School District Removes “God” from the Classroom [Archive] - House of Politics

View Full Version : School District Removes “God” from the Classroom

KingBall

07-28-2007, 06:26 AM

I'm not in favor of teaching religion in public schools but isn’t this the same school district that is setting aside rooms for muslim students to pray in?:confused: The bolded part is NOT teaching religion as much as it's teaching AMERICAN HISTORY imo.

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Poway Unified School District, located in San Diego, California. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Brad Johnson, a respected teacher who has been teaching in the school district for 30 years. The lawsuit claims that school officials violated Johnson’s constitutional rights by ordering him to remove several educational banners from his classroom walls because, according to these officials, the banners promote a “Judeo-Christian” viewpoint.
The banners, which Johnson had displayed in his classroom without complaint for nearly 25 years, contained the following phrases: “In God We Trust,” the official motto of the United States; “One Nation Under God,” the 1954 amendment to the Pledge of Allegiance; “God Bless America,” a patriotic song considered to be the unofficial national anthem of the United States; “God Shed His Grace On Thee,” a line from “America the Beautiful,” a popular patriotic song; and “All Men Are Created Equal, They Are Endowed By Their Creator,” an excerpt from the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. School officials objected to the banners because they included the words “God” and “Creator.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “Cleansing our Nation’s classrooms of our religious heritage and history and imposing viewpoint restrictions on speech to silence such expressions advance no legitimate educational purpose. In fact, such actions undermine the primary purpose of public education: to prepare students for citizenship in our Republic.”

The lawsuit alleges that the school district violated Johnson’s constitutional rights by imposing a viewpoint-based restriction on his speech. It further alleges that this restriction “serves no valid educational purpose, is not reasonably related to any legitimate pedagogical concern, and conveys a government-sponsored message of disapproval of and hostility toward religion” in violation of the United States and California Constitutions.

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the case, commented, “It is without question that religious people founded this Nation. As a result, references to God are common in our songs, mottoes, and slogans. And it is the responsibility of our Nation’s public schools to educate students to be informed citizens. Consequently, it is the responsibility of all public school teachers, including Mr. Johnson, to educate students regarding our Nation’s history and its founding. Mr. Johnson’s educational banners serve that purpose.”

The lawsuit seeks to have the speech restriction overturned so that Johnson can continue to display his banners, as he had been for 25 years.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=580

heyjude

07-28-2007, 08:23 AM

What am I missing here? "The lawsuit seeks to have the speech restriction overturned so that Johnson can continue to display his banners, as he had been for 25 years. " What restriction does he want to have removed? The one in our law regarding "separation of church and state?"

I am an atheist and I think this kind of thing is rediculious. We cannot remove all references to God. They are interwoven parts of the fabric of this country. Having said that, the one in the Pledge is just plain wrong. Anyway, there are people who have nothing to do but try to cause trouble.

The giving a seperate place to students to pray is not new. It is done in highschools so that Christian children can meet to hold morning prayers. There was a stink up not long ago about a school forbidding Christians from standing in a hallway praying. The school had given them a room, but they wanted to pray in the hall, where they were impeding the other students while they were trying to get to class.

USMC the Almighty

08-02-2007, 01:01 PM

Having said that, the one in the Pledge is just plain wrong.

Why?

I'm not sure that you grasp the importance and centrality that God has played in this country's history. It's only appropriate that we pledge allegiance to our nation, under God, because that's what makes us special. The citizens derive their natural rights from Our Creator and loan it to the government, which is why our Constitution begins "We the people of the United States".

Everywhere else in the world, the power resides in the government. In America, the power resides in the people. Totally different model. But if "Creator" disappears then the subservience of government to the people disappears.

This secular assault on God in the public square threatens the very heart of the American system.

vyo476

08-02-2007, 05:15 PM

In terms of education, kids ought to learn about religion. That's a no-brainer.

In terms of the "heart of the American system," as USMC put it, I think that so long as we continue to recognize that we are naturally endowed with our rights (by whatever you believe created us - hence, "Creator") we can probably do without the word "God," which is an acknowledgment of only one group's beliefs on who or what the "Creator" is.

And we can still respect the past while moving forward into the future. The "Creator" angle is a good one because it is a non-denominative term and can even be stretched to include non-religious ideals (if evolution created the human race, then the process of evolution could be viewed as our "Creator" - yeah, it's a stretch, but we're trying to cater to everyone here).

So, in my opinion: Creator = Good, God = Bad.

Oh, semantics. My very favorite study.

ArmChair General

08-02-2007, 05:28 PM

Frankly, its immoral to have the words, “One Nation Under God,” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

First, I would like to stress that my argument is concerned with morality, not law. An institution (such as slavery before 1865) can be immoral at the same time that it is constitutional.

If any government official were to stand up and say, for example, "Jews are despicable enemies of what is truly American, even though they do no wrong, and even though they break no just laws, purely because they do not share our beliefs," morally decent people would be outraged, as they should be.

