One Nation Under God

[sarah]

Do you think this statement dictates a religious obligation on the part of United States citizens?
How about the government, should they be able to dictate religious choices such as prayer in public forums (IE Schools)??
How do you interpret 'One Nation Under God'?

Personally I think it is more of a statement of blessing on the nation, as if the founding fathers felt the need to ask for our Nation to be created and sustained under gods will. I think that simply because they felt that way, does not dictate our allegiance.:twocents:

[dong]

Very quickly- perhaps part of the question relates to a discussion on the separation of government and religion.

Historically, the roots of countries like the US and Australia were Christian. This seems generally what grounds many "religious rightists" use when referring to the 'threat of secularisation'.

[l99999us]

Interestingly enough the words were not added by the founding father's. The pledge wasn't written until the late 1800's and the words under God were not added until 1954 when they dicided that adding them was somehow going to defeat the godless commies....

The founding fathers while some being religious I do not think wanted to see religion added as part of government. it is why they bothered to include separation of church and state in the constitution.

[dong]

Good spot, I'll go one step further:

While the church and state constitutionally were supposed to be kept apart, the moral values, being a standard part of western axiologies, were insinuated into the legal system. Because previously the church was the same as the state in most cases (?...my knowledge of the history of each of the countries of origin of the founding fathers fails me at this point), it was not possible to have a true 'separation of church and state'.

But this point doesn't appear to be appreciated in detail. The by-line goes "the country was run on Christian principles and we do not want this threatened." Actually, I'm not even sure how this is applied generally beyond a shallow sloganeering.

[sarah]

But do you think there is any valid basis for the government of today to be pushing for a god-driven nation?

[Brandon]

While maybe not a valid reason but people generally like other people to conform to them. So when you have a god-fearing leader, he/she will try and bring government and the church closer together.

[sarah]

So what you're saying is that although there is really no validation for it, It is more likely than not going to happen to one extent or another..?

[dong]

But do you think there is any valid basis for the government of today to be pushing for a god-driven nation?

No. But like what Brandon might be implying, it will happen to some extent in this day and age. Or perhaps it will cause elements of deepening polarisation of the people, both nationally and internationally. I don't think this is avoidable either.

[sarah]

So as I said, even though there is no validation for such actions, they will occur regardless.

[dong]

Yeah, I think so. It happens alot- we value rationality but when people are generally not as aware of how it works on a more intricate level, resultant gaps allow contradictions to pass unhindered.

[sarah]

Take for exmple... George Dubbyah.

[Jim]

I started taking issue with the "one nation under God" line when I was in high school at the age of 14, after I came to realize that I don't believe in deities and angels and faeries and goblins and boogeymen, simply for lack of evidence. I went to a Catholic school at the time, so constitutionality was not an issue, but I had previously attended public school (and would later graduate from one), so I understood the problem. Forcing someone who doesn't believe in deities to say "one nation under God" is like forcing a Christian to say "one nation under Vishnu"—and the schools force these kids to sit through it every day of the week. Even kids who do not actively participate are going to be psychologically affected by the constant repitition.

The word "God" has no place whatsoever in any legal document, national pledge, or other state-funded or -operated place or thing. Using the word "God" is never an acceptable or neutral stand-in for referring to general moral principles, the idea of goodness, or nature. "God" refers to a specific deity within a specific branch of religion, and thus implies many more specific rituals and beliefs, some of which may even be considered bad by people of other religions or with no religion.

And to extend this debate a little further, I think that the Pledge of Allegiance should not be recited daily in school, even if children may opt to sit it out. The constant repitition of those words is nothing but a mind-control device, and it has no place in a supposedly free society.

[kelkat]

The founding fathers while some being religious I do not think wanted to see religion added as part of government. it is why they bothered to include separation of church and state in the constitution.

There is no seperation of church and state in constitution. The phrase has been misquoted from a letter that was written by Thomas Jefferson, I believe.

The constitution does say that there shall be no state sponsored church. The founding fathers did not want a national church like England.

To say that they wanted to keep God or religion out of the government is insane. Read the constitution or the declaration of Independance. These men were deeply religious and it showed in their writings.

[dong]

To say that they wanted to keep God or religion out of the government is insane. Read the constitution or the declaration of Independance. These men were deeply religious and it showed in their writings.

Okay, let us presume you are correct. So then, what is your point, or how does this relate to the original discussion?

