School District Removes “God” from the Classroom

[USMC the Almighty]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

A better pledge

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

"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.
__________________

Here is an interesting history of the Pledge:

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

 

[USMC the Almighty]

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]

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.