Yes, it would be very interesting! Especially since many see his theory as overly simplistic, but not entirely without merit. As an amateur of the subject, it can get pretty confusing. I'd like to hear Henry's take on it.
@@robertobiagiorandazzo1782 no it isn't its unnecessarily religious in a secular country. id rather have the old one cause it actually represents American history
I find it ironically telling that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld, "In God We Trust," under the argument that it, "...lost through rote repetition any significant religious content." It was enacted more than half a century ago, and people on _both_ sides of the argument still _agree_ that it definitely _hasn't_ lost a _bit_ of its religious content, clearly revealing that it _should be_ subject to the Establishment Clause...rather than protected as a form of, "Ceremonial Deism." E PLURIBUS UNUM!
Romeo Antiquina How tho??? Don’t get me wrong I hate capitalism as much as the next guy but I’m pretty sure that motto is suppose to symbolize all of the original 13 colonies, which were separated during British rule, coming together to form a single nation. That has literally nothing to do with capitalism.
I just noticed this question. The answer is that it is written in US law that you don't need to swear. You can affirm instead. This istarted because certain religious groups like The Quakers refused to swear on The Bible because they thought there should be one standard for truth. "Testimony to integrity and truth refers to the way many members of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) testify or bear witness to their belief that one should live a life that is true to God, true to oneself, and true to others. To Friends, the concept of integrity includes personal wholeness and consistency as well as honesty and fair dealings. From personal and inward integrity flow the outward signs of integrity, which include honesty and fairness. It is not only about telling the truth but also about applying ultimate truth to each situation. For example, Friends (Quakers) believe that integrity requires avoiding statements that are technically true but misleading. The word testimony is used to refer to the ways in which Friends testify or bear witness to their faith in their everyday lives. In this context, the word testimony refers not to Friends' underlying beliefs about truth and integrity but their committed action to promote and act in truthful and integral ways, which arises out of their beliefs. Also known as the Testimony of Truth, or Truth Testimony, the essence of the Testimony of Integrity is placing God at the center of one's life. To Friends, integrity is in choosing to follow the leading of the Spirit despite the challenges and urges to do otherwise. That testimony has led to Friends having a reputation for being honest and fair in their dealings with others.[1] It has led them to give proper credit to others for their contributions and to accept responsibility for their own actions. In those legal systems, if it is allowed, rather than swearing oaths in a court of law, Friends prefer to affirm. In England, that has been the case since 1695.[2] Among some early Friends, the testimony led them to refuse to participate in drama, and they stated that to pretend they were someone else was to deny their integrity. Oaths and fair-dealing Early Friends believed that an important part of Jesus' message was how we treat our fellow human beings. They felt that honest dealing with others meant more than avoiding direct lies. Friends continue to believe that it is important not to mislead others, even if the words used are all technically truthful. Early Friends refused to swear oaths, even in courtrooms, believing that one must speak truth at all times, and the act of swearing to it implied different standards of truth with and without oaths. That doctrine is attributed to Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (specifically Matthew 5:34-37). Some Friends have accepted the use of "affirmations" rather than oaths, believing that "taking oaths implies a double standard of truth".[3] " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_of_integrity "In law, an affirmation is a solemn declaration allowed to those who conscientiously object to taking an oath. An affirmation has exactly the same legal effect as an oath but is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath; it is thus legally binding but not considered a religious oath. Some religious minorities hold beliefs that allow them to make legally binding promises but forbid them to swear an oath before a deity. Additionally, many decline to make a religious oath because they feel that to do so would be valueless or inappropriate, especially in secular courts. In some jurisdictions, an affirmation may be given only if such a reason is provided. United Kingdom A right to give an affirmation has existed in English law since the Quakers Act 1695 (An Act that the Solemne Affirmation & Declaration of the People called Quakers shall be accepted instead of an Oath in the usual Forme; 7 & 8 Will. 3 c. 34) was passed. The text of the affirmation was the following: "I A.B. do declare in the Presence of Almighty God the Witnesse of the Truth of what I say".[1] The right to give an affirmation is now embodied in the Oaths Act 1978, c.19,[2] which prescribes the following form: "I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm" and then proceed with the words of the oath prescribed by law, omitting any words of imprecation or calling to witness.[2] It has its origins in the refusal of Quakers to swear any oath, which would otherwise have barred them from many public positions. Quakers believe in speaking the truth at all times and so they consider the act of swearing to truth only in court rather than in everyday life implies double standards. As in James 5:12, they tried to "let your yea be yea and your nay be nay". The cause for such a right is exemplified R v William Brayn (1678). William Brayn was charged with the theft of a horse from Quaker Ambros Galloway. Brayn pleaded 'not guilty'. One witness testified that the horse was owned by Ambros Galloway, and another witness said that he [probably Galloway] bought it from Brayn. As Galloway was a Quaker, he would not, "for conscience-sake", swear and so could give no testimony. The court directed the jury to find Brayn 'not guilty' for want of evidence and committed the Quaker "as a concealer of Felony" for "refusing an Oath to Witness for the King".[3] Some Christians, who may not be Quakers, refuse to swear oaths, based on Matthew 5:34-5:37. All elected members of parliament must make an oath or affirmation to the Crown before they can take their seats.[4] MPs are asked which form they prefer to take with the statement "Swear or Affirm", meaning swear an oath or make an affirmation.[5] The oath or affirmation may be made in Welsh, Gaelic, Cornish or English. United States The original 1787 text of the Constitution of the United States makes three references to an "oath or affirmation": In Article I, Senators must take a special oath or affirmation for the purpose of sitting as the tribunal for impeachment; in Article II, the president is required to take a specified oath or affirmation before entering office (see oath of office); and in Article VI, all state and federal officials must take an oath or affirmation to support the US Constitution. A fourth appears in Amendment IV, all warrants must be supported by evidence given under oath or affirmation. On Friday, March 4, 1853, Franklin Pierce became the 14th President of the United States and has been the only president to date who affirmed rather than swore to the oath of office.[citation needed] " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmation_in_law
yes, and the fact that it is the default option speaks volumes! I used to wonder why those church people were pretending to be in court, can I get a witness, let me testify, and then I realized those court people are pretending to be in church
Historically yes. Slavery was historically common. History is not a reason for continuation. In the entire modern developed you don't have to swear on a Bible or anything else, you can simply make a non-religious affirmation.
3:00 The Declaration of Independence claims that all people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, not just the American people.The second half of the Declaration then applies that universal claim to the specific circumstances of the American colonies. Just wanted to make clear that the Declaration doesn't taut Americans as God's favored people over all others. Some other texts sure do, but not necessarily the founding documents.
We should also consider the fact that the Declaration of Independence isn’t a guiding document of the US. Yes it is a historic object of great national importance, however, it is only that: an artifact. Unlike the Declaration, the Constitution strictly prohibits the governments from any state recognized religion “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...” (US Constitution, Bill of Rights, First Amendment). Even if the statement is broad in only mentioning any form of God(s) and not Yahweh, Jehovah, Vishnu, etc., they are still acknowledging a Deistic form of a religion.