[OneofaKind]

So as I said, even though there is no validation for such actions, they will occur regardless.

In line with the point made by Brandon people will act in accordance with their beliefs. Whether or not this is valid is again dependent on what you believe in.

In England when Tony Blair made a comment about praying about a situation, some expressed the view that he should not bring his religious beliefs into politics. I would however argue that his beliefs are part of who he is and though he may moderate them, they cannot readily seperated from who he is and what he does.

[palefrost]

On the same topic did you read this when it came out? This stuff scares me.

MIAMI, Florida (AP) -- U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a religious journal that separation of church and state is "a lie" and God and the nation's founding fathers did not intend the country be "a nation of secular laws."
The Republican candidate for U.S. Senate also said that if Christians are not elected, politicians will "legislate sin," including abortion and gay marriage.
Harris made the comments -- which she clarified Saturday -- in the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention, which interviewed political candidates and asked them about religion and their positions on issues.
Separation of church and state is "a lie we have been told," Harris said in the interview, published Thursday, saying separating religion and politics is "wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."

Electing non-Christians allows 'legislating sin'

"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," Harris said.
Her comments drew criticism, including some from fellow Republicans, who called them offensive and not representative of the party.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida, who is Jewish, told the Orlando Sentinel that she was "disgusted" by the comments.
Harris' campaign released a statement Saturday saying she had been "speaking to a Christian audience, addressing a common misperception that people of faith should not be actively involved in government."
The comments reflected "her deep grounding in Judeo-Christian values," the statement said, adding that Harris had previously supported pro-Israel legislation and legislation recognizing the Holocaust.
Harris' opponents in the GOP primary also gave interviews to the Florida Baptist Witness but made more general statements on their faith.
Harris, 49, faced widespread criticism for her role overseeing the 2000 presidential recount as Florida's secretary of state.
State GOP leaders -- including Gov. Jeb Bush -- don't think she can win against Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson in November. Fundraising has lagged, frustrated campaign workers have defected in droves and the issues have been overshadowed by news of her dealings with a corrupt defense contractor who gave her $32,000 in illegal campaign contributions
.

[dong]

We're skirting the line of "respect others' differences" with such examples as that Palefrost. In my mind it will ineviatably draw a tension, and I think it is worth questioning the beliefs and the background. Rationality as I see it is not an opponent of faith (for one thing). But what Harris is doing here is non-constructive.

As I was hinting above, that the original constitution didn't say that faith shouldn't be a part of politics just means that we can't use it as a justification for faith not being a part of politics. But that certainly isn't going to stop me from advocating that faith should be a seperate part of politics. The reason for this is simple- there is nothing wrong with it in theory but practically, it is undeniable that because people are...people, that faith is necessarily misinterpreted, and to try and form policy based on what we've observed of faith in practice...well it would be tantamount to being anti-constitutional in itself, and therefore hypocritical. This relates back to the simple challenge that Christianity faces: get relevant or alienate people and become a self-absorbed, self-defeating cult.

Let's rephrase then: Faith should not have to be excluded from government as essentially it is a personal thing. But faith is NOT religion, and nothing to do with the institution. Harris has misunderstood her faith to the dangerous degree that demonstrates precisely why religion should be kept seperate from legislative components. That legislating non-christians is legislating sin is bullsh*t of the sophist kind. That God chooses our rulers is also theologically misguided in several ways. But the general statement against exclusion of people of faith is a perfectly good one.

[l99999us]

Let's rephrase then: Faith should not have to be excluded from government as essentially it is a personal thing. But faith is NOT religion, and nothing to do with the institution. Harris has misunderstood her faith to the dangerous degree that demonstrates precisely why religion should be kept seperate from legislative components. That legislating non-christians is legislating sin is bullsh*t of the sophist kind. That God chooses our rulers is also theologically misguided in several ways. But the general statement against exclusion of people of faith is a perfectly good one.

Good points I agree

peace

-Todd

[Jim]

I just can't believe Katherine Harris made that statement, even knowing she was addressing a Baptist audience. Saying that non-Christians will legislate sin is tantamount to saying what she really seems to believe, which is that Christians are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

God chooses leaders?! That's a pretty 16th-century attitude. I thought that one got debunked around the same time as the "Earth is flat and the Sun, stars, and planets revolve around it" myth was disproven. Apparently she would like to digress from representative government back to the days of royalty dei gratia regina.

I wonder whose side she thinks God is on in the Senate election...

