# Under God?



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

In 1892, Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and Christian socialist, wrote the Pledge of Allegiance. It was published in a popular children's magazine as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day (1892 was the 400th anniversary of Columbus' arrival in the New World). The event was part of a campaign to promote patriotism and the display of the American flag in public schools. Bellamy intended for the Pledge to be quick, simple and to-the-point; it was supposed to be recited in about 15 seconds. The original Pledge is as follows:


> I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.


In 1923, the words "my flag" were changed to, "the flag of the United States." This was done by the National Flag Conference and was supposed to be for the benefit of immigrants. I guess they thought that immigrants were stupid and would forget what country they had emigrated to if they weren't reminded of it often. Anyway, "of America" was added to the end of that change the following year. This was the Pledge that the United States Congress recognized as the nation's official pledge in 1942:


> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.


In 1948, a Chaplain of the Illinois Society of the Sons of the American Revolution named Louis A. Bowman added "under God" while leading the swearing of the Pledge at a Society meeting. Bowman said this phrase came from President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address (the phrase was not in the manuscript of the speech, but all reporters' transcripts do contain the phrase). In 1951, the Knights of Columbus also began adding "under God", and started a campaign in 1952 to make the change universal. This campaign was largely a failure.

On Feb. 7, 1954, Presiden Eisenhower was sitting in Lincoln's pew at the church that Lincoln attended, the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church. It was the custom of some presidents to honor Lincoln's birthday by sitting in his pew in his church on the Sunday nearest his birthday. On this particular occasion, Pastor George MacPherson Docherty delivered a sermon based on the Gettysburg Address. In his sermon, Docherty said, "There was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life." He also said that Lincoln's words "under God" were defining words that set the United States apart from other nations. The Pledge was legally changed later that year to its current form:


> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.


So there you have a brief summary of the history of the Pledge of Allegiance. I am interested to know what you think about "under God". Was it added for a good reason? Was it appropriate or correct to add it? Was the Pledge prior to that "missing something" as Pastor Docherty said?

The Pledge of Allegiance is an oath of loyalty to a country. For 62 years, the Pledge existed without "under God". Did people between 1892 and 1954 not love America as much because they didn't say "under God"? Did people in 1955 suddenly love America a whole bunch more than they did in 1953, because now they were saying "under God"?

Did the American servicemen who died in the Korean War, World War II, and World War I not love America that much, or weren't as loyal, because they never said the Pledge with "under God"?

What I am saying here is that a person's belief in God, or in some other supreme deity, or lack of belief in any such concept, is irrelevant to the same person's love for, and loyalty to, America. The Pledge is about loyalty to America. It isn't about whether the person saying it believes in God. It isn't about whether the person saying it thinks America exists by the grace of God, or is blessed by God, or should be blessed by God. God is irrelevant to what the Pledge is supposed to be. Even the man who wrote it, a Christian, didn't try to include God in the Pledge.

I understand that "under God" does not establish an official religion, as apparently some have claimed in the past when arguing against the phrase being present in the Pledge. The Supreme Court has ruled thusly. I understand and agree with that ruling. But while I agree that the phrase does not attempt to establish an official religion, I do feel that it implicitly endorses one religion (or, technically, a collection of religions: Christianity). While the First Amendment prohibits the government only from establishing an official religion, Thomas Jefferson's reference to the First Amendment as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as meaning that "religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of both, including the idea that the government must not impose religion on Americans". It is my opinion that the government's addition of the words "under God" to the nation's civil oath of loyalty does impose a religion upon Americans. Am I the only one who sees the irony of including a religious reference in an oath of loyalty to a nation that has as one of its founding principles the separation of church and state?

I also understand that anyone who disagrees with those words can simply remain silent while everyone else says them. I do not think this is fair to those who do not want to say them. This is like putting nuts in a chocolate chip cookie recipe, then telling someone who doesn't like nuts to "just eat around them". Now, some would say that the counter-argument is that if "under God" is removed from the Pledge, then it's not fair to those who _do_ want to say it. I have no sympathy for that argument because "under God" is not relevant to what the Pledge is about. I imagine there might be some people would like to somehow include the New York Yankees in the Pledge if they could, and it's not fair to them that they don't get to. Well, sorry, but the Yankees have just as much to do with swearing loyalty to America as God does, which is nothing at all. So it doesn't matter that it's not fair to those who do want to say "under God" any more than it matters that it's not fair to those who'd like to include the Yankees somehow.

