I have always found it supremely ironic that they divided the line with "indivisible" in it. God ends up separating 'nation' and 'indivisible'. You can't make that shit up.
We were able to *contribute to* the defeat of Nazi Germany without "under God." It's hard to tell how easily we would have defeated them without a few million Russians and Brits and other Europeans fighting them too. But your point is a good one.
@jacobew2000 I didn't say the Bible has changed. I said Christian morality has changed. If the Bible presents one clear message about what behaviors are right and wrong, then why did Christians endorse slavery for centuries, then change their mind about it? Why did European Christians treat women and non-whites as second class citizens for centuries and change their mind about that? Why are Christians in many countries gradually changing their minds about whether homosexuality is wrong?
An early version of the salute, adopted in 1892, was known as the Bellamy salute. It started with the hand outstretched toward the flag, palm down, and ended with the palm up. Because of the similarity between the Bellamy salute and the Nazi salute, developed later, President Roosevelt instituted the hand-over-the-heart gesture as the salute during the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem. Removal of the Bellamy salute occurred on December 22, 1942
I'm not religious, but I wouldn't find it acceptable for teachers to force kids to recite any "pledge" to their nation, secular or religious. If a kid learns that his society or nation is worth supporting, then he'll support it without being forced to recite a pledge for it. And not everyone who recites the pledge mindlessly in school (usually without knowing what it means) grows up to fulfill that pledge. It's an ineffective attempt at brainwashing kids -- even without "under God" inserted.
You're NOT forced to say "under God", or even the pledge if you don't want to. But there are others who also have a right to say "under God" if we want.
Ive seen this a few places in different formats on youtube. I am ashamed to say I had no idea that we have ever changed the pledge.....shame on me..THANKYOU for your posts.
... So the only people whose standard of living has gone up has been rich people. That's half a century of experience that should show us trickle down economics have not brought the prosperity that capitalists claimed. Or you could say it brought a few of them prosperity, and it came at the expense of everyone else. ... Which is basically where the prosperity came from, people who didn't work taking surplus value that was created by labor and should have gone to workers who earned it.
Kari166 I know you don't think saying "under God" is a big deal, but the principle behind it is. If congress, in the name of world peace, encourages all school children to start saying "Allah be praised" every morning, would you have a problem with that? I would, our government should not be promoting any religion, even in the name of world peace. If you don't think encouraging kids to praise Allah is proper, then think about all the non-christen kids and "under God" its the same thing.
@Snipes8161 I know that a the science journal Nature carried out a study a few years ago, comparing the accuracy of Encyclopedia Brittanica with science entries on Wikipedia. Wikipedia had more errors, but the difference was negligible. If it helps, please let me know which of the statements I attributed to Wikipedia and I will try to find other sources that will back them up. There are many other sources that will show the date when "under god" was added to the Pledge.
It implies nothing. It ASSERTS that there is a separation. This is not a christian nation no matter how much these fanatics want it to be a theocracy. Just ask the Quakers, if this was a christian nation as founded. Or, how about those million peasants who tried to establish Jamestown in the late 1500s, for king and eventually tobacco and profit. Case closed. The history of The United States had many religions, & the founders understood this, along with religion in European governments.
Thomas Jefferson used the phrase "wall of separation between church & state" in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Church in 1802, to clarify what he and the other drafters of the Constitution had intended by "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." See also the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." signed by Pres John Adams & ratified by Congress.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I've been saying the Pledge of Allegance for about 10 years, maybe I've just grown accustomed to saying "under God". I don't know...
True! I started kindergarten in September 1954 & learned the pledge as "1 nation indivisible." Partway into the Fall Semester we were informed that "under God" was added to the pledge and that's how we recited it ever since that day.
@DougMcCallister1 Don't take my word for it, friend-O. You can buy copies of this fairly cheap because they're in public domain. You can also watch multiple copies of it on archive.org. Just search for "Why We Fight" (the name of the series of 7 films), and this episode is "War Comes to America." You'll see the same thing in the original. Also if you look up the pledge of allegiance in Wikipedia or almost anywhere, you'll find info about how "under god" was added in the 50s.
@bamissfa If you mean that I edited out the words under God, then you're welcome to check any other copy of the film, part 7 of "Why We Fight" from 1945. It is in public domain, so you can find copies of it on Internet Archive and probably other places on the web. They recite the pledge in the first 2 minutes of the film, so you don't have to hunt for it. It's easy to confirm that this is true. No one said "Under God" in the pledge til 1950s.
@jacobew2000 The word "religion" did not mean "denomination" 200 years ago. Taken in the context of history, they wanted no establishment of religion. That doesn't mean they wanted to establish a religion but not one denomination.
@jacobew2000 I think CuriousCreature pointed out Manifest Destiny because it was immoral and yet it was carried out by US citizens who were majority Christian, even if the movement wasn't led by Christians or identified as a religious policy.
@MamaMario13 My writing error. The word 'truth's' lacks quotation marks in my original post. Additionally, note that Jefferson carefully chose to use the word "Creator" in the Declaration. He only used the term 'God' in connection with man's 'nature,' not a particular denomination. Believers in a "Christian America" would do well to engage in a full reading of American history, not just select quotes & supporting passages. The same goes for everyone else.
