’t personally agree with that, but then I’m not an atheist. But I don’t think that such a position, which is perfectly defensible on grounds of secularism alone, should edge its way into historical revisionism and assertions that this has historically been a secular nation. No, it hasn’t. We can argue about whether it should or should not be in the future, but we shouldn’t attempt to assert it was in the past. Because it largely wasn’t.
“God” is in the Constitution, and in the Declaration of Independence. He makes the briefest of appearances in both – a cameo, if you will; no, not a cameo, a “person in crowd.” But just as those on the rabidly religious right should not be allowed to read into those mentions thing they clearly don’t say, nor should those on the rabidly anti-religious left be allowed to cotend He is not mentioned at all.
Jodi:
Actually, isn’t “In G-d we trust” pretty recent as well? I have a 1936 buffalo nickel which does not have those words on it (although my 1939 penny does have them, so that may help us narrow it down).
Chaim Mattis Keller
I was watching a Fox segment on this (I know, I know–I get what I deserve) and they had the little blonde bimbo and the cranky chick he sits with talking with two opposing commentators. The pro-ruling woman was talking about the family that had filed suit, saying they were immigrants who had brought their religion, Hinduism, with them…
And blonde bimbo totally cuts her off saying “Well, welcome to America.”
Sure–because everyone’s Christian here, and if they’re not they should be. :mad: I wanted to throw my remote through the screen.
I just watched a CNN segment, and the man stressed that real Americans want God in their lives, every aspect of their lives. Real Americans want a seperation of Church and State, not of God and State. Real Americans would never, ever vote for atheist president.
IOW, Real Americans are not atheists.
:rolleyes:
WWJD? Would Jesus:
- Go on the 700 Club, CNN, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc. and whip everyone into a frenzy about “under God”, urging everyone to smite, curse and/or proselytize to the federal judge, the plaintiff in the case, any atheist or agnostic, or for that matter, anyone who conceivably might agree with the court’s decision?
OR
- Warn the execs of companies like Enron and Worldcom that they are in for a real big whuppin’ from divine wrath if they don’t repent, chastise the politicians these companies have bought, minister to the needs of the many families who were harm by these egregious acts of greed, and throw up his hands in exasperated disbelief when he sees that most media outlets are giving more attention to the “under God” nonsense than the Worldcom story?
The motto “In God We Trust” first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin. Most other coins followed suit. For some reason the it disappeared from the nickel with the new design in 1883. It returned to the five cent coin with the Jefferson Nickel in 1938 and since then has appeared on every piece of US coin currency. In 1956 “In God We Trust” became the official motto of the US.
Depends on who you ask, and how they want to spin it. It’s been on coins since 1864, and on currency since 1957, or a year after it was adopted as the national motto. (That’s right, guys, get your knifes back out: It’s our national motto.) Though, interestingly, it apparently disappeared from the nickel for a while there. Details on the historical use of the motto on United States money can be found here.
The implication that there has been a simple downward slope over time in official religiosity in this country is an oversimplification at best. Official religiosity has waxed and waned. The high water mark of official religiosity in America was during the Colonial era of established churches and legal codes in places like Connecticut which prescribed harsh punishments for blasphemers, idolaters, and witches, complete with proof texts from Deuteronomy. By the start of the Revolutionary era, official religiosity had begun to wane; there is evidence that popular religious fervor was at something of a low point as well. The Revolution itself ushered in a general reaction against religious establishments, and the adoption of the Constitution came at one of the low watermarks of official religiosity in American history: Despite the statement that “God is in the Constitution”, the Constitution is an astonishingly secular document, and it seems unlikely that it would be as essentially devoid of religious references if it had been written in any other era, before or since, including many state constitutions. God is not invoked in the Preamble, not even in the most ceremonial terms (as he is in most state constitutions, as he was in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, as he surely would be if the Premable were written today). The religious clauses of the Constitution and Bill or Rights contain no language about the “right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience”, as is common in similar documents before and since. The attitude of the entire Constitution and its Bill of Rights is coolly secular–not necessarily atheistic, but simply regarding religion and government as completely separate spheres–and anti-secularists have to really grasp at straws to find evidence otherwise. (Conversely, it’s probably going too far the other way to reduce the mentions of God in the Declaration of Independence to less than a cameo; theoretically, the endowment of rights by the Creator is central to the Declaration’s political theory–although it’s still not necessarily a Christian and certainly not a Biblical political theory.)