@@GrassesOn97 The Declaration of Independence is, in fact, a guiding document of the United States. The Constitution is the vehicle that gives form to the principles outlined in the Declaration. Otherwise, the Constitution, and law in general, is completely arbitrary. Acknowledging that human rights originate from a divine source tells us why government needs to protect them in in the first place. Heck, the whole movement to eradicate slavery was based on the notion, "Wait, doesn't the Declaration say that *all* men are created equal, and endowed by their *Creator* with certain unalienable rights?" If it weren't a core presupposition of the U.S. government, there would be little legal ground to say one couldn't subjugate another human against his will. As for the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Generally acknowledging the existence of a supreme Deity by itself is hardly the establishment of religion. That's just a presupposition that is simply either true or false. A law demanding that all citizens *must* publicly acknowledge the existence of the supreme Deity and/or prescribing due reverence, however, would be an establishment of religion.
Erik Nilsen Was not religion also used as a justification for slavery in the south as well? Do keep in mind, many Confederate states cited that “God was on their side”; the side of slavery. The Declaration still isn’t the guiding document as it is more of a reason why America broke away from the British Empire, one of the reasons why was that it had an official state religion. If there is something to be considered as a guiding document to the Constitution, I’d say it is the preamble to Constitution which specifically spells out the functions of the government. Specifically the ideas of popular sovereignty: the government isn’t founded on Tradition or on any specific religion, but on the consent of the entire population. And yes, the motto of “in God we trust” doesn’t mention any specific deity, but it still does mention a more deistic form of one which goes against America’s identity of Secularism; we aren’t a country that believes in no god, one god, or many gods, but believe that all forms of religion must be held equal before the law and must not be given any favored treatment.
@@GrassesOn97 It sure was, and they sure did. But I wasn't arguing that any specific religious expression is or should be endorsed by the government. My point was that our central concept of humans rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution operates from the assumption that humans are given these rights by their Creator and that governments are accountable to protect the rights of their people. That's a philosophic claim, but it isn't inherently a religious claim. The Confederates disagreed with the core philosophic claim of the United States, and they cited (conveniently modified) religious conviction to support their dissension. Ultimately, any institution, governmental or otherwise, that appeals to a transcendent, universal truth claim has to base it in some sort of supreme arbiter/standard of that truth. Otherwise, it's just "might makes right." And perhaps might really does make right. But no organization really can operate from that assumption. When people start an organization, they presume that there is a higher, transcendent reason (than immediate personal pleasure) to do so. Addendum: The idea that all people are equal before the law, regardless of religious conviction or any other reason, also stems from the central philosophic claim in the Declaration.
Erik Nilsen But does that moral truth come from a God or from Reason itself? Is God moral because he says he is or is there a standard outside of God which transcends it? The claim that “God is on our side” is in, a sense, a might makes right morality; we are the chosen people of the almighty and everyone else be damned! You don’t have to go far back in history to see how that sort of mentality went down. Take the story called “God on Trial” by Frank Boyce for example. In the story, Jewish prisoners in Auschwitz put their God on trial to see if he had abandoned their covenant with the people of Israel. The prosecution states that the only reason why the people of Israel have survived so long was that God was merely on their side, not because he was “good” as they reason that the murder of innocents by their God or by his command doesn’t really mark a benevolent God who cares for all of the people on the earth equally, merely one on THEIR side. We must also understand why people start any organization anyway. Yes, there can be exceptions to the case that there are organizations that base their society on the values of a “transcendent truth”, but most institutions aren’t like that. Most are based on the values of the Social Contract; a group of people willing give up their natural freedoms for security, liberty, and equality under a set of laws. If the government doesn’t follow these laws, then the people have every right to upheave the powers of the government and pick new rulers. Which was exactly what the founders were fighting for in the first place; there is no “divine right to rule” not for the people, nobles, or kings, there is the “consent to rule” by the people. PS: thanks for having this discussion with me, I really like having see types of discussions without them becoming shouting matches
@@ezekiel3626 Since the video's can only be so long, I cut out a huge section that merited inclusion about the complicated use of the phrase before and immediately after the Civil War. It does fit the narrative, but was excluded for time considerations. The minting of coins with "In God We Trust" was directly inspired by the Star Spangled Banner. Calling it an "anti-confederate slogan" is definitely going too far, I think given its varied meanings. After all, Lincoln and many others acknowledged that both Confederates and Unionists believed God was on their side--hence the significance of the blood of martyrs that flows from Independence to the Civil War and through all our conflicts where soldiers lay their lives on the "altar of freedom"
@Deva Rafael "[Iuppiter Omnipotens] Annuit Cœptis MDCCLXXVI Novus Ordo Seclorum E Pluribus Unum." meaning "[Jupiter Almighty,] He approved of [us] having begun, [in] 1776, the New Word Order."
Yeah, the motto seems far too close to a communist vision, and it was kinda hypocritical of them to talk about unity while actively busting up and demonizing unions.
A very in depth book on this subject is "The Founding Myth" Why Christian Nationalism is un American". Especially under our current administration, its paramount that all understand that no religion should every be codified into our government, nor supported by our government. Ever.
You are completely ignoring that multiple States had established religions when the Constitution was ratified, and that the Bill of Rights was never even intended to apply to the states, and that The Establishment Clause really just means they won't make a church of America like the Church of England. Don't even get me started on the Chaplin's that have always served the Senate and House of Representatives...
@@rc7625 which one? All order that we value today derives from a very Christian people, our reverence for the Constitution is an echo of their reference for the Bible...
America the most inconsistent country in the world, 1 minute you focusing one separation of church and state the next your welcoming church into politics, America home of hypocrites. The founders left England cause of religion only to make a religion infested country how ironic.
As a New Zealander who is Christian (LDS/Mormon), going to the USA was completely jarring, due to its religiosity. NZ now has very strong church/state separation , and being devout like I am isn't super common (if you're white, that is.... can of worms right there). Yet in the USA people would say "God Bless You" like it was nothing, to anyone, and despite being Christian myself it was still bizarre seeing it everywhere from seemingly everyone.
Merritt Animation there is, but that’s a focus the societal harm that religion ultimately causes which is not something that I think you’re going to find discussed in this channel
@@rhyderrek6155 because religion is the opiate of the masses, right? I don't know if you've ever been to a place where opiates are being abused, but the "community" those people are sharing is far less constructive then even the most dysfunctional Church. Religion very well maybe the Prozac of the proletariat, but it's nowhere near an opiate
I personally feel that the current national motto undermined the secular nature of America from the start leading to the rise of destructive Christian nationalism making it harder for people to feel empathy for other faiths.
Reversal_of_Expectation That’s a whataboutism and not even a reasonable one. I’m not denying that the atheistic communism of those nations was awful. But Secular≠Atheist. All secular means is that regardless of your faith, or lack there of you are able to function in society. That is by far preferable to religious or atheistic nationalism.
Jaden Shelton I’d be careful about making such a definition of secularism. Compare, for instance, secularism in France to that of America; they are both legislatively similar countries, but the secularism of France basically bans any display or expression of religion, whereas in America it is that religious expression is protected. frankly on the matter of religion, these two secular countries could hardly differ more. Also, I don’t think you can support the claim that a rise of Christian nationalism-assuming that’s happened-has led to people not being able to understand one another. There is certainly a growing cultural divide, but it cuts both ways, and is also concerned with economic, social, racial, etc issues
Jesus: Give everything you have to the poor and do it so secretly that not even your own left hand will know what your right hand is doing. Peter: This guy didn't give everything he had to the community so the Spirit struck him and his wife dead! America: COMMUNISM IS BLASPHEMY I always throw up in my mouth when I hear people tie capitalism and American empire to Christianity.