Decent people will have the same reaction to any neighbor who supports such an official. That neighbor clearly does not understand the moral obligation of a government to give its peaceful law-abiding citizens equal respect and consideration.

Yet, anybody who says that Pledge of Allegiance with the words 'under God' included as they are is making this same type of morally repulsive claim.

The Pledge states that we are one nation with liberty. Including 'liberty' in the Pledge says that liberty is good, and that any who promote tyranny are despicable enemies of what is truly American.

The Pledge states that we are one nation with justice for all. Including 'justice' in the Pledge says that justice is good, and that any who promote injustice are despicable enemies of what is truly American.

The Pledge states that we are one nation indivisible. Frances Bellamy created the Pledge in the late 1800s specifically to deal with the scars of the Civil War, and to unite the nation. His reason for including the word 'indivisible' was to communicate the idea that America was to remain one country, and that those who would seek to divide it are to be considered enemies of what is truly American.

When Congress added 'under God' to the Pledge during the McCarthy era, it was meant to convey the same message. Our nation's enemy then was the (godless) communists. Including 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance was Congress's way of telling people that a good American must believe in God, and that those who do not believe in God are unAmerican. The godless (or, actually, if we were being honest, the non-Christian) are people to be viewed with suspicion and distrust.

By adding these words, the government created a situation where peaceful law-abiding citizens are forced to endure a situation where their government calls them the moral equivalent of tyrants and perpetrators of injustice. To participate in public life, they are forced to endure these rituals. However, the greatest wrong rests in the fact that the government forces their children to sit in attendance while the school leads their friends in a daily pledge to regard those who are not 'under God' in the same light as those who promote tyranny and injustice.

No decent human being would allow a government to force its peaceful law-abiding citizens or their children to endure this daily public ridicule and humiliation.

Coyote

08-02-2007, 05:39 PM

In terms of education, kids ought to learn about religion. That's a no-brainer.

Depends...in order to understand American history and world history, kids must learn about the role of religion in history, and how it shaped politics and culture. You can not learn American history with out that.

I think it's good for children to have a comparative religions class - study the major world religions and their influence in the world past and present.

I think a certain understanding of religion is necessary to best understand some works of great literature.

But to masquerade religion as science? No.

To teach religious dogma? No.

USMC the Almighty

08-02-2007, 05:47 PM

vyo476

08-02-2007, 05:53 PM

But to masquerade religion as science? No.

To teach religious dogma? No.

Agreed. That's not learning about religion. That's being taught to adhere to a religion.

USMC the Almighty

08-02-2007, 05:59 PM

In terms of the "heart of the American system," as USMC put it, I think that so long as we continue to recognize that we are naturally endowed with our rights (by whatever you believe created us - hence, "Creator") we can probably do without the word "God," which is an acknowledgment of only one group's beliefs on who or what the "Creator" is.

Right, but God and the Creator -- it goes beyond just who gives us our sovereignty. It has ushered us through our most trying times.

The Revolution, obviously, was inspired by the profound concept that our nation was conceived in liberty and that this liberty comes from the Creator, not the government. As Thomas Jefferson's likely second most famous remark goes, "I swear upon the altar of God Almighty, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Now if you get the right secular liberal, they'll tell you that Jefferson was a Deist (they don't know what that means, but at least he wasn't a Baptist). So my question to my secular liberal friends, what did Jefferson mean by "we are endowed by our Creator" and "the altar of God Almighty"?

God was called upon once again to help us through the Civil War. In Lincoln's Second Inagural Address (732 words), he referrenced God 14 times and quoted the Bible twice. In 732 words. According to today's secularists, most of the speech would have to be erased because it's politically incorrect.

And then on the eve of the D-Day Invasion which, aside from the Revolution and Civil War, was this country's most difficult time, FDR led the country in a formal prayer.

So my point is that God and the Creator have importance beyond their significance in the Declaration.

This is not about theology, it's about history.

USMC the Almighty

08-02-2007, 06:01 PM

Depends...in order to understand American history and world history, kids must learn about the role of religion in history, and how it shaped politics and culture. You can not learn American history with out that.

Exactly and this relates to what I just said. God is extremely significant to this country's history.

Coyote

08-02-2007, 06:02 PM

Exactly and this relates to what I just said. God is extremely significant to this country's history.

No....not God per se, but religion.

USMC the Almighty

08-02-2007, 06:04 PM

No....not God per se, but religion.

I consider God to be part of religion.

Coyote

08-02-2007, 06:09 PM

I consider God to be part of religion.

What you describe is a bit different - the relation of some individuals to a god as opposed to the role of religion in the making of our country. The fact that our country was founded by those fleeing religious persecution, and that that was a driving force in both the right to practice one's chosen form of worship free from government interference and development of a secular government free of religious controls is important to understand.

ArmChair General

08-02-2007, 06:09 PM

heyjude

08-03-2007, 07:49 AM

The Pledge proclaims that this nation grants freedom to all, yet no one is free when reciting it, if forced to proclaim belief in a god in whom they do not believe. Furthermore, there is no justice for those people. The words are religious tyranny.