Add in, from the same era, the famous Treaty of Tripoli, with its frank assertion that the U.S. government is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion–unimaginable language in a government document today, or in most era of American history–and language concerning the proper role of religion and government by such men as Jefferson, Madison, and John Adams which, while not atheistic, is quite secular–they spoke not just of the separation of church and state, but wholeheartedly for the need for separation of religion and government.
This era of high secularism didn’t last. In part, it was a reflection of a more elitist era of government (although, as I said, there is some evidence that the general population in the Revolutionary era was less churched than in times before or after). By the Civil War, “In God We Trust” was put on the money–for essentially the same reasons of promoting religion at the expense of atheism as “Under God” was put into the PoA, leaving constitutional hair-splitters to quibble over how long this or that instance of official religiosity has been around. Nonetheless, the 19th Century still saw considerable anti-clerical sentiment in this country. The abolition of Sunday mail delivery was actually debated on separationist grounds, although in the end the separationists lost. In the post-war period Robert Ingersoll, the great American “infidel”, was a leading orator of his day, and a political figure of some prominence.
The 1950’s may have been about the lowest period for secularism since the Colonial era. Not only was “under God” inserted into the Pledge, and the official use of “In God We Trust” reinforced and expanded, but there seems to have been dismayingly little debate about these things, or about the underlying assumptions that atheism is automatically un-American, and necessarily equates to Communism.
Since then there has been a something of a resurgence of public secularism, but even so, I don’t think it’s reached the heights (or depths, if you prefer) or the Constitutional era, or even the era of Ingersoll (who certainly had fierce, openely establishmentarian enemies, but who also made nominating speeches for major Presidential candidates at Republican national conventions–imagine Madalyn Murray O’Hair delivering the nominating speech for a major candidate for the nomination for the Presidency from either national party). Our era is probably more accurately characterized as one of “multiculturalism” or “pluralism”. “Spirituality” and vague references to “faith” are the norm, but while exclusivist religion is somewhat stigmatized (Christians proselytizing to Jews, for example, causes a flap), atheism or the complete lack of “spirituality” or “faith” is (as we’ve seen in recent days) still seen as the kiss of political death.
God per se isn’t in the Constitution at all. What you’re describing is a method of recording dates. Had the document been written today, there’s a chance the phrase would’ve been “Common Era.”
Not that there’s a chance in hell I’ll ever be elected President, but if I do, when I get sworn in, I’m using this.
I’ve got even less chance than you, Cervaise. But if I did, I’d want to be sworn in with a copy of Finnegans Wake.
It would probably foreshadow the tone of my Presidency…
Use whatever books you want, as long as you promise to end your recitation of the oath with, “So help me Jeebus.”
I have been watching this debate on other messageboards as well, and there are some people saying “don’t read into the words, but what they stand for!” To me, “Under God” stands for the Committee for Un-American Activities, it stands for Joe McCarthy, it stands for blacklisting actors and ruining thousands of lives. This piece of anti-Soviet propaganda stands for a black stain on our freedoms, a whole era dedicated to eradicating a non-existant threat while terrifying citizens into thinking that they should be in fear because they were handed a socialist paper when they were fourteen. And most of all, “Under God” stands for political underhandedness, a scheme by McCarthy to be re-elected by demonizing something foreign.
Don’t make anyone say it.
From what I understand of the ruling though, the court found not that the word God was offensive so much as its tense was;
namely it alienating the polytheists by insinuating that there was only one Deity of either gender maximum.
I mean it WOULD suck of you are a Wiccan who believes in the duality of the mother goddesses*, you could not even pretend that they where giving your religion lip service. Nope, that whole entire Under God thing kind of makes it clear, one, singular, monotheism.
The suit was brought forth by an Atheist, but. . . .
(that was just what my understanding of the issue was after reading the debate on the topic over on /. )
Oh yah, maybe the environmentalists can get it changed to "One nation, on earth, " hehe. 
*Just one Wiccan belief, I am not saying all Wiccans believe that, I realize that it is a rather open ended religion that allows for tons of different belief systems and structures.
Reread the decision, Com2. The court also addressed those of no religious belief and, by this ruling, has protected their rights.
A rather moot point, since there is no way to conjugate God so that it(He? She?) completely lacks any form of;
err, how the hell do I say that plurality is referring to both being mono and plural? Sheez, this is NOT an every day thing in English!
Anyways, yah, no way to get that conjugation down so that no numeric value is expressly mentioned or even implied at, not to mention making it non-gender specific. (always a fun task in English, heh)