“In God we trust” and “under God” were both added only in the 1950’s, as part of the campaign to show we weren’t as bad as the godless atheistic commies. It wasn’t “ceremonial” at all, but those wanting to keep them today are forced to claim that they don’t really mean anything more than that.
“Having it both ways” is one way to describe it. Another is “Bullshit”.
Just because some state got away with it for decades doesn’t make it legal.
What’s legal and what’s not can Change over time (see: southern states and flying of the Confederate flag).
The 10 Commandments are more openly sectarian than the Phrase “In God…” because there are different Versions Ten Commandments - Wikipedia
True, most narrow sectarians don’t know/ care - but Catholics differ from Protestants, so each time they will be reminded that they belong to the “wrong” faith.
Of course “In God…” also establishes a Religion - it rules out any multiple-God religions and atheism, agnosticism etc.
May I suggest the teacher’s lavatory?
When a bill was passed in New Orleans requiring places that sold liquor to display a sign stating that drinking alcohol could harm a woman’s fetus there was no wording requiring where the sign be displayed.
That’s why today you will find that sign in most bars’ Mens Rooms.
NM
Proponents of the Bear Spirit are active in parts of Canada and so practice their spiritual beliefs.
Indigenous peoples in Canada were in the Supreme Court of Canada just last year, challenging a proposed ski resort on the basis it would drive the Grizzly Bear Spirit from the region.
If so, I stand corrected. Now see if you can find a church of Ra, Thor, or Zeus with a large, active membership.
Never heard of neopagans?
Edited: And it should be noted that there are enough Asatruar (or Norse pagans/Heathens) around that there is a rather hot schism based on racism/non-racism in the faith.
When one of my friends got married, the ceremony was conducted by a priest of Thor.
But while worship of Thor and of the Great Bear Spirit are neither one extinct, they’re both far from widespread.
Still no excuse for discriminating against them.
There’s no excuse for this “in god we trust” stuff at all. It was always a flagrant unconstitutional display of theism, which was explicitly done, as has been noted, to flaunt our differences from the godless commies. However the cold war is over now, so the one excuse there once was is gone.
Nice touch.
What is completely non-factual is to say that monotheism can involve more than one person if the two, three or seventeen are still one being.
BTW, Can you find any reference to the trinity jazz in the so-called “Old Testament” (Tanakh or Hebrew Scriptures) accepted by serious scholars? ### Spoiler alert: You won’t be able to. ###
Isn’t a bit strange that your conjoined deity of choice would wait so long to reveal how screwy he was?
Personally, having two other minds occupying my homoousios would give me a headache, even if, by some incredible “miracle” we managed never to disagree or rebel. I imagine the other two “me’s” would tend to feel the same way.
Heck, there was something within recent months here about pregnant women often feeling “squicked out” about having someone else in their body, even in the case of a wanted child. I’m male, and hence not experienced in the matter, but I’d wager it would be a heckuva lot easier to set aside such feelings, or at least deal with them, than it would be in the case of conjoined souls.
And, once again, you don’t get to tell Jews and Muslims what their viewpoint of your convictions should be. [There was once a lengthy thread on this and the upshot of it was that it came to a matter of definition, rather than the beliefs of trinitarians.]
Its origins go back further than that though - the phrase was first put on some coins during the Civil War, IIRC.
But the point stands that it was greatly ramped up in the McCarthy era, when they made it a law that it had to be on paper money, and it was adopted as our national motto.
How is 3900 out of 320,000? Is that large enough to count?
The same poster refers to both Hinduism and Catholicism as modern religions. The explanation given about using the word “modern” in a sense which does not make sense still points to, at the very least, an enormous caffeine deficit.
The phrase in question is cultural tradition in the sense of being a very American thing (nobody else would use it), but it is also 100% religious. I went to schools that had crucifixes in the clasrooms and so-called chapels bigger than many parish churches, and that sentence would have been considered unacceptably on-the-nose.
Please see the note in post #31.
Cease the discussion about mono or poly theism.
[/moderating]
Especially since the pledge was written by a minister - a socialist minister - and the absence of God was clearly intentional.
When God got shoveled in, his daughter objected. Cite
Talk about your original intent …
We can hardly entrust the public schools with teaching kids religion, can we?
At MSD, I hope they add to it: “…but He let us down.”
Religious folks need to be careful of pulling crap like this. Just recently, the city of Bloomfield, New Mexico, found themselves on the hook for $700,000 in attorney’s fees to the ACLU because of their “ten commandments” display, which had been installed at the courthouse for religious reasons. Story.
The stupidest part is, a pro-religious legal group called the “Alliance Defending Freedom” approached the city and offered to litigate against the ACLU for free. Now that the lawsuit has been lost, as the ACLU tried to warn the city it would be, the ADF is nowhere to be found, and it’s the city who has to pay. The ADF does this: offering free legal services, then making themselves scarce and using the whole affair for self-promotion: “We fought for Christianity!”
And in the end, the losers are the taxpayers.
Who deserve it if they don’t vote the chumps out.
But they’ll probably blame the evil atheists at the ACLU.
I wonder if you can pledge negative money at their Go Fund Me campaign.