What ultimately matters is this: The Pledge was just fine as an oath of loyalty (its intended purpose) without "under God". Adding "under God" added nothing of value to the Pledge. Taking it away now would not remove the slightest bit of its intended meaning or take away from its purpose at all. It is inappropriate for a religious reference to be present in an oath of loyalty to a nation that supposedly believes in the separation of church and state. It is wrong to promote or endorse, or even just simply to refer to, one particular supreme deity in a secular oath of loyalty to a nation when many of the nation's citizens don't believe in that particular supreme deity.

_I understand that a large portion of this website's membership is not from America. While many of my comments are in the form of "from one American to another", I would nevertheless be interested to hear any "outside" perspectives that those of you who are not Americans might have on the matter._


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

a) The pledge was written by a Baptist Minister. If he wanted the words "Under God" in it, he would have put them there.

b) The pledge was written in 1892. A full 25+ years after Lincoln's death (and famous speech). The modification to pay homage to him is out of character to the intent of the pledge. It is a pledge to the country, and the flag which represents it, not to one man, even if that represented specific ideals about the country.

c) Although the pledge had been modified previously (United States, and then United Stated of America), this really doesn't give license for continuous modification. From a personal standpoint, the two initial modifications are points of clarification, as you are swearing a public oath each day. Saying "my flag" doesn't denote which country, though observers may make assumptions, while the modification to US does. United States however is inaccurate as there are more than one US in the world (Estados Unidos Mexicanos = United Mexacan States), so USA becomes correct. The addition of "under god" does not add such clarification.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

JJR512, I commend you on a very well written and certainly logical argument for removing the added, "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. However, my religion, my Country and my family are of paramount, and perhaps, equal, importance to me. While the phrase "under God' may not have been in the original draft of the Pledge, I must tell you that some of my most focused and feverent praying has been done during the more chaotic and intense periods of my service to this great Republic of ours. I am sure it wouldn't score me any points in a formal debate and indeed, it may only make sense to me alone but, the two issues have become intertwined for me and I therefore find your conclusion(s) unsupportable. I say leave the Pledge as it is presently written!

PS: I also like nuts in my chocolate chip cookies!


----------



## dmbfrisb (Apr 17, 2010)

I'm also waiting for a President with the courage to recite the originally written Presidential Oath sans the "so help me god" used since FDR...


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Apatheticviews said:


> a) The pledge was written by a Baptist Minister. If he wanted the words "Under God" in it, he would have put them there.


When we are discussing the "official" pledge, what the good preacher wrote in 1892 is irrelevant because that wasn't, and never has been, the official pledge that was voted on by Congress in 1942. The fact that Congress chose to change it a few years later to add "under God" should also be irrelevant to this particular discussion since Congress frequently makes changes to laws and other matters passed in prior sessions of Congress.

For every such change that Congress has made in prior legislation that one disagrees with, there is probably another change made on something else that the same person does agree with. As the old saying goes, whether something is good or bad depends on who's ox is being gored.

Cruiser


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Shouldn't it be 'Under gods' these days? ... note plural. 

I know in the UK that Prince Charles has become 'Defender of faith' rather than 'Defender of the faith'. 

Certainly where I am, there are many faiths and religions.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

As an atheist, I should probably be offended, but I can't seem to work up any passion on this. I just don't care.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> JJR512, I commend you on a very well written and certainly logical argument for removing the added, "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. However, my religion, my Country and my family are of paramount, and perhaps, equal, importance to me. While the phrase "under God' may not have been in the original draft of the Pledge, I must tell you that some of my most focused and feverent praying has been done during the more chaotic and intense periods of my service to this great Republic of ours. I am sure it wouldn't score me any points in a formal debate and indeed, it may only make sense to me alone but, the two issues have become intertwined for me and I therefore find your conclusion(s) unsupportable. I say leave the Pledge as it is presently written!
> 
> PS: I also like nuts in my chocolate chip cookies!


I understand what you are saying. And please believe me when I say that I am _not_ saying that every individual person needs to keep God and country completely separate in their own minds and lives. If the chaos of America and the world make you want to pray, by all means, pray away. If you want to ask God to bless America, by all means, do so. They may go hand-in-hand for you, personally, but they do not do so for everyone, and since church and state are supposed to be separate, and since "all men are created equal" according to the founding beliefs of this country, we need to treat those who do not believe in God with the same amount of respect that the Christian majority gets. Since it is impractical to include a reference to the supreme deities or prophets, etc., of all religions, it's more fair to simply include none at all.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> ...since Congress frequently makes changes to laws and other matters passed in prior sessions of Congress.