@Northcoda Make of it what you will. For fifty years, give or take, teachers made children recite the Pledge of Allegiance without that phrase, until it was added in 1954. Here's another fun fact. According to the Wikipedia entry, the pledge was written to go along with an event "conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, in a campaign to sell flags to public schools and magazines to students...." I pledge allegiance to this guy wanting to sell more flags. Ugh.
Speaking of "salutes" in general......I just recently heard that the standard military salute originates from the old knights in their armor. They would greet one another.......by reaching up to lift the visor of their helmet...so they could be identified. Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me, although I'm not sure if it's true.
@hallsofmedicine Do you have some citation supporting the claim that Bellamy was a Nazi, or that his salute inspired the Nazi salute? According to the Wikipedia entries on Bellamy and the Roman Salute, it was probably a gesture that was around for hundreds of years before being copied by Bellamy or the Fascists or Nazis. How about if we all remain free to support or not support any country we feel like, without having to swear our loyalty or commanding children to swear their loyalty?
There have been people who tried to challenge this at their local school boards and in court over the years, and it's generally brushed off, just like the prayers that school sports teams sometimes still have before a game. "freedom0f5peech" isn't the first one to think of that idea or to try to challenge it.
@Syrinx69 Good point. In Acts, there's a scene where God strikes down some Christian because he didn't share a fair amount of his crops or livestock with the other members of his community, and strikes down his wife because she knew about the hoarding and lied to the apostles. It's a pretty clear and easy argument to say that Christians are depicted as socialists or communists in that chapter. Unfortunately, it's a socialist theocracy.
That reminds me of a Bloom County comic strip that printed an American flag, which means every reader has to keep the comic strip forever -- burning or throwing away that comic strip would be desecrating the flag. ;)
If you look at history of legal decisions in the US, you'll find all kinds of judgments like this by lower courts and even the supreme court that were later overturned as unconstitutional. I'm not crying or holding my breath for the supreme court to make a fair ruling about this any time soon. You can call the 9th district "the most liberal, antireligion." You can call it constitutional. They can rule it constitutional. It's still a violation of the establishment clause, plain as day.
I'd say class envy starts with people feeling that classes are unfair. That starts pretty soon after classes develop in the first place, not after politicians point it out. Part of our disagreement here is whether it's fair for some people to get rich in the first place. You probably feel that there are fair ways for people to earn and keep a lot of money. I think wealth is created by workers, and most of it is unfairly taken from them by investors and capitalists who didn't work or earn it.
@jacobew2000 In one comment on this thread, you write "Many original 13 state constitutions have that spelled out in them." In another comment, you write, "Every one of the original 13 states had an "official" religion. That was the case until the 1900's." Which is it?
@TheCuriousCreature, Im glad that you looked at the statistics and seen that crime rates are in fact higher today than in the 1950's. I think that my point is made in that any crime rates that would increase even 25% today, would be considered a crisis, and yet the secularists dont want to link the 200-500% increase in crime to the fact that you have tried everything you possibly can to remove god and religion from the public arena. It was never intended to keep religion out of our govt.
@MyGrammarRules, I do blame the parents because my mother has been a teacher for over 40 years. She is constantly telling me about how many problems she has today with kids that have no values, are rude, and have no fear of adults or rule of law because we have taken those values (from god) out of our school. If I send my child to a private school, I still have to pay the taxes just as if I was sending them to a public school. I do tell them about god, but i hav to compete w/antigod teachers
@deidzoeb and @jacobew2000 Maybe one should ask if it is unconstitutional on other grounds. Like if the pledge has become a religious test for a public trust (i.e. public school) for instance.
I am an American citizen. I served in the U.S. Army. I have never been arrested. I pay my taxes. My children go to school and stay out of trouble. I believe this country belongs to all races, creeds, and religions including the non-religious. Because of this I believe that a pledge to our country should not leave anyone feeling as if they do not belong. "Under God" was not included in the pledge for a reason. Now I ask you, why should it be left in?
Re: raising taxes on business and wealthy. If you look back at the last fifty years or so, the country did very well under high taxes in the 50s-70s, and we've had some hard times in spite of Reagan lowering taxes on business and wealthy. But who are we talking about when we say "the country" did well, or the "economy" was bad. Usually pundits are talking whether rich people did well or not. Wages for working people have not kept up with inflation since the early 70s. ....
@jacobew2000 You mischaracterize the situation drastically when you say Americans have been "trying to exclude God completely from our society." Have you seen the ACLU protesting that churches should all be closed? There's a big difference between keeping our government secular as it was intended, and excluding God from society. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That means a whole religion, not one denomination or the other.
@jacobew2000 The thing worth noting is that Christian morality changes over time. Christians endorse slavery then reject it, treat women as property then as citizens, treat non-Whites as subhuman then eventually as equals (maybe someday). Because Christians don't always take morality from the Bible. They retrofit the morality of their times into the Bible, rationalizing it as necessary. Selecting some lines of scripture to support a position, ignoring other parts as necessary.
@jacobew2000 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" implies "a wall of separation between church and state." If there was no separation of church and state, it would mean that Congress or the federal government had established an official state religion, so it would violate the First Amendment.