Lol, you're totally skipping over the whole concept of choice, which is analogous to Freedom, in you are examples. Not too much freedom and the Soviet Union...
@@badluckrabbit lol, we have more choice than anyone in the history of the world. The poorest American is still living a higher standard of living then royalty of a hundred years ago!
@@shawnstrittmatter4783 Spoken like someone who has never actually been poor. The poor have virtually no choice, and the choices most people have are often false choices. It's also worth noting that the form of communism that flourished in the 20th century is by no means the sum total of communism. There are numerous non-totalitarian communist ideologies. Finally, Jesus didn't just sit back and respect the "freedom" of the hypocrites, pharisees, etc. he went out and overturned their tables and whipped them out of the temple. Jesus understood that, in the face of exploitation, corruption, dispossession, and injustice, violence is preferable to permissiveness.
For modern conservatives, maybe, but not necessarily for the historical ones we're largely discussing here. Mid 20th century Christians and earlier had very different ideas about how this all should work.
People though think it is referencing the Christian God. The founders also made clear they did not want to cater to any specific God or religion and the reference of 'their creator' as being Nature's God or nature itself. I recommend reading The Founding Myth.
As far as American currency goes, the motto first appeared on the two-cent piece, which came out in 1864. Trying to fit the sentiment from the Star-Spangled Banner onto a coin is how it got rephrased.
Thank you. Please look for my post on this video as there is more involved in our nation's motto which dates back to the foundations and Beyond. In God We Trust - an appeal to heaven
Ironically, Communist nations weren't that atheistic considering the prevalent cult of personality and indoctrination of conservative ideologies and nationalism. Think Maoism as an example. It is worthy to discuss whether communism under such contexts is atheistic or religious under the mask of atheism, for the only reason it claimed to be atheist was the cult leader or his (yes, always his) party portrayed himself as the only legitimate god so he could claim that there is no need for other deities.
Yet another example why the organized religion equals organized crime. If you just add a single letter to this slogan, the life on this planet would be far better: "In Good we trust".
@@mileseximius That would be the easy way, sure, instead of working for change. Time will tell which of those views prevails in the USA. Rest of the world will be watching...
It’s kinda crazy how much people accept as “allways been there.” When I was at school it felt like houses had been there forever-when I did research on it later the first 3 got started only in 1953 and they just tacked on a new one very few decades!
I'm Buddhist, I don't believe in any god. (No, the Buddha is not a god). So am I not American? Both sides of my family have been here more than 5 generations. I feel vaguely coerced to profess a belief I don't believe in to avoid being called a traitor.
This episode made me sad. Religion suppressing people, labeling, and creating hatred for whole groups of people, including fellow Americans. Religious rigidity slows down social progress and creates human suffering, we just didn't see it.
Let me start by clarifying I am pagan. There is more behind the origins of In God We Trust that dates back to the founding of the United States of America, which has remained Arcane knowledge because it is ignored. The United States Constitution is patterned after the Iroquois Constitution: this is relevant as it ties into one of our nation's first Flags. Also significant is the fact that we are founded on natural law philosophy as rule of law, as per the Declaration of Independence. Thus we are a constitutional republic founded upon natural law nomocracy. In 1775 General George Washington commissioned the pine tree flag as our first Naval Flag. The pine tree flag depicts the white pine which is the symbol of the Iroquois Great Law of Peace; another natural law philosophy. The Iroquois Confederacy was founded because of the actions of a prophet, most respectfully referred to as the Peacemaker. The Peacemaker enunciated Far Western natural law philosophy in its form known as the Great Law of Peace. George Washington, like many of our founding fathers, was a great admirer of the Iroquois. It is self-evident that in knowing the Iroquois were founded because of divine intervention, as translated into Western paradigms, designed the pine tree flag with both the white pine and the phrase an appeal to heaven. This is the first time a phrase like in God we trust was used. Western natural law has its origins in Christianity, having been drawn from The Works of John Locke as they relate to the works of Thomas Aquinas in his interpretation of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. In God We Trust is therefore of vital importance to our American culture. While we are not founded on the Christian religion, it is factual that our philosophy of natural law is of Christian origin. I encourage everyone to learn about this Arcane knowledge as it is the only hope our nation has in recovering rule of law and thus returning to the purpose and meaning of these United States. In God We Trust ✌🦅🌲🇺🇸 ref HR 331 100th Congress 2nd session 1988 remarks concerning the Savages of North America by Benjamin Franklin, 1784
@@theMoporter no, very few were atheists, they were either deist or pantheist which rejected the trinitarian view of God but which did not by far reject God. The widespread rejection of god insofar as it happened came quite a bit later
This phrase "To trust in God" is form the proverbs of Solomon from The Bible. Trust in the LORD with all your heart; and lean not to your own understanding. He that trusts in his riches shall fall; but the righteous shall flourish as a branch. He that handles a matter wisely shall find good: and whoever trusts in the LORD, happy is he. And many many more phrases if make search for the word TRUST in The Book of Proverbs
"Trust in the lord with all your heart; and lean not to your own understanding." Aka, if facts contradict the bible, trust it is your lack of understanding the bible thats the real issue. Thank you for clearing that up.
All I can think about with these American Religion videos is that Bioshock Infinite is that much closer to being real. I’m all for floating cities, but not the crazy cult part.
How did American leaders manage to change religiosity as anti-communist, considering Jesus was quite the socialist and had some stuff to say about rich people getting to heaven?
The problem I have with pacifist socialist Jesus is when he becomes the whip-fashioning, fig tree cursing, sell your cloak and buy a sword, called a woman seeking medical help for her daughter a "dog", tells his disciples to avoid Gentile villages...espically those Samaritan villages...…...well you get my drift
@@misterauctor7353 1 Timothy 6:17-18 “Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.” Deuteronomy 15:7 “If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be.
I learned so much more about this subject from this video then I thought I knew. I had no idea that In God We Trust stems as far back as The Star-Spangled Banner itself.
Arkansas has a law that if ANYONE donates this poster with "in God we trust," the American and Arkansas flag to a school, they have to put it up. Its all over the high school I went to and the university I go to.
Thanks. I'll be using this in a debate on Thinkspot. I'd drop a one-off, money-where-my-mouth-is donation in your bucket if you had a paypal link, but meanwhile know that your work is properly appreciated.
Thank you for the excellent video! Ironic that U.S. leaders chose to defend the interests that fomented the Bolshevik coup that gave Communism it's rise. Very curious indeed!
So, basically to be a good American you have to treat it like a religion and at the same time be a good Christian, yet in order to be a good American you have to break the first commandment.
@@misterauctor7353 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The idea of America is the "God" of American Civil Religion, and Christianity already has its own God, the God of Abraham, Israel, and Jesus. Americans are expected to simultaneously worship America and the Christian God, yet worshipping multiple gods would be a violation of the First Commandment. Of course, I'm an atheist, so take my explanation for what it is-purely an explanation, not a judgment.
Actually they knew what they were talking about. It's us that are dumb and scary. Communism is the worst thing that can overtake a nation, and national religiosity is a pretty good defence against it.
I wouldn’t say America was founded as a Christian nation, however to say that the founders weren’t biblically literate and also very intentional in applying biblical principles to our founding documents would be false. You also fail to mention that atheism was mandated by law in the Soviet Union. That’s a pretty stark contrast from the culture of faith in America that many Americans freely chose. The idea that faith separates the free west from the soviet east makes perfect sense to me. It is the Bible that strongly reinforces the sanctity of human life, the free will of the human spirit, and the right to cultivate wealth. Soviet communism is responsible for gulags, state propaganda, and breadlines (if not famine).
