One nation under God...

Ok, so you put God, you are not only using a Christian Deity, you are alienating 1/3 of the population that has polytheistic beliefs. You use Gods, you are alienating anyone who has monotheistic beliefs.

Solution:

Get government out of our Religon, and I'm sorry I didn't address the money specifically, but I have the same view on that, In God We Trust should not be there, What if I don't believe in God, do I still trust that our money is worth it's face value? Sure, I trust it because of our country, not because of God, besides the point that it is another religous symbol that has no place on a government produced item like that. It's Amendment 1 for god's sake ;), can't they figure that out?
 
I don't disagree with you the intent, but I don't think it is inherent that its a religous statement that it only includes one god. I think thats your assumption. Pick a religion, pick any religion, and plug in any one god for that, and it still works. Lets take the American religion, greed, our god is money, clearly IN GOD WE TRUST is a valid statement ;) Because its not polythesitic doesn't mean it MUST be interpreted as one particular god, it clearly can be interpreted as any one of the gods which one wishes to think about. NO, only atheists have problem with this, not polytheistic people. The truth is, the country was founded by, and is made up by mostly mono and nontheistic people. The fact that a few Budists or hindus might make your assumption is merely a distraction.

I think you can argue intent, I think you can defend quite well the intended meaning. However, the problem is proving that it can't have nonreligious meanings, and you simply can't do that. You can create an arguement for it, but someone else will simply create another to counter yours. Its an undefensible position. I'm not saying it doesn't have the meaning you are saying, I'm just saying it doesn't JUST have that meaning. If it did only have one meaning, one unabmiguous meaning, it would be unconstitutional. However, it doesn't, and it isn't.
 
PuterTutor,

1/3 of what population?

I would have to think the number would actually be in the very low single digit percents, but maybe I'm wrong. I don't worry that the American dollar offens an Indian or Chinese tourist, do you? I'm quite 1/3 would be a gross overstatement for the US population, but I'll look into it :)
 
Ok, this isn't the best source, I'll keep looking, but this is what I found so far

Religious Identification Among American Adults (Age 18+)
Christian Religious Groups Percentage
Catholic
24.5%
Baptist 16.3%
Christian (no denomination specified) 6.8%
Methodist/Wesleyan 6.8%
Lutheran 4.6%
Other [>1%] Presbyterian; Pentecostal/Charismatic, Protestant; Nondenominational; Episcopalian/Anglican; Morman/Latter-Day Saints; Churches of Christ

Other [= or >.3%] Jehovah's Witness; Seventh-Day Adventist; Assemblies of God; Church of God; Holiness/Holy; Congregational/United Church of Christ; Church of the Nazarene
Others [smaller representations yet] Disciples of Christ; Church of the Brethren; Mennonite; Orthodox (Eastern); Quaker; Reformed/Dutch Reform, and many more

Total Christian
76.5%
Other Religious Groups

Jewish 1.3%
Muslim/Islamic
0.5%
Buddhist 0.5%
Other <.5 and >.3% Hindu; Unitarian Universalist; Other [examples] Pagan; Wiccan; Spiritualist; Native American; Baha'I; New Age; Sikh; Scientologist; Taoist; Deity; Druid; Eckankar; Santaria; Rastafarian

Total Other Religions 3.7%
No Religion Groups

Agnostic 0.5%
Atheist 0.4%
Statement [not a group] "No religion" 13.2%
Other [smaller representation groupings examples] Humanist; Secular
Total No Religion Specified 14.1%
 
Ok, I said that wrong, the 1/3 is polytheistic or Non-believers. And I think that's pretty close. The problem with getting statistics on this is that most people will answer a question like that with what religon they were raised as, not what they truly are now.
 