@hallsofmedicine Ahhh, there's someone posting on youtube who we should take as a better authority than wikipedia. Do you or Rex Curry have any better sources that support these claims that Bellamy was a Nazi? Please check out the Wikipedia entry about the Roman Salute. You'll see paintings 100-200 years old showing people saluting with their arms up. Then you can find other sources that show the same old paintings, if you don't trust wikipedia. The gesture was not invented by Bellamy.
When you say "it slows an economy to a crawl", your premise seems to be that an economy must grow a little bit each year. There's no good reason for that. If workers and consumers reached agreements (and most of us are workers on one product or service, consumers of other products or svcs), there could be a balance with zero growth needed. So yeah, if the growth of an economy slowed to zero, that would be fine. It would be a problem for capitalists who don't really work, not for workers.
@TheCuriousCreature, the problem with tolerance is that we are now becoming so tolerant of everything, that evil and sin is now ok to do in our society. We went from being tolerant in race (which I agree with) to the next step of having to tolerate everything else, from corruption, to homosexuality, to single parent families, to mad spending. Crime rates have exploded since 1940's, and we wonder why... Americans think that we should be able to do anything we want, but ignore the consequences.
@MamaMario13 It's not. This is my point. Re-read what I posted. Some colony states required oath's of acceptance of the New testament before they would naturalize citizens or allow them to run for office. Others did not. It was this plurality of the role of religion that disproves the concept of a "Christian" America. But, there is no denying concepts of faith as having informed some of the Founders when they finally formulated our form of government.
Capitalists have taught us to believe that most of us workers have to rely on the scraps they throw us, as if there is no other way for everyone to survive. So we have to give them money so they can create jobs for us, and so they can buy things we'll build. It's like saying we have to *bribe* them to keep paying our tiny wages, cuz we're too stupid to run things. In reality, most workers just don't have capital to start businesses, without making huge concessions to banks or investors.
Slavery continued to matter even after the Dred Scott decision. Public institutions unconstitutionally proclaiming religious belief will continue to matter after the 9th Circuit's ruling.
Considering the reteric of today, "under god" is being used as a religious test, Artical 6 dose declare that unconstitutional. Example all the state laws that require a religious affilation for office or public trust are wrong.
@deidzoeb, the establishment clause is the biggest misinterpretation of the courts about the history of religious freedoms in the US. The 1947 SC decision was a result of an ex-kkk chief justice Black that hated catholics, and simply did not want them to have any money. Its as simple as that! The clause you mention was a speach made by Jefferson in 1802, and was a view not widely held in its day by the general populus. Until 1940, it was legal to have church prayer, etc, etc. 150years later!
@jacobew2000 "now that its been ruled as legal, they wont get rid of GOD in our currency or our pledge!" You have too much confidence in the latest ruling. This wouldn't be the first time that the Supreme Court overturned an appeals court ruling or an earlier Supreme Court ruling.
deidzoeb, your comment of 2 months ago wonderfully summarizes in one succinct paragraph why I think the US pledge of allegiance sucks. It's a bad idea to begin with, let alone with that "under God" crap.
@jacobew2000 Seems like a fair and obvious interpretation of the establishment clause to me. I'd say until 1940, prayer in school was not prosecuted, but it was unconstitutional and should have been recognized as illegal. We have a similar situation today where several members of the Bush admin admit to authorizing "interrogation techniques" that should be prosecuted as torture (as they were when Japanese did them or local sheriffs), but we don't have the political will to prosecute.
A few years ago some folks got upset when the pledge was printed on soft drink cans without "Under God." I had to splain to those morons that (1) "1 nation indivisible" is the original text of the pledge & (2) since the word "God" is sacred in many religions printing it on a disposable soft drink can could be considered blasphemous.
@TheCuriousCreature Also compare the religious beliefs of people in prison and people outside. From what I've heard, there are many more Christians in US prisons, although I don't know what percentage of them might have converted in prison, after repenting of their crimes. We could also look up how many repeat offenders are Christians.
"Fact 4 you." Asserting that something's a fact doesn't make it a fact. I'll try to make a video eventually explaining the problems I see with capitalism and some of the ways we could make things more fair.
What does it say about a person if they use "talmud" as an insult? Are you confusing that word with "Taliban" or does it just sound vaguely Arabic to you? It's a Jewish text, so it sounds like you don't like them.
@jacobew2000 Lots of Christians in the 1800s endorsed slavery and racism. They gradually changed. So if the Bible presents one clear message about how to live, why did Christians change from endorsing slavery and racism to rejecting them? I didn't say the Bible says to treat women as property. I meant that US laws treated women as property, and the laws were mostly written by and endorsed by Christians. Christians have apparently changed their understanding of how to treat women.
I mean socialism is the the understandable and appropriate reaction to unfair systems like capitalism. Could you explain what you mean by "little people" in a society? Billy Barty? It sounds a little like an insult, but also sounds like what Orwell wrote in 1984, that the upper class generally wants to hold its position, middle class generally wants just enough revolution so they can change place with the upper class, and the lower class generally wants to eliminate classes (socialism).