This is very dumd comment when you consider reality in the ground: 1. The su not force people to because athiest only stopping religionus propraganda 2.freedom of religion is a myth, most people born in to the religion not choosing it try to be a atheist or worst a muslim in the bible belt and see how it go, you will be shun and kick out of the community if lucky 3. "State propraganda" tell me 1 country who doesnt do that 4.you seem to forget that the su contribute to science and progress in the 90s even in it death bed still 50% of scienceticfic paper in russian 5.the famine you mentiin only happen in the early day when the chain of production broke down do to the war, the same think happen with the french and indian revolution it that because of the repuclicansm and liberlism as well
Gulag is the a labor camp not death camp, it had been use by all regime befor the soviet saing communism causing gulag is like saing capitalism causing japanese camp
Minor correction: the United States lacked no motto before Eisenhouer as your national motto has been "E pluribus unum" since the union declared its independence. Nowadays both are national mottos
The phrase "In God We Trust" first appeared on US coins way sooner than the 1950s. The phrase made it's first appearance on the 2-cent coin in 1864 during the dark days of the US Civil War. (Treasury.gov has a good article about earlier legislation on the phrase.) You make a good case that it was repurposed against Communism--I suppose the phrase is the phrase is invoked during major existential crises.
I know you’re being ironic, but a deeper look into that story would reveal it was the place of exchange, not the exchanging itself that was under fire. It’s impossible to have my tone sound holier than though via text and I do apologize but I figured since you were watching an academic video that you would seek out the source material.
Alexander Vlk I got you, and I don’t take any offense. You’re correct, It was money changing in the TEMPLE that caused him to react that way. The deeper point I’m making is the old cliché that if Jesus were alive today he’d be a socialist. Unchecked capitalism breeds enormous greed and inequality, two things Jesus most definitely taught against.
Who or what is responsible for the decline in judeo Christian values in our first world (USA/Canada) it wasn’t accidental…if not the communists than who??
Just to clarify for those who don't know, the american view of communists as atheists isn't just a random accusation. Marxist philosophy is highly materialistic and denies the existence of a non physical reality. Likewise Soviet Russia and communist China have persecuted religious institutions because of this and so the hyping of american religiosity was partially a response to this.
On a tangential note, and I hope you don't think I'm trolling you, I would like to point out that despite the widespread use, there are problems with your use of the word "American". It would be nice to see scholars reaching international audiences, like you, being more precise and respectful by avoiding that use. The word "American" is a demonym for the United States of America, but it can also be used to refer to anyone from the Americas, which includes North America, and South America. This can be confusing and even abusive for people from other countries of the American continent, who feel that they are being excluded from the term "American." The United States of America is not the only country in the Americas. People from other countries in The Americas are proud of their continental identity, which does not relate to the identity of the USA. It feels like this appropriation of the demonym is an unnecessary insult that could be easily replaced with a more appropriate and unambiguous term.
In god we trust is just a name of the trust that is held by European family. Since they own the properties and the Citizen of the united state of America that used to be a nation but now a cooperations. To pay back our debt that’s all
Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; you will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve GOD and be enslaved to money"
This seems like a great time for an episode on Weber’s approach to how Protestantism helped to define capitalism
Yes, it would be very interesting! Especially since many see his theory as overly simplistic, but not entirely without merit. As an amateur of the subject, it can get pretty confusing. I'd like to hear Henry's take on it.
The USA had a motto before this one, it was "E pluribus unum"
"out of the many came the one"
@@robertobiagiorandazzo1782 no it isn't its unnecessarily religious in a secular country. id rather have the old one cause it actually represents American history
@@robertobiagiorandazzo1782 epic no
And they'd put the eye on the top of the pyramid in which it is a symbol of a New World Order. 😱
@@wazzup233yes, a new world order of democracies, rather than monarchies
I find it ironically telling that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld, "In God We Trust," under the argument that it, "...lost through rote repetition any significant religious content." It was enacted more than half a century ago, and people on _both_ sides of the argument still _agree_ that it definitely _hasn't_ lost a _bit_ of its religious content, clearly revealing that it _should be_ subject to the Establishment Clause...rather than protected as a form of, "Ceremonial Deism." E PLURIBUS UNUM!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Stay mad 👍
@@TheEverFreeKing ...and MOTIVATED!
This series is bloody amazing. Do you have a recommended reading list on American Civil Religion?
e pluribus unum is so much better as a moto.
For those who don't know: E pluribus unum = out of the many, one
A capitalists motto. Lol.
Uno uno, I won.
Romeo Antiquina How tho??? Don’t get me wrong I hate capitalism as much as the next guy but I’m pretty sure that motto is suppose to symbolize all of the original 13 colonies, which were separated during British rule, coming together to form a single nation. That has literally nothing to do with capitalism.
@@anovatv7712 Okay brainlet
Great episode. I'm atheist myself, but I find religions fascinating, particularly their history.
Question: Did people always swear on the bible? Was ‘so help you god’ always said after people were sworn in (like to court or something)?
I just noticed this question. The answer is that it is written in US law that you don't need to swear. You can affirm instead. This istarted because certain religious groups like The Quakers refused to swear on The Bible because they thought there should be one standard for truth.
"Testimony to integrity and truth refers to the way many members of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) testify or bear witness to their belief that one should live a life that is true to God, true to oneself, and true to others. To Friends, the concept of integrity includes personal wholeness and consistency as well as honesty and fair dealings. From personal and inward integrity flow the outward signs of integrity, which include honesty and fairness. It is not only about telling the truth but also about applying ultimate truth to each situation. For example, Friends (Quakers) believe that integrity requires avoiding statements that are technically true but misleading.
The word testimony is used to refer to the ways in which Friends testify or bear witness to their faith in their everyday lives. In this context, the word testimony refers not to Friends' underlying beliefs about truth and integrity but their committed action to promote and act in truthful and integral ways, which arises out of their beliefs.
Also known as the Testimony of Truth, or Truth Testimony, the essence of the Testimony of Integrity is placing God at the center of one's life. To Friends, integrity is in choosing to follow the leading of the Spirit despite the challenges and urges to do otherwise.
That testimony has led to Friends having a reputation for being honest and fair in their dealings with others.[1] It has led them to give proper credit to others for their contributions and to accept responsibility for their own actions. In those legal systems, if it is allowed, rather than swearing oaths in a court of law, Friends prefer to affirm. In England, that has been the case since 1695.[2]
Among some early Friends, the testimony led them to refuse to participate in drama, and they stated that to pretend they were someone else was to deny their integrity.
Oaths and fair-dealing
Early Friends believed that an important part of Jesus' message was how we treat our fellow human beings. They felt that honest dealing with others meant more than avoiding direct lies. Friends continue to believe that it is important not to mislead others, even if the words used are all technically truthful. Early Friends refused to swear oaths, even in courtrooms, believing that one must speak truth at all times, and the act of swearing to it implied different standards of truth with and without oaths. That doctrine is attributed to Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (specifically Matthew 5:34-37).