I do not, and will not recite the Pledge for a different reason. I will not pledge my allegiance to a piece of cloth. Don't waste your time telling me it is only symbolic. "I pledge allegiance to the flag." I would gladly pledge allegiance to my country, but not to a cloth.

USMC the Almighty

08-03-2007, 08:27 AM

The Pledge proclaims that this nation grants freedom to all, yet no one is free when reciting it, if forced to proclaim belief in a god in whom they do not believe. Furthermore, there is no justice for those people. The words are religious tyranny.

No one is being forced to proclaim belief in "a God", but rather recognize that this is one nation, under God -- not one nation, under the government or one nation, under the president, or one nation, under the judges.

This distinction is what distinguishes us from every other system in the world. That we are endowed by our Creator, not the government.

I do not, and will not recite the Pledge for a different reason. I will not pledge my allegiance to a piece of cloth. Don't waste your time telling me it is only symbolic. "I pledge allegiance to the flag." I would gladly pledge allegiance to my country, but not to a cloth.

What silliness. The flag represents your country.

ArmChair General

08-03-2007, 08:54 AM

ArmChair, you did a lot of talking with little substance. If I understand correctly, you said that the words "under God" are reprehensible because you believe it equates atheists with tyrants.

I disagree with you for the reasons previously stated. I view the presence of God as very essential to the heart of the American system because without it, we are just like every other country where the government owns the citizens and has the ability to remove their liberties.

I doubt that a more absurd statement has ever crossed human lips.

If 'under God' was not meant to promote Christianity and to hold other views in contempt, then it seems that 'indivisible', and 'with liberty and justice for all' were not meant to promote unity and to hold separatism, tyranny, and injustice in contempt.

Imagine a politician standing before a crowd and saying, "These words, 'with liberty and justice for all', are merely an expression of our heritage. They are not meant to actually promote liberty and justice. They are perfectly compatible with the defenders of tyranny and injustice being just as good Americans as those who say the Pledge. And it is simply absurd to claim that we have children recite these words as a way of encouraging them to adopt the values of liberty and justice and to reject tyranny and injustice."

It is a matter of historical record that Francis Bellamy included the word ‘indivisible’ specifically to promote the Union and to discourage children from adopting the separatist values that contributed to the Civil War.

The person who denies that ‘under God’ is meant to endorse monotheism and to hold alternatives in contempt, and particularly to entice children to favor monotheism over other views, is entitled to the same ridicule and contempt that we would offer the person who said that the Pledge was not meant to support Union, liberty, and Justice and to hold contrary views in contempt.

Coyote

08-03-2007, 09:24 AM

It is a matter of historical record that Francis Bellamy included the word ‘indivisible’ specifically to promote the Union and to discourage children from adopting the separatist values that contributed to the Civil War.

Exactly - that can't be emphasized enough. It destroys both the intent and value of the pledge to insert "under God" because our strength is in our national unity, in our belief that all human beings are endowed with certain rights and the government can not take them away. It is not a strength dependent on belief in a deity (hence the term creator) but rather in the belief that our rights are not contingent upon our government. They are inherent.

USMC the Almighty

08-03-2007, 11:32 AM

It destroys both the intent and value of the pledge to insert "under God" because our strength is in our national unity, in our belief that all human beings are endowed with certain rights and the government can not take them away.

I don't see how the words "under God" can destroy the intent and value of the pledge. You are right, our strength is tied to the fact that we are endowed with certain unalienable rights by our Creator and the words "one nation under God" reinforce this. But if the words "under God" disappear, then we are just another nation where the power resides with the government.

It is not a strength dependent on belief in a deity (hence the term creator) but rather in the belief that our rights are not contingent upon our government. They are inherent.

I agree with this. In addition, however, you are ignoring the importance the role of God has played throughout our history -- the Revolution, Civil War, WW2...

And it is only right and appropriate to acknowledge the importance of this figure in our national pledge of allegiance.

USMC the Almighty

08-03-2007, 11:38 AM

I doubt that a more absurd statement has ever crossed human lips.

If 'under God' was not meant to promote Christianity and to hold other views in contempt, then it seems that 'indivisible', and 'with liberty and justice for all' were not meant to promote unity and to hold separatism, tyranny, and injustice in contempt.

Imagine a politician standing before a crowd and saying, "These words, 'with liberty and justice for all', are merely an expression of our heritage. They are not meant to actually promote liberty and justice. They are perfectly compatible with the defenders of tyranny and injustice being just as good Americans as those who say the Pledge. And it is simply absurd to claim that we have children recite these words as a way of encouraging them to adopt the values of liberty and justice and to reject tyranny and injustice."

It is a matter of historical record that Francis Bellamy included the word ‘indivisible’ specifically to promote the Union and to discourage children from adopting the separatist values that contributed to the Civil War.

