Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Remove "one nation under god" and "in god we trust"
Nonsense. The First Amendment provides freedom OF religion , not FROM religion. If you don't like the words don't read them.
Reading doesn't cut it. Understanding that "One Nation under God" isn't about freedom of religion, rather keeping government free from religious influences and religious beliefs (not necessarily "religion") free of governments' influence. In other words, the two slogans are in direct conflict with the first amendment.
I can definitely see the case for removing it. America today is far different than it was in the 1950s when it was added. However, I don't see why atheists get so offended by it. Up until the youngest generation born after 1982, most Americans did believe in a God of some sort.
One has to look at the founders to see where all this "God" stuff came from. You small percentage of loons think you should dictate how it all is run now is what the problem is. Go to some other "no God" country if you don't like it here. Fact is a large percentage of citizens in this country believe in God. Don't like it get used to it or leave to some other place where they kill folks who think like you do. lol
The "founders" had nothing to do with creating the POA, much less with sticking "under God" in it in 1954. I was in elementary school then and remember being taught by my teacher how to properly insert the phrase. Likewise with "In God We Trust" on our money - the "founders" were not involved.
I'm an atheist and, really, this is a non issue for me - UNTIL ignorant posts like yours show up in the thread.
"One nation under god" was added in 1954 to the pledge and copied words stated by Lincoln at the Gettysburg address. "In god we trust" was added in 1956. Is this not an endorsement of religion by our government? What about tax-paying citizens who are not believers? Those Christians who say "too bad", I would like to pose a hypothetical to.
If we replaced "one nation under no god" and "in many gods we trust" would you be offended? I think the issue I take and a growing number of people take issue with is whenever public policy is debated we have a group of Christian conservatives say "this is what god would like" and then try to solidify the myth that this is theocracy with stating we have god on our money, motto and pledge.
Looking back at the Constitution Convention laws were passed to restrict Jews and Catholics by some of the original colonies from holding office. It was Jefferson and some of the other founding fathers that stopped this and put all beliefs under equal treatment by the government. Btw Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Paine all believed in a religion that would run counter to what many fundamental Christians today believe (Deism). So with this said and in the spirit of freedom and theological liberty, why do some wish to force their beliefs on others?
They don't, they just continue to wallow in self pity without trying to do anything to enhance/change their lives and their chances at having a long term loving relationship in spite of being smaller in physical stature.
Once this has been done for a few years they may consider life as a Monk on the highest peak in Tibet OR
they can accept the fact that physically there is more than likely not going to be a major growth spurt at their age, they can move forward in life and actually become happy, fulfilled, and in a real relationship that could last a lifetime because they have allowed it to happen.
You seem to have forgotten the part about Separation Of Church And State, though.
You seem to lack an understanding of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the Constitution that you are referring to.
The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Printing "One Nation Under God" on currency does not violate either of the above clauses of the Constitution. The word Gos as used on currency does reference a specific God, and therefor does not represent the preference of Congress of one religion over another.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
