3.14
Well-Known Member
hmm ...i wonder......... no, if i change my name to god the bank still wants collateral
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should "god" be removed from the pledge of allegiance and currency?
- Thread starter nonbeliever_92
- Start date
Smoke
Done here.
You'll have to ask the Christians, and when you do you'll get contradictory answers. Does it matter? God is not the point. The ascendancy of Christianity in the U.S. is the point.
Is it safe to say this contradicts what you said in post #17? or did I miss something?
Smoke
Done here.
You missed something. Southern Baptists, Catholics, and other Christian groups may seem to have little in common, but they are able to make common cause in the interest of elevating Christianity in American public life. This necessarily means that the differences among them have to be glossed over, and the resulting civil religion is -- from the point of view of any particular group -- debased and compromised, as I said, while each group benefits -- or thinks it does -- from the ascendancy of the alliance.
Instances of Christian outrage when non-Christians presume to think that the "god" of American civil religion might mean their own god are frequent.
Last edited:
Ah . . . so what is "meant by 'God'" ins't necessarily what "God' means. Got it.
Smoke
Done here.
If you don't understand how different groups of Christians can unite to assert that the U.S. is a Christian nation even though they don't necessarily believe each other to be "true" Christians, you'll never understand American politics. And that might be just as well for your peace of mind.
Okay! I'm a Canadian. I feel better now.
Amill
Apikoros
Agreed. The sayings should never have been added, but I don't see how it is important to remove them. Would also cause quite and uproar, even from the hypocrites who don't go to church. Let's wait until the country becomes a bit less religious.
Fortunato
Honest
As an atheist, I think the phrases "In God We Trust" and "one nation under God" are just as wrong to have on our money or in our pledge as "There Is No God" would be. God is a religious concept and to make a statement one way or the other on the matter is bound to offend someone. We would be much better off with just our old motto of "E Pluribus Unum".
EverChanging
Well-Known Member
They should be removed. I don't know how many Christians I've heard say that America is a Christian nation and point to our currency and the pledge to assert this. Some even say God should be put back in the Constitution. Fact: God was never in the Constitution to begin with.
"God" is a religious concept. The words "under God" and "in God we trust" are not only exclusive to agnostics and atheists (including agnostics and atheists who are Buddhist, Hindu, UU etc.) but to polytheists and people who may believe in God, but don't believe that God is something to submit to as implied by "under God" (for instance, some people believe that we ourselves are God or that God has no commandments) or people who, while they believe in God, find the idea of "trusting" God incoherent.
The phrase in the pledge was originally "one nation indivisible." The insertion of the words "under God" is not only divisive but excludes many people, secular and religious, atheistic and theistic/deistic.
How would those people who are so adamant that the phrase be retained feel if we changed the phrases to "under Zeus" and "in Zeus we trust?"
"God" is a religious concept. The words "under God" and "in God we trust" are not only exclusive to agnostics and atheists (including agnostics and atheists who are Buddhist, Hindu, UU etc.) but to polytheists and people who may believe in God, but don't believe that God is something to submit to as implied by "under God" (for instance, some people believe that we ourselves are God or that God has no commandments) or people who, while they believe in God, find the idea of "trusting" God incoherent.
The phrase in the pledge was originally "one nation indivisible." The insertion of the words "under God" is not only divisive but excludes many people, secular and religious, atheistic and theistic/deistic.
How would those people who are so adamant that the phrase be retained feel if we changed the phrases to "under Zeus" and "in Zeus we trust?"
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
As a Christian, it would make absolutely no difference to me if they were removed. My own Savior said, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's," so there's my answer.
I just don't get what the big deal is.
Now - the Ten Commandments on the wall of a courthouse are another matter. The symbolism there is that those commandments are the moral basis for US law - which IS part of the history of our legal system - and it would be revisionist history to pretend otherwise.
But I wouldn't go to battle for any of the above causes. There are bigger battles to be fought.
I just don't get what the big deal is.
Now - the Ten Commandments on the wall of a courthouse are another matter. The symbolism there is that those commandments are the moral basis for US law - which IS part of the history of our legal system - and it would be revisionist history to pretend otherwise.
But I wouldn't go to battle for any of the above causes. There are bigger battles to be fought.
Smoke
Done here.
That's why it's illegal in the United States to worship gods other than Yahweh, commit adultery, work on Saturday, or covet anything that doesn't belong to you, right?
Bismillah
Submit
It would be more accurate to say that the courts stem from a vague set of moral guidelines, not a literal translation of stated commandments. In all liklihood, I'd like to believe that America's legal system would have been established on righteous principles with or without the presence of these commandments.
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
I am not offended by the use of the word "God" on money. The ONLY reason I would move to have those words stricken is so that Christians would stop saying "The U.S. is a Christian nation. SEE. It says so on our money!"
averageJOE
zombie
I can agree with this. The word "God" on our currency doesn't bother me for the simple fact that I care more about the dollar amount than anything else printed on them. And also for the fact that I mainly use credit cards anyways.
As far as the Pleadge of Allegiance...you know to tell you the truth I really cannot remember the last time I even said the Pledge of Allegiance, and I'm in the Army!
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
The Ten Commandments formed a basis for law when this country was founded, as did the Magna Carta, the English-instituted House of Burgesses, etc.
This source just happens to be ancient, which makes it pretty interesting. It's part of our history, and historical facts are just that - events that shape the future.
Our national history contains all sorts of facts - some we can be proud of and some we should be ashamed of. But that doesn't change the past or the principles on which this country was founded.
Last edited:
linwood
Well-Known Member
Don`t forget those graven images!!