The person who denies that ‘under God’ is meant to endorse monotheism and to hold alternatives in contempt, and particularly to entice children to favor monotheism over other views, is entitled to the same ridicule and contempt that we would offer the person who said that the Pledge was not meant to support Union, liberty, and Justice and to hold contrary views in contempt.

ArmChair, you have taken a very clever approach here in which you apply the exact same principle from one line of the pledge to an entirely different one.

I cannot speak with certainty as to what the writers of the Pledge were inspired by to include "under God", but my reasoning for supporting the phrase remains the same. God and the Creator are at the very heart of the American system and as such, I believe it is only appropriate to include it in our pledge of allegiance.

Coyote

08-03-2007, 12:59 PM

I don't see how the words "under God" can destroy the intent and value of the pledge. You are right, our strength is tied to the fact that we are endowed with certain unalienable rights by our Creator and the words "one nation under God" reinforce this. But if the words "under God" disappear, then we are just another nation where the power resides with the government.

No, the power resides with the people. That is our strength. Not a diety. The emphasis is not on where, exactly, our rights come from (hence a generic reference to a creator) but rather - where they do NOT come from - the government.

I agree with this. In addition, however, you are ignoring the importance the role of God has played throughout our history -- the Revolution, Civil War, WW2...

And it is only right and appropriate to acknowledge the importance of this figure in our national pledge of allegiance.

I disagree. God played a role for SOME major historical figures, but God did not make history - men's actions did.

Allegiance: the loyalty of a citizen to his or her government or of a subject to his or her sovereign; loyalty or devotion to some person, group, cause, or the like.

Pledge: to bind by or as if by a pledge

By pledging loyalty to a nation "under God" you are obliquely pledging loyalty to a god. It is wrong to ask someone, who is not a believer in a god, to do so.

USMC the Almighty

08-03-2007, 01:28 PM

No, the power resides with the people. That is our strength. Not a diety.

I understand that. According to our Founders, the power comes from the Creator to the people and the people loan it to the government. You are correct, ultimately the power resides with the people but it is passed down from God.

The emphasis is not on where, exactly, our rights come from (hence a generic reference to a creator) but rather - where they do NOT come from - the government.

This is also true, but the rights have to originate from somewhere. If Creator disappears, then by default, the power originates in the government.

I disagree. God played a role for SOME major historical figures, but God did not make history - men's actions did.

Of course it is ultimately the great leaders like Jefferson, Lincoln, and FDR who guided us through these difficult times but even they, this country's most prolific leaders, looked to God for guidance. It is my opinion that the importance of God should be acknowledged.

Allegiance: the loyalty of a citizen to his or her government or of a subject to his or her sovereign; loyalty or devotion to some person, group, cause, or the like.

Pledge: to bind by or as if by a pledge

By pledging loyalty to a nation "under God" you are obliquely pledging loyalty to a god. It is wrong to ask someone, who is not a believer in a god, to do so.

That is correct. The U.S. is one nation under God according to our Founders and if you have a problem pledging allegiance to this, then there are some 200 other countries where you can go and pledge allegiance to one nation, under the federal government.

dahermit

08-03-2007, 02:45 PM

I'm not sure that you grasp the importance and centrality that God has played in this country's history. It's only appropriate that we pledge allegiance to our nation, under God, because that's what makes us special. The citizens derive their natural rights from Our Creator and loan it to the government, which is why our Constitution begins "We the people of the United States".

Everywhere else in the world, the power resides in the government. In America, the power resides in the people. Totally different model. But if "Creator" disappears then the subservience of government to the people disappears. I do not say the pledge of elegance for the following reasons: It is ambiguous. It is without condition. I am a loyal atheist. It has ho purpose other than to notice those who are not reciting it. It sounds too much like the Nazi oath. Ein Got, ein volk, ein fuhrer. (One God, one people, one leader.)

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and to the freedoms for which it stands one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

vyo476

08-03-2007, 04:00 PM

Right, but God and the Creator -- it goes beyond just who gives us our sovereignty. It has ushered us through our most trying times.

The Revolution, obviously, was inspired by the profound concept that our nation was conceived in liberty and that this liberty comes from the Creator, not the government. As Thomas Jefferson's likely second most famous remark goes, "I swear upon the altar of God Almighty, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Now if you get the right secular liberal, they'll tell you that Jefferson was a Deist (they don't know what that means, but at least he wasn't a Baptist). So my question to my secular liberal friends, what did Jefferson mean by "we are endowed by our Creator" and "the altar of God Almighty"?

God was called upon once again to help us through the Civil War. In Lincoln's Second Inagural Address (732 words), he referrenced God 14 times and quoted the Bible twice. In 732 words. According to today's secularists, most of the speech would have to be erased because it's politically incorrect.

And then on the eve of the D-Day Invasion which, aside from the Revolution and Civil War, was this country's most difficult time, FDR led the country in a formal prayer.

So my point is that God and the Creator have importance beyond their significance in the Declaration.

This is not about theology, it's about history.

And learning history is important - in fact, it was my favorite subject in school. You're absolutely right that knowing and understanding the importance of God in our history is important. I'm not in any way disputing that.