Some Friends have accepted the use of "affirmations" rather than oaths, believing that "taking oaths implies a double standard of truth".[3] "
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_of_integrity
"In law, an affirmation is a solemn declaration allowed to those who conscientiously object to taking an oath. An affirmation has exactly the same legal effect as an oath but is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath; it is thus legally binding but not considered a religious oath. Some religious minorities hold beliefs that allow them to make legally binding promises but forbid them to swear an oath before a deity. Additionally, many decline to make a religious oath because they feel that to do so would be valueless or inappropriate, especially in secular courts. In some jurisdictions, an affirmation may be given only if such a reason is provided.
United Kingdom
A right to give an affirmation has existed in English law since the Quakers Act 1695 (An Act that the Solemne Affirmation & Declaration of the People called Quakers shall be accepted instead of an Oath in the usual Forme; 7 & 8 Will. 3 c. 34) was passed. The text of the affirmation was the following: "I A.B. do declare in the Presence of Almighty God the Witnesse of the Truth of what I say".[1] The right to give an affirmation is now embodied in the Oaths Act 1978, c.19,[2] which prescribes the following form: "I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm" and then proceed with the words of the oath prescribed by law, omitting any words of imprecation or calling to witness.[2]
It has its origins in the refusal of Quakers to swear any oath, which would otherwise have barred them from many public positions. Quakers believe in speaking the truth at all times and so they consider the act of swearing to truth only in court rather than in everyday life implies double standards. As in James 5:12, they tried to "let your yea be yea and your nay be nay".
The cause for such a right is exemplified R v William Brayn (1678). William Brayn was charged with the theft of a horse from Quaker Ambros Galloway. Brayn pleaded 'not guilty'. One witness testified that the horse was owned by Ambros Galloway, and another witness said that he [probably Galloway] bought it from Brayn. As Galloway was a Quaker, he would not, "for conscience-sake", swear and so could give no testimony. The court directed the jury to find Brayn 'not guilty' for want of evidence and committed the Quaker "as a concealer of Felony" for "refusing an Oath to Witness for the King".[3]
Some Christians, who may not be Quakers, refuse to swear oaths, based on Matthew 5:34-5:37.
All elected members of parliament must make an oath or affirmation to the Crown before they can take their seats.[4] MPs are asked which form they prefer to take with the statement "Swear or Affirm", meaning swear an oath or make an affirmation.[5] The oath or affirmation may be made in Welsh, Gaelic, Cornish or English.
United States
The original 1787 text of the Constitution of the United States makes three references to an "oath or affirmation": In Article I, Senators must take a special oath or affirmation for the purpose of sitting as the tribunal for impeachment; in Article II, the president is required to take a specified oath or affirmation before entering office (see oath of office); and in Article VI, all state and federal officials must take an oath or affirmation to support the US Constitution. A fourth appears in Amendment IV, all warrants must be supported by evidence given under oath or affirmation.
On Friday, March 4, 1853, Franklin Pierce became the 14th President of the United States and has been the only president to date who affirmed rather than swore to the oath of office.[citation needed] "
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmation_in_law
yes, and the fact that it is the default option speaks volumes! I used to wonder why those church people were pretending to be in court, can I get a witness, let me testify, and then I realized those court people are pretending to be in church
Historically yes. Slavery was historically common. History is not a reason for continuation. In the entire modern developed you don't have to swear on a Bible or anything else, you can simply make a non-religious affirmation.
A wholesome, nutritious breakfast....
The breakfast of champions
Actually, we DID have a motto--and a perfectly good one at that: "E Pluribus Unum". (Out of Many, One).
Another good one!! Yes! So thankful you are taking this on FULLY! I love sharing these!
I’m glad you liked it!! Feel free to suggest topics you’d like to see me cover too.
ReligionForBreakfast what you are speaking about is a topic I have been trying to personally figure out.
3:00 The Declaration of Independence claims that all people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, not just the American people.The second half of the Declaration then applies that universal claim to the specific circumstances of the American colonies.
Just wanted to make clear that the Declaration doesn't taut Americans as God's favored people over all others.
Some other texts sure do, but not necessarily the founding documents.
We should also consider the fact that the Declaration of Independence isn’t a guiding document of the US. Yes it is a historic object of great national importance, however, it is only that: an artifact.
Unlike the Declaration, the Constitution strictly prohibits the governments from any state recognized religion “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...” (US Constitution, Bill of Rights, First Amendment). Even if the statement is broad in only mentioning any form of God(s) and not Yahweh, Jehovah, Vishnu, etc., they are still acknowledging a Deistic form of a religion.
@@GrassesOn97
The Declaration of Independence is, in fact, a guiding document of the United States. The Constitution is the vehicle that gives form to the principles outlined in the Declaration. Otherwise, the Constitution, and law in general, is completely arbitrary. Acknowledging that human rights originate from a divine source tells us why government needs to protect them in in the first place. Heck, the whole movement to eradicate slavery was based on the notion, "Wait, doesn't the Declaration say that *all* men are created equal, and endowed by their *Creator* with certain unalienable rights?" If it weren't a core presupposition of the U.S. government, there would be little legal ground to say one couldn't subjugate another human against his will.
As for the first amendment,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Generally acknowledging the existence of a supreme Deity by itself is hardly the establishment of religion. That's just a presupposition that is simply either true or false. A law demanding that all citizens *must* publicly acknowledge the existence of the supreme Deity and/or prescribing due reverence, however, would be an establishment of religion.
Erik Nilsen Was not religion also used as a justification for slavery in the south as well? Do keep in mind, many Confederate states cited that “God was on their side”; the side of slavery.
The Declaration still isn’t the guiding document as it is more of a reason why America broke away from the British Empire, one of the reasons why was that it had an official state religion. If there is something to be considered as a guiding document to the Constitution, I’d say it is the preamble to Constitution
which specifically spells out the functions of the government. Specifically the ideas of popular sovereignty: the government isn’t founded on Tradition or on any specific religion, but on the consent of the entire population.
And yes, the motto of “in God we trust” doesn’t mention any specific deity, but it still does mention a more deistic form of one which goes against America’s identity of Secularism; we aren’t a country that believes in no god, one god, or many gods, but believe that all forms of religion must be held equal before the law and must not be given any favored treatment.
@@GrassesOn97 It sure was, and they sure did. But I wasn't arguing that any specific religious expression is or should be endorsed by the government. My point was that our central concept of humans rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution operates from the assumption that humans are given these rights by their Creator and that governments are accountable to protect the rights of their people. That's a philosophic claim, but it isn't inherently a religious claim. The Confederates disagreed with the core philosophic claim of the United States, and they cited (conveniently modified) religious conviction to support their dissension.
Ultimately, any institution, governmental or otherwise, that appeals to a transcendent, universal truth claim has to base it in some sort of supreme arbiter/standard of that truth. Otherwise, it's just "might makes right." And perhaps might really does make right. But no organization really can operate from that assumption. When people start an organization, they presume that there is a higher, transcendent reason (than immediate personal pleasure) to do so.
Addendum:
The idea that all people are equal before the law, regardless of religious conviction or any other reason, also stems from the central philosophic claim in the Declaration.
Erik Nilsen But does that moral truth come from a God or from Reason itself? Is God moral because he says he is or is there a standard outside of God which transcends it? The claim that “God is on our side” is in, a sense, a might makes right morality; we are the chosen people of the almighty and everyone else be damned! You don’t have to go far back in history to see how that sort of mentality went down.