@TheCuriousCreature, many of the founding fathers did see slavery as wrong, but it was a difficult time in our nation. At the time of the creation of the US, we were fighting for the very survival of not only the US but of the very lives of those who were seen as traitors by the British Govt. They decided, against the will of many states of the north, to make a slave 3/5th of a person with the idea that one day, they would come back and make them 100%. It was better than 0/5ths the south wntd
@jacobew2000 Check out the Wikipedia entry on the Pledge. The guy who wrote it was a socialist! He toned down some of it because he figured some Americans wouldn't agree to "equality" if it meant women or "fraternity" with non-whites. Yeah, Obama is following communist policies, the same way the Soviets and Mao bailed out banks and private corporations. You might want to read some more about Communism before you reveal how little you know about it.
Not really; An American flag is 2-sided & a picture of the flag is there4 not considered a true flag & thus can be burned, torn up, etc w/out being considered desecration.
@rsmall64 Them dang communists even infiltrated Thomas Jefferson, who coined the term "wall of separation between church and state." Dude, the idea of a secular state is an American idea that predates Marxism and maybe predates the term "communism."
@deidzoeb It's amazing how some people will spew opinions on the net and never use the same world wide web to inform themselves of factual history and information. That DougMcCallister1 calls you a dumb ass is absolutely hysterical. You'd think someone so hell bent on the truth would apologize for wrongly insulting you.
Your hang-up against short people makes me not want to bother responding to you anymore. It's not like we're having an exchange of ideas, just me trying to explain and support my position, you dropping assertions like "Yay team, go capitalism, boo socialism." Have a good day anyway.
@deidzoeb , If you talked to an average American then, they thought of themselves as "A Virginian protestant", etc. There was open hostility toward what we call other denominations today. So thats what RELIGION meant to Americans then! There was no idea in the hearts or minds of the various state assemblies that there should not be God, and if you look at their state constitutions (many older than the US), they graphically state that! Remember they thought 10thamendment prevented fed intrusion
@jacobew2000 It's way too simplistic to say that this one factor is the cause of increase in crime. Don't you think the economy and changes in laws affect crime rates? It's not like lots of people started brewing and bootlegging alcohol illegally during Prohibition because they lost faith or because the Bible was taken out of schools. They did it because they disagreed with the prohibition laws. I imagine there was a dip in crime rates when prohibition was repealed - nothing to do with bibles.
Well, I wasn't born 15 years ago, but in all of the schools in my state, nobody is forced. You should've taken the person to court or something and told the court they violated your first amendment rights. At least, that's what I would've done. :)
Sorry, I didn't see the comment you were replying to. I thought you were saying that something in my video or description of it was not a fact. I'm with you, there's no reliable source to support the claim that "God is your father and mine," so no reason to believe it.
@jacobew2000 The crime rate increases also goes hand in hand with the war on drugs, and massive profits being made from illegal activities increasing creating more demand for criminals and more insentives for people to become criminals. Secularism is better then religion for things like running a school, or the government.... Though i do agree with you on schools especially should not be afraid of freedom of expression on religious matters. Some definitely are.
@lonewulf44 Please read up on the history of religion in the states. This is completely wrong viewpoint that you are pushing. Until the 1860's, the view of govt was that of the states having the power over the federal govt, not the other way around. Many states had their own state religion, and if you didnt like it, you could go to a state that had your religion. Many original 13 state constitutions have that spelled out in them. 10th amend was intended to restrict Fed, not state rights!
That's a weird interpretation of the Constitution. Everyone has freedom of religion, which they are able to exercise without having our government *establish* a religion. If the government declared itself to be Christian, or some more specific denomination of Christian, there would be less freedom for people of other religions or denominations. Also, do you want the govt telling your church what to do, like England has always done? Are you sure your favorite denomination would be chosen by govt?
![Lil Uzi Vert - Chill Bae [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D7F42F_JM3U/mqdefault.jpg)
I have always found it supremely ironic that they divided the line with "indivisible" in it. God ends up separating 'nation' and 'indivisible'. You can't make that shit up.
Looks like they did tho 😂
I think the "in God we trust" was also added to the coin around that time
That time was a time against separation of church and state it feels like
I wish "under god" was never included
"In God we trust"
I wish you were never included
@@MM-ss9yd Which also wasn't on paper money until the 1950's.
This form of the pledge is totally respectful, as opposed to the "new" pledge.
It sounds so much better this way.
We were able to *contribute to* the defeat of Nazi Germany without "under God." It's hard to tell how easily we would have defeated them without a few million Russians and Brits and other Europeans fighting them too. But your point is a good one.
This is the way it should still be.
This film is from 1945; "Under God" was not added to the pledge until 1954. Nothing is missing!
Under God was added later because we had so many Christians
The pledge was more elegant and less divisive before being ammended. I support the restoration of the pledge.
@jacobew2000 I didn't say the Bible has changed. I said Christian morality has changed. If the Bible presents one clear message about what behaviors are right and wrong, then why did Christians endorse slavery for centuries, then change their mind about it? Why did European Christians treat women and non-whites as second class citizens for centuries and change their mind about that? Why are Christians in many countries gradually changing their minds about whether homosexuality is wrong?