[kelkat]

I think what she was saying is that according to scripture (which is where her beliefs are founded) God ordains all leaders. As for the rest of it, without being there or hearing the actual quotes, I have a hard time judging anybody by what any press says they said. If that makes sense.

As for the rest of my last post, my point is that the Christian faith has always been a fundamental part of our government. It's in our national monuments, our money, our constitution, our declaration of independace. How do you get rid of it all without just starting over?

[Jim]

kelkat: I don't think it all needs to be gotten rid of. There's no reason to tear down national monuments or burn historical documents.

But the printing of the word "God" on money and the forcing of children to say or to witness daily the "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance is not part of any national heritage. Both have been in effect for less than a century, and the changes that brought them about were done in the name of slighting another country during a time of international hostility. But more than that, religious symbols and words have no place in a secular government, regardless of how religious its founders may have been.

[dong]

...which is that Christians are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

Traditional interpretations of the scriptures would assert that this is the case. The way Jesus' insistence on people following the faith "if you are not for me you are against me" is a reflection of this. Of course, most Christians would hardly call somebody who isn't a christian a "satan worshipper" although if somebody were to literally interpret the appropriate section of the Bible that's what you'd be required to do.

There seems therefore to be this necessary tension present (and for a more detailed discussion of this you can refer to the thread on dualism). I further raise the question as to whether this kind of attitude is necessarily entailed by the belief in a Christian God.

I think what she was saying is that according to scripture (which is where her beliefs are founded) God ordains all leaders. As for the rest of it, without being there or hearing the actual quotes, I have a hard time judging anybody by what any press says they said. If that makes sense.

This does make sense to me, insofar as one argues for the existence of an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent god. Again, of course, the interpretation of this statement is a tricky one, because on one hand you're subscribing to determinism, and on another hand, the danger is in differentiating between a "god ordains everything" and "god ordains our rulers". Also, you're right about context. Would have been useful to hear the entire speech, perhaps.

[sarah]

The fact is that we are no-longer a Christian nation... As we became more and more of a melting pot for other traditions and faiths, we lost the religious part. It's just not so cut and dry anymore, and because of that the two should be kept apart.

[kelkat]

The fact is that we are no-longer a Christian nation... As we became more and more of a melting pot for other traditions and faiths, we lost the religious part. It's just not so cut and dry anymore, and because of that the two should be kept apart.

I would have to disagree with that. According to almost every poll ever done, the vast majority of Americans are Christian. We are a Christian nation, we just don't always show it.

[dong]

I would make a disctinction between Christian by habit/name and Christian by faith.

Honestly, how many of those polled do you think actually know who Jesus was, or the first thing about Christianity? According to surveys...not many at all. Most have not the slightest clue what it actually means to be a christian.

Addendum: To make a tangential point by anecdote- I have been best described as agnostic for about 4 years now, but people insisted I was an atheist. I couldn't make a more accurate suggestion as I was unaware of the term agnostic until last year.

[kelkat]

I live in the south, believe me when I say there are plenty of Christians out there and they continue to grow in numbers. I would think the people that are being polled who don't know who Jesus was are what he stood for would be the same people that Jay Leno talks to with the man on the street quiz.

[dong]

My point is if you want to use numbers, make sure you use them appropriately. Anecdotal evidence only reveals your own context, and not the bigger picture. To be more controversial, whilst you yourself and your community in general may be Christians by faith, I still argue that the number of purported Christians by title is far far lower than those who actually engage in the faith, due to a simple passing down of force of habit. I have my own anecdotal evidence to back me up on this one :P

[Hussar]

There is no seperation of church and state in constitution. The phrase has been misquoted from a letter that was written by Thomas Jefferson, I believe.

The constitution does say that there shall be no state sponsored church. The founding fathers did not want a national church like England.

To say that they wanted to keep God or religion out of the government is insane. Read the constitution or the declaration of Independance. These men were deeply religious and it showed in their writings.

Actually, it is not insane. The founding fathers were VERY interested in keeping religion out of politics. George Washington's personal faith was, ummm, different shall we say. Makes for some interesting reading though.

However, if you want to know what the founding fathers thought of including religion in the govey, check out the Treaty of Tripoly (1796-1797) (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html), particularly section 11,

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The prelude to the Constitution reads: "We the People", the highest power in the Constitution is the People. Not God. There is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution of the United States which links the power of the govey with religion.