I just don't think that "God" can help us as much anymore. The Creator, certainly, if viewed as interpretative. However, the term "God" is, by its nature, not interpretive. If the whole point is that "God" has been helpful to us in the past, but the people don't want Him in the "public square" anymore (and He wouldn't, therefore, be all that helpful anymore), what's the point of complaining about his removal? He's served his purpose. Maybe someday He'll serve that purpose again...but not now.

USMC the Almighty

08-03-2007, 04:39 PM

I just don't think that "God" can help us as much anymore. The Creator, certainly, if viewed as interpretative. However, the term "God" is, by its nature, not interpretive. If the whole point is that "God" has been helpful to us in the past, but the people don't want Him in the "public square" anymore (and He wouldn't, therefore, be all that helpful anymore), what's the point of complaining about his removal? He's served his purpose. Maybe someday He'll serve that purpose again...but not now.

To me, God and Creator are interchangeable and they both serve the same purpose of being that entity which gives the people their rights, that makes us sovereign.

At any rate, the whole point is not just that I believe it's important to honor the figure which has helped us through our most trying times. The point is that if the Creator is completely absent from our society, a few generations down the line people won't see the significance that it has in relation to the sovereignty of the individual.

Let me ask you, though, why should God be removed from the public square? Because if the answer is political correctness, which I believe it is, then this takes on an entirely different meaning. I mean think about it, if we aren't allowed to talk about God, how could you possibly teach Lincoln's 2nd Inagural? You would have to erase most of the speech because it's politically incorrect.

heyjude

08-03-2007, 05:12 PM

"I cannot speak with certainty as to what the writers of the Pledge were inspired by to include "under God", but my reasoning for supporting the phrase remains the same. God and the Creator are at the very heart of the American system and as such, I believe it is only appropriate to include it in our pledge of allegiance."

The writer of the Pledge did not include the words "under God" in the Pledge. They were put in it by executive order of Dwight Eisenhower, in the 50's. Somehow, this country struggled along without them,previous to that time.
__________________

Coyote

08-03-2007, 05:49 PM

I understand that. According to our Founders, the power comes from the Creator to the people and the people loan it to the government. You are correct, ultimately the power resides with the people but it is passed down from God.

Most of our founders were products of the Enlightenment - they were men of science who understood that faith could not be rationally argued, but that reason could be subjected to the test of logic and evidence.

Consider the actual words: "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."

Jefferson referred to "their Creator" - not "the Creator". That changes the meaning quite a bit. "Their Ceator" could be anything, not necessarily God. Why was it worded this way? Maybe because the emphasis was not on a diety but on the fact that these rights did not come from the government and could not be taken away from you by the government.

This is also true, but the rights have to originate from somewhere. If Creator disappears, then by default, the power originates in the government.

Are God and the government the only source of these rights?

Of course it is ultimately the great leaders like Jefferson, Lincoln, and FDR who guided us through these difficult times but even they, this country's most prolific leaders, looked to God for guidance. It is my opinion that the importance of God should be acknowledged.

They may have prayed to their God, but determined policy by very human means. The importance of God can be acknowledged in Churches, Mosques, and Synagogs around the country but it does not belong in a pledge - a very secular pledge. We are not pledging allegience to a diety, but rather to a country that was founded in individualism, rationality, and diversity. We are pledging to support a country. Not a deity.

That is correct. The U.S. is one nation under God according to our Founders and if you have a problem pledging allegiance to this, then there are some 200 other countries where you can go and pledge allegiance to one nation, under the federal government.

Why should I? My ancestors fought and worked to make this country what it is. The original pledge of allegience had no mention of God. Maybe those who want God pledged to should move to another country? Like...Iran?

Coyote

08-03-2007, 05:50 PM

USMC the Almighty

08-03-2007, 06:07 PM

Jefferson referred to "their Creator" - not "the Creator". That changes the meaning quite a bit. "Their Ceator" could be anything, not necessarily God. Why was it worded this way? Maybe because the emphasis was not on a diety but on the fact that these rights did not come from the government and could not be taken away from you by the government.

I am in agreement with you. Tell me, though, what happens if "their Creator" disappears. How does this affect the meaning?

Are God and the government the only source of these rights?

Only two I can think of.

They may have prayed to their God, but determined policy by very human means. The importance of God can be acknowledged in Churches, Mosques, and Synagogs around the country but it does not belong in a pledge - a very secular pledge. We are not pledging allegience to a diety, but rather to a country that was founded in individualism, rationality, and diversity. We are pledging to support a country. Not a deity.

Again, I do not dispute this. We are pledging allegiance to a country. This country was founded on the principle that our rights are God-given, so by definition we are also pledging to this.

Why should I? My ancestors fought and worked to make this country what it is. The original pledge of allegience had no mention of God. Maybe those who want God pledged to should move to another country? Like...Iran?