But again, you are missing the point of my argument entirely. It's not that it is morally wrong to say God, Gods, Allah, or whatever. I myself say the pledge of allegiance to my boy scouts, and wouldn't think of saying it without One Nation under God. However, that is and should be my personal choice, because religon is a personal choice, not a governmental choice. This very thing is one of the big reasons we fought for our independence 250 years ago, so that we could have personal choice of religon, and not have the government influencing how we should practice our religon.
 
My 1/3 was in speaking of the world in general, not the US population base. I know that the US pop base for such religions is likely at 5% or less.

Eckankar? Thats a new one to me.

.5 for agnostic and .4 for atheist has to be a typo... or people are lying out the ass here. This board alone runs about 30% for those elements. Ive found it to be even greater in my private life. All of the atheist and agnostic people in the whole country would have to be within 100 miles of me.
 
Religion 2001 adult pop 1990 %
---------------------------------------------
Christianity 159,030,000 76.5%
Nonreligious/Secular 27,539,000 13.2%
Judaism 2,831,000 1.3%
Islam 1,104,000 0.5%
Buddhism 1,082,000 0.5%
Agnostic 991,000 0.5%
Atheist 902,000 0.4%
Hinduism 766,000 0.4%
Unitarian Universalist 629,000 0.3%
Wiccan/Pagan/Druid 307,000 0.1%
Spiritualist 116,000
Native American Religion 103,000
Baha'i 84,000
New Age 68,000
Sikhism 57,000
Scientology 55,000
Humanist 49,000
Deity (Deist) 49,000
Taoist 40,000
Eckankar 26,000

http://www.atheistempire.com/reference/statstext.html
 
The point doesn't need to ne "What God". It needs to be, our nation is founded on priciples of religious freedom. If you have to ask what God or god one is referring, it has crossed the line. There is no place for God or god or gods in government. That is private &amp; holy, to each individual.
 
I hate this, I fought and fought, and fought to line that garbage up, and still it does this (I'm refering to the formating if you guys didn't understand what I meant):(

Oh well!!!

Nah, those Atheists are under nonreligious secular. There are far more people that would generally consider themselves as that than as an athiest. I know, it was shocking for me too until I thought about it a bit more. I don't think I would call myself athiest for too much of my life, but I certain would fit into that catagory at times. Personally, my beliefs change frequently, call me indecisive, but I don't make permanant decisions too often ;) Nah, I could see myself going for nonreligious more frequently than athiest, even if I have classified myself that way at times too. I don't choose either now, but since I would have at points, I think it makes a little sense to me. I guess I'm in a really small minority currently, being clostest probably to Diest :) I bet there is actually a rather large portion of the population falling into this catagory, they just don't realize it though. Ok, there are some problems with these surveys to be sure, but it gives the general idea.
 
Oh, by the way, the founding fathers were mostly deists, as were most enlightenment era thinkers, thus, the reference to "God" wouldn't be objectionable to them. They have no objection to the word God, in fact, most of them believed there was a sort of "divine clockmaker" that put it all in motion. Certainly they wouldn't have raised any one religion above another, but at the same they wouldn't go so far as todays politically correct movement either!!! You have to look to the reason behind the church and state 'separation' idea. It was more to do with avoiding what happened in Europe, and the rule of the Catholic church. The reasons were much different from what people generally assume today.
 
my say is that as LL said in the beginning you dont have to say it at all although the under god should never have been put in. you can replace the word god for gods as gato said.


heres hte way id like to see it
I pledge alleigance to the flag
of the United states of america
and to the republic for which it stands
one nation
indvisible
with librty and justice for all
 
there is nowhere in the constitution that syas anything about separation of church and state but somewher eon ehre gonz quoted Thomas Jefferson regarding church and state. gonz would you mind reposting that? plus something else. i agree with what Unc has been saying that it is Monotheistic howver Islam,christianity,judaism are all monotheistic. i believe in mre than one god myself so i hear that ill think of the gods i believe in
 
flavio said:
What they could do is omit "under God" from the official version, but anyone reciting could simply add "under God", "under Buddha", or "under Zues" if they felt inclined.
Click to expand...
 