An early version of the salute, adopted in 1892, was known as the Bellamy salute. It started with the hand outstretched toward the flag, palm down, and ended with the palm up. Because of the similarity between the Bellamy salute and the Nazi salute, developed later, President Roosevelt instituted the hand-over-the-heart gesture as the salute during the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem. Removal of the Bellamy salute occurred on December 22, 1942
I'm not religious, but I wouldn't find it acceptable for teachers to force kids to recite any "pledge" to their nation, secular or religious. If a kid learns that his society or nation is worth supporting, then he'll support it without being forced to recite a pledge for it. And not everyone who recites the pledge mindlessly in school (usually without knowing what it means) grows up to fulfill that pledge. It's an ineffective attempt at brainwashing kids -- even without "under God" inserted.
The truthful way.
Why?
*_Not all US citizens think there's any kind of 'God'._*
You're NOT forced to say "under God", or even the pledge if you don't want to. But there are others who also have a right to say "under God" if we want.
Ive seen this a few places in different formats on youtube. I am ashamed to say I had no idea that we have ever changed the pledge.....shame on me..THANKYOU for your posts.
... So the only people whose standard of living has gone up has been rich people. That's half a century of experience that should show us trickle down economics have not brought the prosperity that capitalists claimed. Or you could say it brought a few of them prosperity, and it came at the expense of everyone else. ... Which is basically where the prosperity came from, people who didn't work taking surplus value that was created by labor and should have gone to workers who earned it.
I would vote to remove "Under God" and "In God We Trust" in a heartbeat!
Let's get the petitions going!
Dont worry, you will be removed to a place where you shall no longer have need to trust in God
@@scottstickler6017 That sounds like threat.
@@N21X you reveal your snowflake identity when you say you are threatened by a promise of old
@@scottstickler6017 You wouldn't happen to have a 2001 CR250 two stroke you want to get rid of, would you?
@@scottstickler6017 already live there, it's called earth.
Kari166
I know you don't think saying "under God" is a big deal, but the principle behind it is. If congress, in the name of world peace, encourages all school children to start saying "Allah be praised" every morning, would you have a problem with that? I would, our government should not be promoting any religion, even in the name of world peace. If you don't think encouraging kids to praise Allah is proper, then think about all the non-christen kids and "under God" its the same thing.
1954 "under god" added to pledge.
1956 "in god we trust" added to currency and "redeemable in silver" removed
I like this pledge better
@Snipes8161 I know that a the science journal Nature carried out a study a few years ago, comparing the accuracy of Encyclopedia Brittanica with science entries on Wikipedia. Wikipedia had more errors, but the difference was negligible. If it helps, please let me know which of the statements I attributed to Wikipedia and I will try to find other sources that will back them up. There are many other sources that will show the date when "under god" was added to the Pledge.
It implies nothing. It ASSERTS that there is a separation. This is not a christian nation no matter how much these fanatics want it to be a theocracy. Just ask the Quakers, if this was a christian nation as founded. Or, how about those million peasants who tried to establish Jamestown in the late 1500s, for king and eventually tobacco and profit. Case closed. The history of The United States had many religions, & the founders understood this, along with religion in European governments.
Thanks for the clip. I really enjoyed it.
Thomas Jefferson used the phrase "wall of separation between church & state" in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Church in 1802, to clarify what he and the other drafters of the Constitution had intended by "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." See also the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." signed by Pres John Adams & ratified by Congress.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I've been saying the Pledge of Allegance for about 10 years, maybe I've just grown accustomed to saying "under God". I don't know...
True! I started kindergarten in September 1954 & learned the pledge as "1 nation indivisible." Partway into the Fall Semester we were informed that "under God" was added to the pledge and that's how we recited it ever since that day.
@DougMcCallister1 Don't take my word for it, friend-O. You can buy copies of this fairly cheap because they're in public domain. You can also watch multiple copies of it on archive.org. Just search for "Why We Fight" (the name of the series of 7 films), and this episode is "War Comes to America." You'll see the same thing in the original. Also if you look up the pledge of allegiance in Wikipedia or almost anywhere, you'll find info about how "under god" was added in the 50s.
@bamissfa If you mean that I edited out the words under God, then you're welcome to check any other copy of the film, part 7 of "Why We Fight" from 1945. It is in public domain, so you can find copies of it on Internet Archive and probably other places on the web. They recite the pledge in the first 2 minutes of the film, so you don't have to hunt for it. It's easy to confirm that this is true. No one said "Under God" in the pledge til 1950s.
@jacobew2000 The word "religion" did not mean "denomination" 200 years ago. Taken in the context of history, they wanted no establishment of religion. That doesn't mean they wanted to establish a religion but not one denomination.
yah, the added the under god part...I can't remember when, but I know I had to do the under god part in school.
My grandma and I just got in an agreement about this with her literally telling me God is in the constitution as well
@jacobew2000 I think CuriousCreature pointed out Manifest Destiny because it was immoral and yet it was carried out by US citizens who were majority Christian, even if the movement wasn't led by Christians or identified as a religious policy.
Notice how TheTruthPusher (sic) basically ignores my points and tries to drag the discussion in irrelevent directions.