You must keep in mind that when the pledge was first written a secular society was inconceivable. When their president's Inagural Address includes 14 referrences to God and quotes the Bible twice in only 732 words, do you think they ever imagined an America where uttering the words "under God" would be considered politically incorrect? Of course not.

And I do not appreciate you twisting my words. You know what I was saying, Coyote. You're smarter than that. I never said that we should pledge to God. I said that our pledge should recognize what makes this country special -- that our rights are God-given, not government-given.

Coyote

08-03-2007, 07:23 PM

You must keep in mind that when the pledge was first written a secular society was inconceivable. When their president's Inagural Address includes 14 referrences to God and quotes the Bible twice in only 732 words, do you think they ever imagined an America where uttering the words "under God" would be considered politically incorrect? Of course not.

I have no issue with individuals referring to God. I have an issue to making a pledge of allegence to any god.

And I do not appreciate you twisting my words. You know what I was saying, Coyote. You're smarter than that. I never said that we should pledge to God. I said that our pledge should recognize what makes this country special -- that our rights are God-given, not government-given.

You may not have said it, but by pledging to a nation UNDER God, you are pledging to a god.

Think about the words:

inalienable rights endowed by their creator...

one nation under God.....

There is a world of difference in meaning.

USMC the Almighty

08-03-2007, 07:30 PM

I have no issue with individuals referring to God. I have an issue to making a pledge of allegence to any god.

You may not have said it, but by pledging to a nation UNDER God, you are pledging to a god.

Think about the words:

inalienable rights endowed by their creator...

one nation under God.....

There is a world of difference in meaning.

Okay, our debate is getting increasingly focused around semantics.

To say that we are endowed by our Creator is to imply that we are already under Him, so saying "one nation under God" isn't very different.

ArmChair General

08-03-2007, 11:01 PM

Okay, our debate is getting increasingly focused around semantics.

To say that we are endowed by our Creator is to imply that we are already under Him, so saying "one nation under God" isn't very different.

My mom and dad are the ones who created me. Not some invisible man in the sky.

jb_1430

08-04-2007, 12:19 AM

If you read the entire Declaration, its quite obvious that the reference to creator and Natures God, were paganistic in origin, and had absolutely nothing to do with a Monotheistic God.

I respond to the rest later.

"Paganistic"????? What nonsense. Nothing you need to see in the "entire declaration", just three phrases.

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,

all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,

"nature's God" is deism. "Divine Providence" is straight out of Calvinism, Creator doesnt imply anything paganistic. You are just making this stuff up as you go along.

ArmChair General

08-04-2007, 08:32 AM

"Paganistic"????? What nonsense. Nothing you need to see in the "entire declaration", just three phrases.

Pagan n. 1. A person who is not a Christian, Moslem, or Jew; heathen. 2. One who has no religion.

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.

Thomas Jefferson thought of himself as a scientist more than he did a politician. Consider that the "Laws of Nature" describe a materialist viewpoint, many times referred to as Newton's laws in the years following Newton's discovery of the laws of gravity, light, and calculus mathematics. (Thomas Jefferson greatly admired Isaac Newton and anyone who visits Monticello will see the influence he had on Jefferson.) Clearly Jefferson intended "Nature's God," not to refer to the personal god of superstitious Christianity, but of a physical god of nature, the laws of physics-- Nature's God. In 1809 Jefferson wrote, "Nature intended me for the tranquil pursuits of science, by rendering them my supreme delight." Clearly Jefferson thought of Nature as God.

But even if you do not feel persuaded that Nature's God means the Laws of Nature and you insist that it refers to a supernatural god, then you still cannot use it to support a Judeo-Christian god. Why? Because to call the God of the Bible as Nature's God would not only contradict the Bible but would constitute heresy in the minds of 18th century Christian leaders of both the Protestant and Catholic faith. Nature's God describes a Pagan concept because nature describes the world. The Biblical concept of nature describes the earth (the world), the planets, plant, man and animal as nature, but certainly not as a part of God. According to Christianity God and Jesus come from above. The God of Christianity does not come from this world.

But to the Pagans, many gods of nature exist. The Egyptian, Hindu, Greek and Roman religions describe a plethora of gods of nature.

To continue with words in the Declaration:

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.

The Declaration echoes John Locke's idea that in the "state of nature," all human beings lived free and equal (Locke would remain a hero of Jefferson throughout his life). The idea that "all men are created equal" goes against Biblical doctrine. The Bible supports inequality from a top down hierarchy: God-man-woman-beast (Catholic dogma adds the church and their priests between God and man). Moreover the word "Creator" describes a Deistic term in the 1700s.

Jefferson, in his many papers and correspondences throughout his life expressed a Deistic view of religion. Deists did not believe in miracles, revealed religion, the authority of the clergy, or the divinity of Jesus. Jefferson regarded ethics, not faith, as the essence of religion. Of course Deists believed in a creator, but thought that the original Creator no longer lived or did not play any part in the world or influenced the lives of people. That goes to the very reason why the American founding fathers knew that they (We the people) had to form the laws of the land, laws based on human reasoning.