Take the story called “God on Trial” by Frank Boyce for example. In the story, Jewish prisoners in Auschwitz put their God on trial to see if he had abandoned their covenant with the people of Israel. The prosecution states that the only reason why the people of Israel have survived so long was that God was merely on their side, not because he was “good” as they reason that the murder of innocents by their God or by his command doesn’t really mark a benevolent God who cares for all of the people on the earth equally, merely one on THEIR side.
We must also understand why people start any organization anyway. Yes, there can be exceptions to the case that there are organizations that base their society on the values of a “transcendent truth”, but most institutions aren’t like that. Most are based on the values of the Social Contract; a group of people willing give up their natural freedoms for security, liberty, and equality under a set of laws. If the government doesn’t follow these laws, then the people have every right to upheave the powers of the government and pick new rulers. Which was exactly what the founders were fighting for in the first place; there is no “divine right to rule” not for the people, nobles, or kings, there is the “consent to rule” by the people.
PS: thanks for having this discussion with me, I really like having see types of discussions without them becoming shouting matches
The phrase did have a history of appearing on US currency though, including the 1864 2 cent piece. It was originally an anti-Confederate slogan.
The battle hymn of the republic also features somes pro God stuff and it's a civil war song. "wrath of God"
Yeah but that doesn’t fit the narrative so doesn’t make the script.
@@ezekiel3626 There is no "narrative." It wasn't required on *ALL* US currency until Eisenhower and its meaning changed over time.
@@ezekiel3626 Since the video's can only be so long, I cut out a huge section that merited inclusion about the complicated use of the phrase before and immediately after the Civil War. It does fit the narrative, but was excluded for time considerations. The minting of coins with "In God We Trust" was directly inspired by the Star Spangled Banner. Calling it an "anti-confederate slogan" is definitely going too far, I think given its varied meanings. After all, Lincoln and many others acknowledged that both Confederates and Unionists believed God was on their side--hence the significance of the blood of martyrs that flows from Independence to the Civil War and through all our conflicts where soldiers lay their lives on the "altar of freedom"
So stoked to see Episode 2 come out! I have been chomping since the moment I finished the first episode.
This is better than the Smash Bros reveal tbh. This makes me happy.
Too many fire emblem characters T_T
Salt
@@ReligionForBreakfast I, too, do not care for all of the Fire Emblem characters in Smash. Too many sword-wielders make it boring.
I knew about this! Yay! I feel knowledgeable today!
”E pluribus unum” is a much better and more appropriate motto for the US.
@Deva Rafael "[Iuppiter Omnipotens] Annuit Cœptis MDCCLXXVI Novus Ordo Seclorum E Pluribus Unum." meaning "[Jupiter Almighty,] He approved of [us] having begun, [in] 1776, the New Word Order."
e pluribus unum was good. should have kept it. far more important sentiment of unity... than state religion. i feel sick now.
"out of the many came the one"
It was too progressive
Yeah, the motto seems far too close to a communist vision, and it was kinda hypocritical of them to talk about unity while actively busting up and demonizing unions.
I prefer "In God We Trust"
Lies again? Google Workspace USD SGD
The editing and production quality in these skyrocketed since last time I watched! Amazing!
A very in depth book on this subject is "The Founding Myth" Why Christian Nationalism is un American". Especially under our current administration, its paramount that all understand that no religion should every be codified into our government, nor supported by our government. Ever.
You are completely ignoring that multiple States had established religions when the Constitution was ratified, and that the Bill of Rights was never even intended to apply to the states, and that The Establishment Clause really just means they won't make a church of America like the Church of England. Don't even get me started on the Chaplin's that have always served the Senate and House of Representatives...
@Random Pickle Yeah, no. Gent bent, theocrat.
@@shawnstrittmatter4783 And? That is also unconstitutional.
@@rc7625 which one? All order that we value today derives from a very Christian people, our reverence for the Constitution is an echo of their reference for the Bible...
America the most inconsistent country in the world, 1 minute you focusing one separation of church and state the next your welcoming church into politics, America home of hypocrites. The founders left England cause of religion only to make a religion infested country how ironic.
As a New Zealander who is Christian (LDS/Mormon), going to the USA was completely jarring, due to its religiosity. NZ now has very strong church/state separation , and being devout like I am isn't super common (if you're white, that is.... can of worms right there). Yet in the USA people would say "God Bless You" like it was nothing, to anyone, and despite being Christian myself it was still bizarre seeing it everywhere from seemingly everyone.
Nicely summarized! Thanks for sharing!
Have you made a video on the relation between religion and communism? Or how religion is used to support or oppose various economic philosophies?
That’s a philosophical thing, not a religious one.
@@rhyderrek6155 I thought there might be some overlap. Oh well.
Merritt Animation there is, but that’s a focus the societal harm that religion ultimately causes which is not something that I think you’re going to find discussed in this channel
There's a video on Marx's "opium of the people" quote which touches on those topics: ruclips.net/video/bHxiMNvdWdA/видео.html
@@rhyderrek6155 because religion is the opiate of the masses, right? I don't know if you've ever been to a place where opiates are being abused, but the "community" those people are sharing is far less constructive then even the most dysfunctional Church. Religion very well maybe the Prozac of the proletariat, but it's nowhere near an opiate
My father was a atheist and willingly fight against the evils of fascism and I'm pretty sure was never a fan of communism
Excellent series! Thank you for creating this.
I personally feel that the current national motto undermined the secular nature of America from the start leading to the rise of destructive Christian nationalism making it harder for people to feel empathy for other faiths.
"Destructive Christian nationalism". Right, tell me how North Korea, Russia with Stalin and Mao Zedong work out with their atheist nationalism?
@@reversal_of_expectation1457 They can both be terrible.
Reversal_of_Expectation That’s a whataboutism and not even a reasonable one. I’m not denying that the atheistic communism of those nations was awful. But Secular≠Atheist. All secular means is that regardless of your faith, or lack there of you are able to function in society. That is by far preferable to religious or atheistic nationalism.
Jaden Shelton I’d be careful about making such a definition of secularism. Compare, for instance, secularism in France to that of America; they are both legislatively similar countries, but the secularism of France basically bans any display or expression of religion, whereas in America it is that religious expression is protected. frankly on the matter of religion, these two secular countries could hardly differ more.
Also, I don’t think you can support the claim that a rise of Christian nationalism-assuming that’s happened-has led to people not being able to understand one another. There is certainly a growing cultural divide, but it cuts both ways, and is also concerned with economic, social, racial, etc issues
Well empathy all together...
Jesus: Give everything you have to the poor and do it so secretly that not even your own left hand will know what your right hand is doing.
Peter: This guy didn't give everything he had to the community so the Spirit struck him and his wife dead!
America: COMMUNISM IS BLASPHEMY
I always throw up in my mouth when I hear people tie capitalism and American empire to Christianity.
Lol, you're totally skipping over the whole concept of choice, which is analogous to Freedom, in you are examples. Not too much freedom and the Soviet Union...
@@shawnstrittmatter4783 not much freedom in America either
@@badluckrabbit lol, we have more choice than anyone in the history of the world. The poorest American is still living a higher standard of living then royalty of a hundred years ago!