@MamaMario13 My writing error. The word 'truth's' lacks quotation marks in my original post. Additionally, note that Jefferson carefully chose to use the word "Creator" in the Declaration. He only used the term 'God' in connection with man's 'nature,' not a particular denomination. Believers in a "Christian America" would do well to engage in a full reading of American history, not just select quotes & supporting passages. The same goes for everyone else.
@Northcoda Make of it what you will. For fifty years, give or take, teachers made children recite the Pledge of Allegiance without that phrase, until it was added in 1954. Here's another fun fact. According to the Wikipedia entry, the pledge was written to go along with an event "conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, in a campaign to sell flags to public schools and magazines to students...." I pledge allegiance to this guy wanting to sell more flags. Ugh.
Speaking of "salutes" in general......I just recently heard that the standard military salute originates from the old knights in their armor. They would greet one another.......by reaching up to lift the visor of their helmet...so they could be identified. Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me, although I'm not sure if it's true.
@hallsofmedicine Do you have some citation supporting the claim that Bellamy was a Nazi, or that his salute inspired the Nazi salute? According to the Wikipedia entries on Bellamy and the Roman Salute, it was probably a gesture that was around for hundreds of years before being copied by Bellamy or the Fascists or Nazis. How about if we all remain free to support or not support any country we feel like, without having to swear our loyalty or commanding children to swear their loyalty?
There have been people who tried to challenge this at their local school boards and in court over the years, and it's generally brushed off, just like the prayers that school sports teams sometimes still have before a game. "freedom0f5peech" isn't the first one to think of that idea or to try to challenge it.
*Allegiance, not sure how I messed that one up, lol
@Syrinx69 Good point. In Acts, there's a scene where God strikes down some Christian because he didn't share a fair amount of his crops or livestock with the other members of his community, and strikes down his wife because she knew about the hoarding and lied to the apostles. It's a pretty clear and easy argument to say that Christians are depicted as socialists or communists in that chapter. Unfortunately, it's a socialist theocracy.
Well stated. I'm savvy enough about that war to know we didn't win it on our own, and didn't mean to imply otherwise. Cheers.
That reminds me of a Bloom County comic strip that printed an American flag, which means every reader has to keep the comic strip forever -- burning or throwing away that comic strip would be desecrating the flag. ;)
If you look at history of legal decisions in the US, you'll find all kinds of judgments like this by lower courts and even the supreme court that were later overturned as unconstitutional. I'm not crying or holding my breath for the supreme court to make a fair ruling about this any time soon. You can call the 9th district "the most liberal, antireligion." You can call it constitutional. They can rule it constitutional. It's still a violation of the establishment clause, plain as day.
I'd say class envy starts with people feeling that classes are unfair. That starts pretty soon after classes develop in the first place, not after politicians point it out.
Part of our disagreement here is whether it's fair for some people to get rich in the first place. You probably feel that there are fair ways for people to earn and keep a lot of money. I think wealth is created by workers, and most of it is unfairly taken from them by investors and capitalists who didn't work or earn it.
@jacobew2000 In one comment on this thread, you write "Many original 13 state constitutions have that spelled out in them." In another comment, you write, "Every one of the original 13 states had an "official" religion. That was the case until the 1900's." Which is it?
@deidzoeb What exactly do you mean by that??
@TheCuriousCreature, Im glad that you looked at the statistics and seen that crime rates are in fact higher today than in the 1950's. I think that my point is made in that any crime rates that would increase even 25% today, would be considered a crisis, and yet the secularists dont want to link the 200-500% increase in crime to the fact that you have tried everything you possibly can to remove god and religion from the public arena. It was never intended to keep religion out of our govt.
@MyGrammarRules, I do blame the parents because my mother has been a teacher for over 40 years. She is constantly telling me about how many problems she has today with kids that have no values, are rude, and have no fear of adults or rule of law because we have taken those values (from god) out of our school. If I send my child to a private school, I still have to pay the taxes just as if I was sending them to a public school. I do tell them about god, but i hav to compete w/antigod teachers
@deidzoeb and @jacobew2000
Maybe one should ask if it is unconstitutional on other grounds. Like if the pledge has become a religious test for a public trust (i.e. public school) for instance.
I am an American citizen. I served in the U.S. Army. I have never been arrested. I pay my taxes. My children go to school and stay out of trouble. I believe this country belongs to all races, creeds, and religions including the non-religious. Because of this I believe that a pledge to our country should not leave anyone feeling as if they do not belong.
"Under God" was not included in the pledge for a reason. Now I ask you, why should it be left in?
Re: raising taxes on business and wealthy. If you look back at the last fifty years or so, the country did very well under high taxes in the 50s-70s, and we've had some hard times in spite of Reagan lowering taxes on business and wealthy. But who are we talking about when we say "the country" did well, or the "economy" was bad. Usually pundits are talking whether rich people did well or not. Wages for working people have not kept up with inflation since the early 70s. ....
Yes something is missing
"Under the Constitution"
The way it should be
By the way, I don't have a problem with the words "Under God".
@jacobew2000 You mischaracterize the situation drastically when you say Americans have been "trying to exclude God completely from our society." Have you seen the ACLU protesting that churches should all be closed? There's a big difference between keeping our government secular as it was intended, and excluding God from society.