Gato_Solo said:
If one does not believe in God, then why all of the hoopla trying to get God removed from everything? Makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

the notion that atheists/secular people shouldn't care as they don't believe in god therefore the words are just meaningless is a misleading. my personal lack of faith in a deity or deities does not make me a bystander to it with no thoughts on it. i am sure that many atheists would be deeply annoyed that a constitution that places religious freedoms [including surely the freedom not to have a religion] then placed a religious notion onto coinage and into the declaration spoken regualrly as a child.

their choice to not have a religious belief should be as respected and given due deference. it does not mean that they are not worth considering or their right, as legally enshrined, to not be involved in religious activity infringed.
 
freako104 said:
there is nowhere in the constitution that syas anything about separation of church and state
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm with freako104 on this one. I'm not a political scholar, and I haven't even bothered to read any of these documents for a very long time, but the truth is religion is only mentioned one in the first amendment, but not again.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...


Further, its not in the Constittution, or in the declaration of Independence. However, the words God and Creator are in the Declaration of Independence.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, 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, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world....
Click to expand...

Obviously, there has been a LOT of interpretatoin, and a lot read into things to make things go along with change agendas, but things are not as they are presented. I almost forgot about this small detail. Thanks for reminding me freako104. There is also no "right to privacy" I remember that from criminal law as well, rather it was "read into it."

maybe we should have God and Creator removed from the Declaration of Independence? Maybe it offends some one!!!

Well, I'm really indifferent on this matter, seeing as I don't say the pledge of allegence. I guess, if I was an atheist, or a Buddist and I thought my kid was being forced to say they believe in some god I don't, I would simple tell them not to say it, not just the god part, but the whole thing. Its not required anywhere (ok, maybe for naturalization, but thats another matter).
 
it specifies above 'their creator', hence the creator of their choosing [by interpretation it could even mean parents]. the other places natures law and the law of god side by side so i can see no reason for a change there either.
 
Don't you think its silly to change things? I don't like revising history. Just for the sake of maintaining heritage i think it should stay, irrespective of who it offends. The same goes for currency and the pledge. Now I wasn't familiar with this change, with this being added in the 1950s. For me, it has always been the way it is now. So for me, it would be changing my heritage, my traditions, and frankly, I think somethings are more important than appeasing everyone who MIGHT be offended. But then this is the US. Once something has served its purpose its promptly undone, taken down, or destroyed. Just look at the way we treat our buildings and our architecture. We don't hold to our past and our heritage like say Europeans. So I guess this view is to be expected. Ok, change it if you must. I'm really indifferent, but I think its silly. For many, regardless of whether those words were inserted in the 1950s its the way we remember it, and the way we have ALWAYS known it. Go ahead, change our traditions. Why not, we change everything else.

Nobody cares about this side of things, but only who MIGHT be offended by the use of the word God. Well, I can tell you, I was shocked at how frequently its used in Central Europe. I feel like I come from a whole society of athiest when I visit there!!! I don't think this was the founders intention, but as you wish.

Ok, religion is definitely OVERDONE there :(
 
strange statement that rd_151, you argue for the retention of tradition but also strive for moving on. in either case a return to the original format is surely applicable. the tradition of the 150 years previous to 1950 and the moving forward by shedding now unnecessary coldwar posturing.
 
Maybe, I wasn't aware of that until I read this thread, and i will bet, neither are MOST Americans.

What do most people remember now?

I agree, it sounds strange, but its not MY traditon, nor that of MOST of this country!!!

Hold on, I need to do more research again ;)

Let me look at demographic for a while and I'll be back :D

I have to read more about this changing of it as well. I'm not sure what the circumstances were. its not my field. I'm neither a religious zelot nor an anti religious zelot :D I guess that makes me out of place here ;) I'm mostly indifferent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top