@@shawnstrittmatter4783 Spoken like someone who has never actually been poor. The poor have virtually no choice, and the choices most people have are often false choices. It's also worth noting that the form of communism that flourished in the 20th century is by no means the sum total of communism. There are numerous non-totalitarian communist ideologies. Finally, Jesus didn't just sit back and respect the "freedom" of the hypocrites, pharisees, etc. he went out and overturned their tables and whipped them out of the temple. Jesus understood that, in the face of exploitation, corruption, dispossession, and injustice, violence is preferable to permissiveness.
The story of 'LAZARUS and THE RICH' and many other Verses in the Bible don't remind me to capitalism!?
Yeah, "religious freedom" for conservatives means Christian theocratic rule, instead of, ironically, separation of religion and state.
For modern conservatives, maybe, but not necessarily for the historical ones we're largely discussing here. Mid 20th century Christians and earlier had very different ideas about how this all should work.
This series and your work is amazing
Most of this is for those that are like the Pharisee in the temple. They want their religion seen as opposed to just living it!
"a little private prayer" on a broadcasted speech before a national audience
This is where I conflate loving your videos with loving you. 💖👌😘
The 2 June 1950 speech you mentioned wasn't given by Truman, but by McCarthy
People though think it is referencing the Christian God. The founders also made clear they did not want to cater to any specific God or religion and the reference of 'their creator' as being Nature's God or nature itself. I recommend reading The Founding Myth.
Obviously beside a Pyramid and Eyes of Horus. Which God they are referring to?
As far as American currency goes, the motto first appeared on the two-cent piece, which came out in 1864. Trying to fit the sentiment from the Star-Spangled Banner onto a coin is how it got rephrased.
Thank you. Please look for my post on this video as there is more involved in our nation's motto which dates back to the foundations and Beyond. In God We Trust - an appeal to heaven
Ironically, Communist nations weren't that atheistic considering the prevalent cult of personality and indoctrination of conservative ideologies and nationalism. Think Maoism as an example. It is worthy to discuss whether communism under such contexts is atheistic or religious under the mask of atheism, for the only reason it claimed to be atheist was the cult leader or his (yes, always his) party portrayed himself as the only legitimate god so he could claim that there is no need for other deities.
All I know is we have the Knights of Columbus to thank for the Under God portion of the Pledge of Allegiance
It is worrying to see the role both Christianity and American civil religion play in America as an atheist who is not particularly patriotic
Yet another example why the organized religion equals organized crime. If you just add a single letter to this slogan, the life on this planet would be far better: "In Good we trust".
Thank you
That was really well done great content.
Thank you so much for your work but, holy shit, the more I learn about the States, the more disgusted I end up feeling
I feel you, I hate being American so much.
@@thefisherking2268 Ok cool.
Then move.
We can't choose our family, but we can choose to try to help our family improve.
@@mileseximius That would be the easy way, sure, instead of working for change. Time will tell which of those views prevails in the USA. Rest of the world will be watching...
Great video as usual
Allow me a little private prayer ... publicly.
Holly crap! I never researched it. Thanks a lot for this excellent video!
This is highly disturbing, but explains alot. The US is, after all, not far from being a theocracy,
E. Pluribus Unum.
It’s kinda crazy how much people accept as “allways been there.” When I was at school it felt like houses had been there forever-when I did research on it later the first 3 got started only in 1953 and they just tacked on a new one very few decades!
Twist of the plot: the god americans trust is not Jesus Christ, but a masonic chief and commander, The Great Architor.
You're telling me the religion almost entirely based on Innate Hierarchy and Eternal Slavery doesn't like Communism?
Kinda makes me like Communism.
If you like communism then you're an complete idiot.
I'm Buddhist, I don't believe in any god. (No, the Buddha is not a god). So am I not American? Both sides of my family have been here more than 5 generations. I feel vaguely coerced to profess a belief I don't believe in to avoid being called a traitor.
This episode made me sad. Religion suppressing people, labeling, and creating hatred for whole groups of people, including fellow Americans. Religious rigidity slows down social progress and creates human suffering, we just didn't see it.
What a particularly interesting video.
Yes!!! Thank you!!! 1 Nation4Life
Well stated as usual.
Let me start by clarifying I am pagan.
There is more behind the origins of In God We Trust that dates back to the founding of the United States of America, which has remained Arcane knowledge because it is ignored.
The United States Constitution is patterned after the Iroquois Constitution: this is relevant as it ties into one of our nation's first Flags. Also significant is the fact that we are founded on natural law philosophy as rule of law, as per the Declaration of Independence. Thus we are a constitutional republic founded upon natural law nomocracy.
In 1775 General George Washington commissioned the pine tree flag as our first Naval Flag. The pine tree flag depicts the white pine which is the symbol of the Iroquois Great Law of Peace; another natural law philosophy. The Iroquois Confederacy was founded because of the actions of a prophet, most respectfully referred to as the Peacemaker. The Peacemaker enunciated Far Western natural law philosophy in its form known as the Great Law of Peace.
George Washington, like many of our founding fathers, was a great admirer of the Iroquois. It is self-evident that in knowing the Iroquois were founded because of divine intervention, as translated into Western paradigms, designed the pine tree flag with both the white pine and the phrase an appeal to heaven. This is the first time a phrase like in God we trust was used.
Western natural law has its origins in Christianity, having been drawn from The Works of John Locke as they relate to the works of Thomas Aquinas in his interpretation of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
In God We Trust is therefore of vital importance to our American culture. While we are not founded on the Christian religion, it is factual that our philosophy of natural law is of Christian origin.
I encourage everyone to learn about this Arcane knowledge as it is the only hope our nation has in recovering rule of law and thus returning to the purpose and meaning of these United States.
In God We Trust
✌🦅🌲🇺🇸
ref HR 331 100th Congress 2nd session 1988
remarks concerning the Savages of North America by Benjamin Franklin, 1784
The US was born from the Enlightenment, which contained a lot of questioning of god. Plenty of Enlightenment thinkers were atheist.
XLNT contribution, @Prodigal Son !
@@theMoporter no, very few were atheists, they were either deist or pantheist which rejected the trinitarian view of God but which did not by far reject God. The widespread rejection of god insofar as it happened came quite a bit later
Oh America I tell you the truth that only when we accept compassion will we win all wars and that god cannot be used.
the historian in me hoped you were going to namedrop hobsbawm 😢
This phrase "To trust in God" is form the proverbs of Solomon from The Bible. Trust in the LORD with all your heart; and lean not to your own understanding.
He that trusts in his riches shall fall; but the righteous shall flourish as a branch. He that handles a matter wisely shall find good: and whoever trusts in the LORD, happy is he. And many many more phrases if make search for the word TRUST in The Book of Proverbs
"Trust in the lord with all your heart; and lean not to your own understanding." Aka, if facts contradict the bible, trust it is your lack of understanding the bible thats the real issue. Thank you for clearing that up.
All I can think about with these American Religion videos is that Bioshock Infinite is that much closer to being real. I’m all for floating cities, but not the crazy cult part.
This channel is awesome.
How did American leaders manage to change religiosity as anti-communist, considering Jesus was quite the socialist and had some stuff to say about rich people getting to heaven?
The problem I have with pacifist socialist Jesus is when he becomes the whip-fashioning, fig tree cursing, sell your cloak and buy a sword, called a woman seeking medical help for her daughter a "dog", tells his disciples to avoid Gentile villages...espically those Samaritan villages...…...well you get my drift
He wasn't.
@@misterauctor7353
1 Timothy 6:17-18
“Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.”
Deuteronomy 15:7
“If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be.