Nowhere else in the Declaration (or any other founding document) do we find mention of gods or creators. The entire bases of connecting god with the U.S. government rests entirely on only three words, "Nature's God" and "Creator." Nothing more. And even these three words come from a deist describing a Pagan concept.

jb_1430

08-04-2007, 01:41 PM

Pagan n. 1. A person who is not a Christian, Moslem, or Jew; heathen. 2. One who has no religion.

Hmmmm? 2 hits on google with that definition. Nobeliefs.com and a ZoRoAsTa site, that SAY its from "The American Heritage". As opposed to 56 google hits on this definition

1. One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
2. One who has no religion.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pagan

that says its from

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

well, maybe all 56 dont have the copyright, but maybe you get my point. If we are talking about the founders, the REAL American heritage definition or the Merriam Webster's

1 : HEATHEN 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pagan

probably more accurately reflect the white, European concept of the term "pagan", or "paganistic", to reflect the polytheistic religion that was practiced in Europe before Christianity.
Anyway, I should probably retract my prior statement that

You are just making this stuff up as you go along

because you evidently relied on someone else to make this stuff up for you. Or I guess in this case, convieniently altering the definition from American Heritage.

Thomas Jefferson thought of himself as a scientist more than he did a politician. Consider that the "Laws of Nature" describe a materialist viewpoint, many times referred to as Newton's laws in the years following Newton's discovery of the laws of gravity, light, and calculus mathematics. (Thomas Jefferson greatly admired Isaac Newton and anyone who visits Monticello will see the influence he had on Jefferson.) Clearly Jefferson intended "Nature's God," not to refer to the personal god of superstitious Christianity, but of a physical god of nature, the laws of physics-- Nature's God....
But even if you do not feel persuaded that Nature's God means the Laws of Nature and you insist that it refers to a supernatural god, then you still cannot use it to support a Judeo-Christian god. Why?

I didn't say anything about Christianity. YOU were alleging it was "paganistic".
I said it was deism. And while the pre christian europeans also had nature's gods, I think the founders would have refered to the "nature's god" of deism, popular in 17th and 18th century Europe and America, and not the "natures god" of 1000+years earlier. Dont ya think? And the deist founders certainly didnt consider deism to be "paganistic". And Jefferson also said

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." [Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781]

“It [the Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
[Jan 9, 1816 Letter to Charles Thomson]

Certainly doesnt sound "paganistic". In fact it sounds very much a deist who is a follower of the doctrine of Jesus. Arguably a real christian, a follower of the doctrine of Jesus, not a follower of the doctrine of the church.

To continue with words in the Declaration:

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.

The Declaration echoes John Locke's idea that in the "state of nature," all human beings lived free and equal (Locke would remain a hero of Jefferson throughout his life).

Read Locke's "Reasonableness of Christianity". He also is Arguably a real christian, a follower of the doctrine of Jesus, not a follower of the doctrine of the church. Certainly not "paganistic".

Jefferson, in his many papers and correspondences throughout his life expressed a Deistic view of religion. Deists did not believe in miracles, revealed religion, the authority of the clergy, or the divinity of Jesus.

uuuuh whats your point? Some did believe in the doctrine of Jesus and Deist are not "paganistic"

Nowhere else in the Declaration (or any other founding document) do we find mention of gods or creators. The entire bases of connecting god with the U.S. government rests entirely on only three words, "Nature's God" and "Creator." Nothing more. And even these three words come from a deist describing a Pagan concept.

???uuuhhh "we are endowed by our creator" singular.
???uuuuh no, a deist describing a deist concept. And you forgot "divine providence", Convieniently. Not written by Jefferson but added by others. Doesnt conflict with deism. Washington believed it was divine providence that helped him win battles. Divine providence was part of Protestant, Calvinist, Puritans Catholics etc doctrines. I dont know if pagans of pre christian europe believed the moon god or whatever had a hand in occurences or not but again they were refering to deism, christianity or both to please the differing views. NONE of which were considered "paganistic".

ArmChair General

08-04-2007, 03:03 PM

Hmmmm? 2 hits on google with that definition. Nobeliefs.com and a ZoRoAsTa site, that SAY its from "The American Heritage". As opposed to 56 google hits on this definition

that says its from

well, maybe all 56 dont have the copyright, but maybe you get my point. If we are talking about the founders, the REAL American heritage definition or the Merriam Webster's

probably more accurately reflect the white, European concept of the term "pagan", or "paganistic", to reflect the polytheistic religion that was practiced in Europe before Christianity.
Anyway, I should probably retract my prior statement that

because you evidently relied on someone else to make this stuff up for you. Or I guess in this case, convieniently altering the definition from American Heritage.

I didn't say anything about Christianity. YOU were alleging it was "paganistic".
I said it was deism. And while the pre christian europeans also had nature's gods, I think the founders would have refered to the "nature's god" of deism, popular in 17th and 18th century Europe and America, and not the "natures god" of 1000+years earlier. Dont ya think? And the deist founders certainly didnt consider deism to be "paganistic". And Jefferson also said

Certainly doesnt sound "paganistic". In fact it sounds very much a deist who is a follower of the doctrine of Jesus. Arguably a real christian, a follower of the doctrine of Jesus, not a follower of the doctrine of the church.

