Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phrase)

[Grim17]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Personal Gods still ruled the day. Deism was common, but not common enough for your statement to be reflected in that. Take care with statements such as those by reading history with some humility.

What I find interesting, is that people who try and deny that "God" or "religion" played a part in America's founding, will slap the "deist" label on some of our founding fathers. A deist back then, was someone who did believe there was a God/creator/supreme being, but didn't subscribe to organized religion, or their view of God. They saw God as an existing being, a creator all things, but not as a controlling god that performed miracles and interfered in our every day life, like Judeo-Christians believed.

Today's meaning of the word is more along the lines of atheism, and doesn't reflect the beliefs of our founding fathers

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

What I find interesting, is that people who try and deny that "God" or "religion" played a part in America's founding, will slap the "deist" label on some of our founding fathers. A deist back then, was someone who did believe there was a God/creator/supreme being, but didn't subscribe to organized religion, or their view of God. They saw God as an existing being, a creator all things, but not as a controlling god that performed miracles and interfered in our every day life, like Judeo-Christians believed.

Today's meaning of the word is more along the lines of atheism, and doesn't reflect the beliefs of our founding fathers

I don't think you really get it. The words "God" and "Creator" were basically metaphors for the deists. If they were around today they'd be called atheists or agnostics.

And don't even get me started on the word "Judeo-Christian."

 

[Grim17]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

I don't think you really get it. The words "God" and "Creator" were basically metaphors for the deists. If they were around today they'd be called atheists or agnostics.

And don't even get me started on the word "Judeo-Christian."

Do you have any response to the fact that the constitutions of all 50 states make specific references to God or a creator?

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Do you have any response to the fact that the constitutions of all 50 states make specific references to God or a creator?

Then those portions should be invalidated, too. Even state constitutions need to abide by the federal constitution.

 

[other]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

[...] church attendance nationwide was around 10% at the time the Constitution was written.

What's your source for this?

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were both deists and they were the primary writers of the Constitution,

Being that you throw around comments like "It saddens me that the American educational system has failed you so badly. [...] Read some history, then come back and talk to us some more," I'd think you'd get the basics right.

Jefferson & Adams were both on foreign assignment in Europe at the time and had no direct input, most of the contributions to the document came from Madison, who drew heavily from Virginia's constitution, which was drafted by Mason.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Being that you throw around comments like "It saddens me that the American educational system has failed you so badly. [...] Read some history, then come back and talk to us some more," I'd think you'd get the basics right.

You got me there, my mistake.

 

[other]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Then those portions should be invalidated, too. Even state constitutions need to abide by the federal constitution.

If you want to argue that the founder's intent was to do such a thing, then why weren't those portions invalidated by the founders after the ratification of the US constitution?

 

[Grim17]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Then those portions should be invalidated, too. Even state constitutions need to abide by the federal constitution.

The federal constitution doesn't forbid states from acknowledging a creator, nor does it forbid them from recognizing religion.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

What's your source for this?

The exact figure is 10-30%

By 1780 the percentage of adult colonists who adhered to a church was between 10-30%, not counting slaves or Native Americans. North Carolina had the lowest percentage at about 4%, while New Hampshire and South Carolina were tied for the highest, at about 16%.

History of religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

If you want to argue that the founder's intent was to do such a thing, then why weren't those portions invalidated by the founders after the ratification of the US constitution?

I never argue anything based on the founders intent. I use reason and good sense.

The meaning of the constitution changes over time, just like the meaning of the second amendment began as a protection of a collective militia right, gradually came to encompass all firearms. So to did the speech clause of the first amendment expand from protecting merely political speech to encompass nude dancing. And so too has the establishment clause expanded from its original meaning.

Whatever that original meaning was, it is irrelevant to modern discussion of the law. It is interesting to discuss academically, though. And the original intent is nothing like right-wingers tend to think it is.

 

[rathi]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

The original pledge was better. I personally find symbolism worthless, but it has its uses in manipulating the public. "My flag" is more personal and creates a stronger emotional bond between the person and the country. Adding "under god" was a terrible idea, as it makes people who don't believe feel marginalized. In a diverse country like America, patriotism is better promoted through common ground not division.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Adding "under god" was a terrible idea, as it makes people who don't believe feel marginalized. In a diverse country like America, patriotism is better promoted through common ground not division.

Hear, hear! Very well said.

 

[other]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

The exact figure is 10-30%

The wikipedia sources an atlas with spotty reviews. In actuality, it's not so clear exactly what percentage of the population attended a church, or how regularly. Many colonial churches didn't keep attendance records. Historians Nathon O. Hatch and Jon Butler have argued back and forth on the issue and there is still no clear consensus (and the one who argues for lower attendance, Butler, estimates 20%). What is clear, however, is that it is difficult to find a single town that existed during the period without several centrally located churches churches-- and it is well documented that people often congregated in churches as a sort of community "town hall" on many occasions.