I learned so much more about this subject from this video then I thought I knew. I had no idea that In God We Trust stems as far back as The Star-Spangled Banner itself.
Arkansas has a law that if ANYONE donates this poster with "in God we trust," the American and Arkansas flag to a school, they have to put it up. Its all over the high school I went to and the university I go to.
Another case of states making decision that force the Supreme Court to slap them back into their place. Just a matter of time.
This motto seriously needs to change.
Wow great information.
Thanks. I'll be using this in a debate on Thinkspot. I'd drop a one-off, money-where-my-mouth-is donation in your bucket if you had a paypal link, but meanwhile know that your work is properly appreciated.
You can do a one time donation to his Patreon
@@BrantAxt Not that I could find.
Good luck with the debate. One-time donations link here!: www.paypal.me/religionforbreakfast
Thank you for the excellent video!
Ironic that U.S. leaders chose to defend the interests that fomented the Bolshevik coup that gave Communism it's rise. Very curious indeed!
Love your videos but saw a missed opportunity. Could have used The Internationale instead of the Soviet anthem.
Our motto is on top of the Capitol building with the Freedom statue.....
E Pluribus Unum 🇺🇸
Of many, one
Hail Columbia! The American goddess 😉
In God We Trust = In Reason we trust ...but rather human Reason...??
Can you make a video about the copper scrolls?
So, basically to be a good American you have to treat it like a religion and at the same time be a good Christian, yet in order to be a good American you have to break the first commandment.
How does being an American break the first commandment?
@@misterauctor7353 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The idea of America is the "God" of American Civil Religion, and Christianity already has its own God, the God of Abraham, Israel, and Jesus. Americans are expected to simultaneously worship America and the Christian God, yet worshipping multiple gods would be a violation of the First Commandment. Of course, I'm an atheist, so take my explanation for what it is-purely an explanation, not a judgment.
Boy those people were just plain dumb and scary.
Actually they knew what they were talking about. It's us that are dumb and scary.
Communism is the worst thing that can overtake a nation, and national religiosity is a pretty good defence against it.
I think that a lot of Americans are convinced, deep in their heart, that god is actually an American.
I wouldn’t say America was founded as a Christian nation, however to say that the founders weren’t biblically literate and also very intentional in applying biblical principles to our founding documents would be false.
You also fail to mention that atheism was mandated by law in the Soviet Union. That’s a pretty stark contrast from the culture of faith in America that many Americans freely chose.
The idea that faith separates the free west from the soviet east makes perfect sense to me. It is the Bible that strongly reinforces the sanctity of human life, the free will of the human spirit, and the right to cultivate wealth. Soviet communism is responsible for gulags, state propaganda, and breadlines (if not famine).
You're the only person I've seen who understands that. Most of the other commenters seem to sympathize with the communists...
I was looking for a comment like this
This is very dumd comment when you consider reality in the ground:
1. The su not force people to because athiest only stopping religionus propraganda
2.freedom of religion is a myth, most people born in to the religion not choosing it try to be a atheist or worst a muslim in the bible belt and see how it go, you will be shun and kick out of the community if lucky
3. "State propraganda" tell me 1 country who doesnt do that
4.you seem to forget that the su contribute to science and progress in the 90s even in it death bed still 50% of scienceticfic paper in russian
5.the famine you mentiin only happen in the early day when the chain of production broke down do to the war, the same think happen with the french and indian revolution it that because of the repuclicansm and liberlism as well
Gulag is the a labor camp not death camp, it had been use by all regime befor the soviet saing communism causing gulag is like saing capitalism causing japanese camp
Government did a fantastic job of keeping church and state separate 👏 👍
Lol
Minor correction: the United States lacked no motto before Eisenhouer as your national motto has been "E pluribus unum" since the union declared its independence. Nowadays both are national mottos
E pluribus unum was the nation's de facto but unofficial motto since its inclusion on the US Great Seal in 1782.
Nice!
Any chance you could do a vid on Sumerian beliefs?
The phrase "In God We Trust" first appeared on US coins way sooner than the 1950s. The phrase made it's first appearance on the 2-cent coin in 1864 during the dark days of the US Civil War. (Treasury.gov has a good article about earlier legislation on the phrase.) You make a good case that it was repurposed against Communism--I suppose the phrase is the phrase is invoked during major existential crises.
I think the funniest and most painful part is that Jesus was communist AF.
No, he wasn't.
So Jesus loves capitalism basically. Guess he forgot about that whole money changers incident....
And the story of 'LAZARUS and THE RICH' and many other Verses in the Bible!
I know you’re being ironic, but a deeper look into that story would reveal it was the place of exchange, not the exchanging itself that was under fire. It’s impossible to have my tone sound holier than though via text and I do apologize but I figured since you were watching an academic video that you would seek out the source material.
Alexander Vlk I got you, and I don’t take any offense. You’re correct, It was money changing in the TEMPLE that caused him to react that way. The deeper point I’m making is the old cliché that if Jesus were alive today he’d be a socialist. Unchecked capitalism breeds enormous greed and inequality, two things Jesus most definitely taught against.
Prosperity gospel, anyone?
Well, hating capitalism is technically not the same as believing in communism.
Who or what is responsible for the decline in judeo Christian values in our first world (USA/Canada) it wasn’t accidental…if not the communists than who??
Hearing the word "patriots" in the context of american identity and presidents sure gives a funny feeling after playing Metal Gear Solid 2
Are you sure Under god wasn't added in 1954?
the Interntional intensifies
In God we trust, all others we audit.
History is a cruel mistress, and rightly so.
Since god and religions are mythology, I propose that we keep Religion Out of America's Politics, Laws and Schools.
As long as that includes islam I'm down
It would be great if these people saying satan would test them and God would save them would realize they're God and the devil.
Is this the second episode of American Civil Religion? I'm kinda confused here
Yes it is!
Have you thought about starting an Instagram account? Would love to share your content.
Just to clarify for those who don't know, the american view of communists as atheists isn't just a random accusation. Marxist philosophy is highly materialistic and denies the existence of a non physical reality. Likewise Soviet Russia and communist China have persecuted religious institutions because of this and so the hyping of american religiosity was partially a response to this.
Love your work! Thank you. Do something on The Sword of Moses, the Zohar or Ezequiel's visions and the followers of that :) please
On a tangential note, and I hope you don't think I'm trolling you, I would like to point out that despite the widespread use, there are problems with your use of the word "American". It would be nice to see scholars reaching international audiences, like you, being more precise and respectful by avoiding that use.
The word "American" is a demonym for the United States of America, but it can also be used to refer to anyone from the Americas, which includes North America, and South America. This can be confusing and even abusive for people from other countries of the American continent, who feel that they are being excluded from the term "American."
The United States of America is not the only country in the Americas. People from other countries in The Americas are proud of their continental identity, which does not relate to the identity of the USA. It feels like this appropriation of the demonym is an unnecessary insult that could be easily replaced with a more appropriate and unambiguous term.
In Hoots we trust
"Those damn Godless commies!"
- Any politician in the 1950s
In god we trust is just a name of the trust that is held by European family. Since they own the properties and the Citizen of the united state of America that used to be a nation but now a cooperations. To pay back our debt that’s all
As a Pagan Anarchist this is awkward.
Matthew 6:24
“No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; you will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve GOD and be enslaved to money"
@Mr Dyntasy The love of money contradicts many verses in the Bible incl. one above.