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.