I never argue anything based on the founders intent. I use reason and good sense.

You arguing on the founder's intent:

Moreover, the stamp of the enlightment was put on the founding principles of the country itself. The Framers were forward thinking individuals, they specifically wrote the Constitution to progress beyond the morals of the day. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were both deists and they were the primary writers of the Constitution, and they clearly left their mark on it in the establishment clause. Does this mean every single founding father was a deist? No, but it does mean that people who support bringing God into the pledge of allegiance need to look elsewhere beside the intent of the Framers to support their cause.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

The wikipedia sources an atlas with spotty reviews. In actuality, it's not so clear exactly what percentage of the population attended a church, or how regularly. Many colonial churches didn't keep attendance records. Historians Nathon O. Hatch and Jon Butler have argued back and forth on the issue and there is still no clear consensus (and the one who argues for lower attendance, Butler, estimates 20%). What is clear, however, is that it is difficult to find a single town that existed during the period without several centrally located churches churches-- and it is well documented that people often congregated in churches as a sort of community "town hall" on many occasions.

I agree those sort of numbers are difficult to arrive at. But I think it's also fair to say that religious belief was nowhere near the height it had been a generation before the revolution, or would be a generation after, during the first and second Great Awakenings. Our country was not founded on religious principles, it was founded on secular enlightenment principles during a lull in its religious history.

You arguing on the founder's intent:

No, I'm not. If you read closely, I'm talking about the founders intent, maybe even arguing about what it was, but not arguing anything from it. Because I don't base any of my political beliefs on original intent. I base them on practicality and good sense. I invite you to do the same.

 

[rathi]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

If we stayed true to the founding fathers wishes, we wouldn't have a pledge whatsoever, as they clearly didn't think it was needed.

 

[other]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

I agree those sort of numbers are difficult to arrive at. But I think it's also fair to say that religious belief was nowhere near the height it had been a generation before the revolution, or would be a generation after, during the first and second Great Awakenings. Our country was not "founded on religious principles," it was founded on secular enlightenment principles during a lull in the religious history the nation.

Well, that's nice. But as I mentioned, actual historians are still in disagreement over the matter. But since you are so unquestionably certain, other than the wikipedia article, where are you getting this from?

No, I'm not. If you read closely, I'm talking about the founders intent, maybe even arguing about what it was, but not arguing anything from it.

You made a claim about their intent to support your argument. Not an especially sound claim, but a claim nonetheless.

Because I don't base any of my political beliefs on original intent. I base them on practicality and good sense. I invite you to do the same.

If you want to discuss the constitution, I invite you to consider the original intent, as such information is vital to the understanding and application of any legal contract.

 

[other]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

If we stayed true to the founding fathers wishes, we wouldn't have a pledge whatsoever, as they clearly didn't think it was needed.

That's probably true, but I also don't think they would have felt the need to intervene to remove "God" from the recitation either. I don't think they'd have felt the need to intervene at all.

 

[rathi]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

That's probably true, but I also don't think they would have felt the need to intervene to remove "God" from the recitation either.

That is just you putting words in the founders mouth. They never even wanted a pledge, claiming they would have an opinion on it is utterly baseless.

 

[other]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

That is just you putting words in the founders mouth. They never even wanted a pledge, claiming they would have an opinion on it is utterly baseless.

Did you even read what I wrote? If you do, you'll notice I was in agreement with you concerning the notion they didn't necessarily "want" a pledge. Additionally, however, I see no reason why they would have intervened to extirpate God if their had been a pledge, like there is today--as many of them made frequent reference to God in their writings, both public and private.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Well, that's nice. But as I mentioned, actual historians are still in disagreement over the matter. But since you are so unquestionably certain, other than the wikipedia article, where are you getting this from?

Historians are in disagreement about what, exactly? Whether it was 20 or 40 percent church attendance. The broad strokes are what I'm talking about. A generation earlier religion was at a fever pitch, churches were packed. The same phenomenon occurred two generations later. The generation that fought the revolution and wrote the constitution, however, were the age of the Enlightment. Actual historians do not disagree about these facts. Brush up, son.

You made a claim about their intent to support your argument. Not an especially sound claim, but a claim nonetheless.

Never had that intent. My intent was merely to attack an opponent's argument, not to put forward my own.

If you want to discuss the constitution, I invite you to consider the original intent, as such information is vital to the understanding and application of any legal contract.