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That means a whole religion, not one denomination or the other.
@jacobew2000 The thing worth noting is that Christian morality changes over time. Christians endorse slavery then reject it, treat women as property then as citizens, treat non-Whites as subhuman then eventually as equals (maybe someday). Because Christians don't always take morality from the Bible. They retrofit the morality of their times into the Bible, rationalizing it as necessary. Selecting some lines of scripture to support a position, ignoring other parts as necessary.
@jacobew2000 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" implies "a wall of separation between church and state." If there was no separation of church and state, it would mean that Congress or the federal government had established an official state religion, so it would violate the
First Amendment.
@hallsofmedicine Ahhh, there's someone posting on youtube who we should take as a better authority than wikipedia. Do you or Rex Curry have any better sources that support these claims that Bellamy was a Nazi? Please check out the Wikipedia entry about the Roman Salute. You'll see paintings 100-200 years old showing people saluting with their arms up. Then you can find other sources that show the same old paintings, if you don't trust wikipedia. The gesture was not invented by Bellamy.
When you say "it slows an economy to a crawl", your premise seems to be that an economy must grow a little bit each year. There's no good reason for that. If workers and consumers reached agreements (and most of us are workers on one product or service, consumers of other products or svcs), there could be a balance with zero growth needed. So yeah, if the growth of an economy slowed to zero, that would be fine. It would be a problem for capitalists who don't really work, not for workers.
@TheCuriousCreature, the problem with tolerance is that we are now becoming so tolerant of everything, that evil and sin is now ok to do in our society. We went from being tolerant in race (which I agree with) to the next step of having to tolerate everything else, from corruption, to homosexuality, to single parent families, to mad spending. Crime rates have exploded since 1940's, and we wonder why... Americans think that we should be able to do anything we want, but ignore the consequences.
@MamaMario13 It's not. This is my point. Re-read what I posted. Some colony states required oath's of acceptance of the New testament before they would naturalize citizens or allow them to run for office. Others did not. It was this plurality of the role of religion that disproves the concept of a "Christian" America. But, there is no denying concepts of faith as having informed some of the Founders when they finally formulated our form of government.
Capitalists have taught us to believe that most of us workers have to rely on the scraps they throw us, as if there is no other way for everyone to survive. So we have to give them money so they can create jobs for us, and so they can buy things we'll build. It's like saying we have to *bribe* them to keep paying our tiny wages, cuz we're too stupid to run things. In reality, most workers just don't have capital to start businesses, without making huge concessions to banks or investors.
I accidentally clicked on "trash can" next to a comment. Not sure if it was mine or somebody else's. Is there any way to undo this?
WR0NG! A picture of a flag printed on paper is not actually a flag & therefore destroying that paper is not desecrating a flag.
Slavery continued to matter even after the Dred Scott decision. Public institutions unconstitutionally proclaiming religious belief will continue to matter after the 9th Circuit's ruling.
Is there actual audio of Eisenhower saying that? I've been looking for it to use in a video.
Considering the reteric of today, "under god" is being used as a religious test, Artical 6 dose declare that unconstitutional.
Example all the state laws that require a religious affilation for office or public trust are wrong.
@deidzoeb, the establishment clause is the biggest misinterpretation of the courts about the history of religious freedoms in the US. The 1947 SC decision was a result of an ex-kkk chief justice Black that hated catholics, and simply did not want them to have any money. Its as simple as that! The clause you mention was a speach made by Jefferson in 1802, and was a view not widely held in its day by the general populus. Until 1940, it was legal to have church prayer, etc, etc. 150years later!
@jacobew2000 "now that its been ruled as legal, they wont get rid of GOD in our currency or our pledge!" You have too much confidence in the latest ruling. This wouldn't be the first time that the Supreme Court overturned an appeals court ruling or an earlier Supreme Court ruling.
deidzoeb, your comment of 2 months ago wonderfully summarizes in one succinct paragraph why I think the US pledge of allegiance sucks. It's a bad idea to begin with, let alone with that "under God" crap.
@jacobew2000 Seems like a fair and obvious interpretation of the establishment clause to me. I'd say until 1940, prayer in school was not prosecuted, but it was unconstitutional and should have been recognized as illegal. We have a similar situation today where several members of the Bush admin admit to authorizing "interrogation techniques" that should be prosecuted as torture (as they were when Japanese did them or local sheriffs), but we don't have the political will to prosecute.
This is how the Pledge should've stayed.
A few years ago some folks got upset when the pledge was printed on soft drink cans without "Under God." I had to splain to those morons that (1) "1 nation indivisible" is the original text of the pledge & (2) since the word "God" is sacred in many religions printing it on a disposable soft drink can could be considered blasphemous.
@TheCuriousCreature Also compare the religious beliefs of people in prison and people outside. From what I've heard, there are many more Christians in US prisons, although I don't know what percentage of them might have converted in prison, after repenting of their crimes. We could also look up how many repeat offenders are Christians.
"Fact 4 you." Asserting that something's a fact doesn't make it a fact. I'll try to make a video eventually explaining the problems I see with capitalism and some of the ways we could make things more fair.