Read Locke's "Reasonableness of Christianity". He also is Arguably a real christian, a follower of the doctrine of Jesus, not a follower of the doctrine of the church. Certainly not "paganistic".

uuuuh whats your point? Some did believe in the doctrine of Jesus and Deist are not "paganistic"

???uuuhhh "we are endowed by our creator" singular.
???uuuuh no, a deist describing a deist concept. And you forgot "divine providence", Convieniently. Not written by Jefferson but added by others. Doesnt conflict with deism. Washington believed it was divine providence that helped him win battles. Divine providence was part of Protestant, Calvinist, Puritans Catholics etc doctrines. I dont know if pagans of pre christian europe believed the moon god or whatever had a hand in occurences or not but again they were refering to deism, christianity or both to please the differing views. NONE of which were considered "paganistic".

The astute reader will realize that I posted that as satire against those Christians who go around claiming America as a Christian nation because of the few Judeo-Christian symbolic references found on various artifacts ("God" on coins, 10 Commandments in front of court houses, etc.). If we use mottoes, pledges, and pictures of coins as a means to determine our founding principles, then the Christians will lose by a large margin considering the numerous pagan references that far outstrip the number of Christian references.

Our founding fathers never intended our country to reflect religious pagan or Christian principles. They formed a secular government (the first in the world) in order to separate religion from politics which includes the separation of pagan, and Judeo-Christian religions.

jb_1430

08-04-2007, 07:06 PM

Was that more satire against Christianity?

vyo476

08-04-2007, 09:13 PM

The astute reader will realize that I posted that as satire against those Christians who go around claiming America as a Christian nation because of the few Judeo-Christian symbolic references found on various artifacts ("God" on coins, 10 Commandments in front of court houses, etc.). If we use mottoes, pledges, and pictures of coins as a means to determine our founding principles, then the Christians will lose by a large margin considering the numerous pagan references that far outstrip the number of Christian references.

Our founding fathers never intended our country to reflect religious pagan or Christian principles. They formed a secular government (the first in the world) in order to separate religion from politics which includes the separation of pagan, and Judeo-Christian religions.

Could you link to someplace with a list of these? I'd find it to be an interesting study, but Googling it came up with little.

r0beph

08-04-2007, 10:16 PM

Real quick here....

I don't get why all this argument is going in so many directions...first of all.

THE FOUNDING FATHERS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THE PLEDGE NONSENSE.

Bacon wrote the pledge. This is a given. HOWEVER BACON DID NOT INCLUDE UNDER GOD IN THE PLEDGE. This was added later in 54 by the powers that were. This has nothing to do with founders, nothing to do with anything. THIS WAS CHANGING A MAJOR ASPECT TO SUIT THE CURRENT NEEDS OF THE ADMINISTRATION. Definitely should be reverted to its original, with due haste.

As for the declaration, it's fine as it is, creator is non-specific, I'd argue it's not PAGAN since it doesn't EXCLUDE any of the tri-main religions..... anyhow...continue on.

Coyote

08-05-2007, 08:38 AM

jb_1430

08-05-2007, 01:55 PM

THIS WAS CHANGING A MAJOR ASPECT TO SUIT THE CURRENT NEEDS OF THE ADMINISTRATION. Definitely should be reverted to its original, with due haste.

.........

When The Warrior Returns
- Francis Scott Key
...
In the conflict resistless, each toil they endured,
'Till their foes fled dismayed from the war's desolation:
And pale beamed the Crescent, its splendor obscured
By the light of the Star Spangled flag of our nation.
Where each radiant star gleamed a meteor of war,
And the turbaned heads bowed to its terrible glare,
Now, mixed with the olive, the laurel shall wave,
And form a bright wreath for the brows of the brave.

Questerr

08-07-2007, 12:17 PM

I noticed USMC hasn't posted in a while and I noticed that he hadn't reacted to this when it was posted and I wanted to make sure he saw this:

The Pledge was originally created after the Civil War without the words "under God". Those words were not added until the 1950's during the McCarthy Era and the Red Scare.

By the way, kudos on the pledge to the Constitution. I like it and wish we would adopt it.

9sublime

08-07-2007, 02:16 PM

In the conflict resistless, each toil they endured,
'Till their foes fled dismayed from the war's desolation:
And pale beamed the Crescent, its splendor obscured
By the light of the Star Spangled flag of our nation.
Where each radiant star gleamed a meteor of war,
And the turbaned heads bowed to its terrible glare,
Now, mixed with the olive, the laurel shall wave,
And form a bright wreath for the brows of the brave.

Oh dear bloody god.

jb_1430

08-07-2007, 02:35 PM

EVERYBODY TOGETHER NOW!!!!

Oooooh say can you seeeeeeee...........