It's an error to think that the "original intent" of any document can be arrived at. Originalism is a flight of fancy. Even an originalist interprets and applies their own values when they read the consitution whether they are conscious of it or not. If they are unconscious of it, it just becomes more pernicious, because the so-called originalist is operating under the illusion of objectivity. Look at your own behavior. You tend to favor historians who support a version of history that is in line with your political views. How can you possibly be capable of truly determining the original intent when your beliefs are subordinate to partisanship.

 

[rathi]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Did you even read what I wrote? If you do, you'll notice I was in agreement with you concerning the notion they didn't necessarily "want" a pledge. Additionally, however, I see no reason why they would have intervened to extirpate God if their had been one, as there is today.

So if the founders who didn't want a pledge, did somehow magically have one, you are sure that they would want it to include the word "god". That is a completely unsupported statement put forward by your desperate attempt to seek validation in spite of reality.

 

[other]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Historians are in disagreement about what, exactly? Whether it was 20 or 40 percent church attendance. The broad strokes are what I'm talking about. A generation earlier religion was at a fever pitch, churches were packed. The same phenomenon occurred two generations later. The generation that fought the revolution and wrote the constitution, however, were the age of the Enlightment. Actual historians do not disagree about these facts. Brush up, son.

Please interpret: "The generation "was the age of enlightenment..." maybe you should go brush up on your english.

I'm guessing that you are trying to say that they enshrined enlightenment ideals into the constitution... and whoever said otherwise? Even as you said yourself, not all were deists. You don't have to be a rabid athiest or deist to find value in the ideals of the enlightenment.

Never had that intent. My intent was merely to attack an opponent's argument, not to put forward my own.

didn't work too well.

It's an error to think that the "original intent" of any document can be arrived at. Originalism is a flight of fancy. Even an originalist interpretates and applies their own values when they read the consitution whether they are conscious of it or not. If they are unconscious of it, it just becomes more pernicious, because the so-called originalist is operating under the illusion of objectivity.

And it's even more of a fallacy to advocate its abandonment altogether. Why even have a constitution? The reality is, we should seek to understand the founder's intent as best we can, knowing that it cannot be established with 100% certainty. But then, whoever argued that their intent could be known with absolute certainty?

Look at your own behavior. You tend to favor historians who support a version of history that is in line with your political views. How can you possibly be capable of truly determining the original intent when your beliefs are subordinate to partisanship.

Look at your behavior. You don't know which "historians I favor." I haven't even mentioned my view of the founding with regards to religion, you've made assumptions. In fact, you are the one who has been posting contested figures as absolute historical fact in support of your political agenda.

 

[other]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

So if the founders who didn't want a pledge, did somehow magically have one, you are sure that they would want it to include the word "god". That is a completely unsupported statement put forward by your desperate attempt to seek validation in spite of reality.

You really need to read more carefully.

I said they would not have intervened. Not that they would have expressly "wanted" God mentioned. And this is not based on any personal need for validation, I don't even know what you are trying to say there. It is based on the fact that they made frequent mention of God in their writings and they didn't huff and puff about mentions of God in state governmental documents and such. They didn't get upset over the mention of God as we tend to do today. If you have evidence that they were repulsed by the simple mention of God, why don't you produce it?

 

[mike2810]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

Generation, singular. The pledge was changed to add the word "God" in 1954, so it only had a chance to mean something to one generation before, as you put it, it became incorrect to recite it in the 80s.

There were a lot of other things that were considered OK in the 50s and 60s that aren't considered OK today. And thank God for that. Why don't you just do what the founding fathers intended and not make any law respecting the establishment of a religion?

Care to explain how a pledge is a law? Yes, it is true there were socially accepted things in the 50's and 60's that are not considered ok. There are things today that are accepted that imo are not ok. The problem is you cannot satisfy everyone because of political correctness. Making you happy may make me unhappy, etc. The real question should be does the "pledge" as written today cause a big divide between the citizens of the US? IMO, no. I do feel that sociaty in the US has not changed for the better.


I disagree on generation singular. Depends on when you want to start the timeline.

 

[rathi]

Re: Evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance ("Under God" isn't the only 'added in' phra

I said they would not have intervened. Not that they would have expressly "wanted" God mentioned. And this is not based on any personal need for validation, I don't even know what you are trying to say there. It is based on the fact that they made frequent mention of God in their writings and they didn't huff and puff about mentions of God in state governmental documents and such. They didn't get upset over the mention of God as we tend to do today. If you have evidence that they were repulsed by the simple mention of God, why don't you produce it?

Your statement is like claiming that the founding fathers "wouldn't intervene if the American king had a purple crown". The truth is that nobody knows how the founders would feel about the color of the crown, because they wouldn't have allowed a king in the first place.