Doesnt matter now, as of today, the 9th circuit ruled it legal, tossing out the lawsuit.
I can haz One Time Cube under God?
What does it say about a person if they use "talmud" as an insult? Are you confusing that word with "Taliban" or does it just sound vaguely Arabic to you? It's a Jewish text, so it sounds like you don't like them.
I don't know what the big deal about "under god" is...
@jacobew2000 Lots of Christians in the 1800s endorsed slavery and racism. They gradually changed. So if the Bible presents one clear message about how to live, why did Christians change from endorsing slavery and racism to rejecting them? I didn't say the Bible says to treat women as property. I meant that US laws treated women as property, and the laws were mostly written by and endorsed by Christians. Christians have apparently changed their understanding of how to treat women.
I mean socialism is the the understandable and appropriate reaction to unfair systems like capitalism.
Could you explain what you mean by "little people" in a society? Billy Barty? It sounds a little like an insult, but also sounds like what Orwell wrote in 1984, that the upper class generally wants to hold its position, middle class generally wants just enough revolution so they can change place with the upper class, and the lower class generally wants to eliminate classes (socialism).
@TheCuriousCreature, many of the founding fathers did see slavery as wrong, but it was a difficult time in our nation. At the time of the creation of the US, we were fighting for the very survival of not only the US but of the very lives of those who were seen as traitors by the British Govt. They decided, against the will of many states of the north, to make a slave 3/5th of a person with the idea that one day, they would come back and make them 100%. It was better than 0/5ths the south wntd
I’m a Christian, however they should’ve left the pledge this way.
That's rexcurrydotnet on youtube
@jacobew2000 Check out the Wikipedia entry on the Pledge. The guy who wrote it was a socialist! He toned down some of it because he figured some Americans wouldn't agree to "equality" if it meant women or "fraternity" with non-whites.
Yeah, Obama is following communist policies, the same way the Soviets and Mao bailed out banks and private corporations. You might want to read some more about Communism before you reveal how little you know about it.
Not really; An American flag is 2-sided & a picture of the flag is there4 not considered a true flag & thus can be burned, torn up, etc w/out being considered desecration.
@rsmall64 Them dang communists even infiltrated Thomas Jefferson, who coined the term "wall of separation between church and state." Dude, the idea of a secular state is an American idea that predates Marxism and maybe predates the term "communism."
Don't take my word for it. Look it up and you'll see it's true.
@deidzoeb It's amazing how some people will spew opinions on the net and never use the same world wide web to inform themselves of factual history and information. That DougMcCallister1 calls you a dumb ass is absolutely hysterical. You'd think someone so hell bent on the truth would apologize for wrongly insulting you.
Your hang-up against short people makes me not want to bother responding to you anymore. It's not like we're having an exchange of ideas, just me trying to explain and support my position, you dropping assertions like "Yay team, go capitalism, boo socialism." Have a good day anyway.
@deidzoeb , If you talked to an average American then, they thought of themselves as "A Virginian protestant", etc. There was open hostility toward what we call other denominations today. So thats what RELIGION meant to Americans then! There was no idea in the hearts or minds of the various state assemblies that there should not be God, and if you look at their state constitutions (many older than the US), they graphically state that! Remember they thought 10thamendment prevented fed intrusion
In much the same way that anti-shaftism appeals to people who want to stop getting shafted.
The fluoride must be working.
@jacobew2000 It's way too simplistic to say that this one factor is the cause of increase in crime. Don't you think the economy and changes in laws affect crime rates? It's not like lots of people started brewing and bootlegging alcohol illegally during Prohibition because they lost faith or because the Bible was taken out of schools. They did it because they disagreed with the prohibition laws. I imagine there was a dip in crime rates when prohibition was repealed - nothing to do with bibles.
I agree with you .
Well, I wasn't born 15 years ago, but in all of the schools in my state, nobody is forced. You should've taken the person to court or something and told the court they violated your first amendment rights. At least, that's what I would've done. :)
Sorry, I didn't see the comment you were replying to. I thought you were saying that something in my video or description of it was not a fact. I'm with you, there's no reliable source to support the claim that "God is your father and mine," so no reason to believe it.
@deidzoeb Well said!
@jacobew2000 The crime rate increases also goes hand in hand with the war on drugs, and massive profits being made from illegal activities increasing creating more demand for criminals and more insentives for people to become criminals. Secularism is better then religion for things like running a school, or the government.... Though i do agree with you on schools especially should not be afraid of freedom of expression on religious matters. Some definitely are.
@lonewulf44 Please read up on the history of religion in the states. This is completely wrong viewpoint that you are pushing. Until the 1860's, the view of govt was that of the states having the power over the federal govt, not the other way around. Many states had their own state religion, and if you didnt like it, you could go to a state that had your religion. Many original 13 state constitutions have that spelled out in them. 10th amend was intended to restrict Fed, not state rights!
That's a weird interpretation of the Constitution. Everyone has freedom of religion, which they are able to exercise without having our government *establish* a religion. If the government declared itself to be Christian, or some more specific denomination of Christian, there would be less freedom for people of other religions or denominations. Also, do you want the govt telling your church what to do, like England has always done? Are you sure your favorite denomination would be chosen by govt?