That is certainly true. If fact, here's an interesting change the Congress tried to pass a few years ago, in 2005. They passed a Bill (which the Senate declined to take up) which would have stripped the Supreme Court and other federal courts from any power to hear cases that challenged the Pledge of Allegiance.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

I have never understood why you would ever have to say the Pledge of Allegiance, or any pledge, more than once in your life. Or in my case twice: the second being when Mrs. Burns told my 4th grade class that two words had been added.

I think that you, Justin, have put together a fine thread and I understand Eagle's response, but I understand yours to his even more.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> When we are discussing the "official" pledge, what the good preacher wrote in 1892 is irrelevant because that wasn't, and never has been, the official pledge that was voted on by Congress in 1942. The fact that Congress chose to change it a few years later to add "under God" should also be irrelevant to this particular discussion since Congress frequently makes changes to laws and other matters passed in prior sessions of Congress.
> 
> For every such change that Congress has made in prior legislation that one disagrees with, there is probably another change made on something else that the same person does agree with. As the old saying goes, whether something is good or bad depends on who's ox is being gored.
> 
> Cruiser


One word for you *Copyright.* He wrote it. He owns it.

In 1942 when Congress voted to make the "revised" version the national pledge they agreed with the intent of that one man. 500+ people agreed with the intent of that one man. Those 500+ people didn't choose to revise it, because it was good enough "as is." It took another 12 years to change it, and it was a major lobbyist movement, not just the act of one man to another man as implied above.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

I'm surprised many people even know the words anymore... by the time I got to high school most people wouldn't even stop their conversations when we got to the time to say the Pledge.

I personally don't see what the problem with "under God" is... we keep God on our currency. Leave well enough alone.


----------



## dmbfrisb (Apr 17, 2010)

brokencycle said:


> we keep God on our currency. Leave well enough alone.


I was writing a somewhat lengthy response when my laptop battery died forcing me to use a shortened outline reply. Broken, I am not targeting you personally, just the complacency. If the "leave well enough alone" attitude prevailed, we (US) would not have a Bill of Rights. If the original Bill of Rights was left alone, we wouldn't have racial equality, women's suffrage, term limits, or voting at 18 years old (Amendments 15, 19, 22, 26 respectively. If Martin Luther had left well enough alone, there would be no Protestant Revolution. Same for MLK and civil rights. I do not think that this world would have been a better place if people like Jesus, Galileo, Mandela, Lincoln had left well enough alone. If things are going your way, then there is little incentive to change the status quo. However, if that status quo maintains the exclusion of fairness, rights, and freedoms some challenge must be made.
"All progress has resulted from people who took _unpopular positions_." Adlai E. Stevenson

Short version: "Leaving well enough alone" = you being a British citizen


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Apatheticviews said:


> In 1942 when Congress voted to make the "revised" version the national pledge they agreed with the intent of that one man. 500+ people agreed with the intent of that one man. Those 500+ people didn't choose to revise it, because it was good enough "as is." It took another 12 years to change it, and it was a major lobbyist movement, not just the act of one man to another man as implied above.


In that case why didn't Congress adopt the original pledge as written by the Baptist minister rather than going with a "revised" version? I suppose that the only reason the first revision isn't being debated more is because it didn't reference God.

As for the next revision, I don't think it really matters whether it was the work of one man or a large group, it took those same 500+ people to change it.

Cruiser


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

JJR512 said:


> In 1923, the words "my flag" were changed to, "the flag of the United States." This was done by the National Flag Conference and was supposed to be for the benefit of immigrants. I guess they thought that immigrants were stupid and would forget what country they had emigrated to if they weren't reminded of it often.


Guess the joke's on them!! 

So, like the Constitution, the POA is a static, not "living" document.

If that is the point you are making it could be relevent!!


----------



## sowilson (Jul 27, 2009)

Adding "under God" made the pledge a prayer with the implication that other countries aren't "under god" - blasphemy! I choose to say the pledge as it was in 1942


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

I'd settle for being able to go to a baseball game without being forced to listen to the Olde Time Gospel Hour in the 7th inning. I'm there to watch a ballgame, if people want to sing God Bless America that's what tea parties are for.

How has everyone been?


----------



## Dr.Watson (Sep 25, 2008)

This debate is like sooooo 2002. 

:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

sowilson said:


> Adding "under God" made the pledge a prayer with the implication that other countries aren't "under god" -


That makes absolutely no sense at all. If I say that I like steak am I implying that nobody else likes steak? When we sing about being the "land of the free" in our National Anthem are we implying that no other country on earth is free? Someone correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the British National Anthem contain the following verse:

_"O lord God arise, 
Scatter our enemies, 
And make them fall! 
Confound their knavish tricks, 
Confuse their politics, 
On you our hopes we fix, 
God save the Queen!"_

The "implication" to me is that we are simply affirming our place among the other nations that openly recognize God.

Cruiser


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> In that case why didn't Congress adopt the original pledge as written by the Baptist minister rather than going with a "revised" version? I suppose that the only reason the first revision isn't being debated more is because it didn't reference God.
> 
> As for the next revision, I don't think it really matters whether it was the work of one man or a large group, it took those same 500+ people to change it.
> 
> Cruiser


I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, which I think maybe I am, but just to be sure - and I don't mean this necessarily to correct you - I'd like to briefly reiterate the timeline of the revisions to the Pledge. What Congress adopted in 1942 did _not_ contain the words "under God". The first two revisions to the 1892 original were minor clarification changes. The first, in 1923, changed "my flag" to "the flag" and added "of the United States" to that, then the second, in 1924, added "of America" after the previous addition. What Congress adopted in 1942 was identical to the current version of the Pledge, except that it did not contain "under God".

I think pointing out that "500+" people changed it can be a bit misleading. There may have been 500+ members of Congress, but not necessarily every one of them voted for the change. Moreover, not everyone in Congress who votes for something necessarily wants it. Votes are often cast one way or another for political reasons. But this is just a minor little side-point for me.

What's more important to me are the following two statements from President Eisenhower in 1954 in reference to the addition of "under God":


> From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.


and


> In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.


----------



## RedBluff (Dec 22, 2009)

beherethen said:


> As an atheist, I should probably be offended, but I can't seem to work up any passion on this. I just don't care.


X2
LOL...agreed.
A new pair of venetian loafers.....that's what I care about today.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

I like Robin Williams' proposal. He said we should change it to "one nation, under Canada and above Mexico."


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

MikeDT said:


> Shouldn't it be 'Under gods' these days? ... note plural.
> 
> I know in the UK that Prince Charles has become 'Defender of faith' rather than 'Defender of the faith'.
> 
> Certainly where I am, there are many faiths and religions.


Boy that ought to keep him busy. No more time for polo with the guys!


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

I find a refreshingly unusual bit of humility for Americans to acknowledge that this country is "under" anything or anyone.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> That makes absolutely no sense at all. If I say that I like steak am I implying that nobody else likes steak? When we sing about being the "land of the free" in our National Anthem are we implying that no other country on earth is free? Someone correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the British National Anthem contain the following verse:
> 
> _"O lord God arise,
> Scatter our enemies,
> ...


I like this verse better

Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the Queen.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Yes, its one of my favourites. Not sung too often now though. On the other hand, it was a later invention, a kind of retrospective addition to the song, harking back to the '45 Jacobite rebellion from the earlier part of the 19th Century, perhaps intended to create an air of legitimacy or antiquity to the song.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

My favorite lyrics from _God Save the Queen_ are:

God save the queen
'Cause tourists are money
And our figurehead
Is not what she seems

Oh God save history
God save your mad parade
Oh Lord God have mercy
All crimes are paid

When there's no future
How can there be sin
We're the flowers in the dustbin
We're the poison in your human machine
We're the future, your future

God save the queen
We mean it man
We love our queen
God saves


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

Simple--America is a God-fearing nation. I am all for acknowledging Him and the way he has blessed this country. If we ever turn away from that and proclaim that we have no need for God, we will fall flat on our face.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Wildblue said:


> Simple--America is a God-fearing nation. I am all for acknowledging Him and the way he has blessed this country. If we ever turn away from that and proclaim that we have no need for God, we will fall flat on our face.


1. Any "god" that requires me to fear him is a god I can do without.

2. America may have many God-fearing people in it, but because not all of the people in America fear God-or even believe in him-it is not a "God-fearing nation". The nation as a whole does not fear God. I am constantly both amused and saddened by the way those of you that _do_ believe i God, though, keep applying your beliefs on behalf of those of us who do not. It's almost as if God-fearing people are saying, "America is a God-fearing nation, even those who don't believe in God would fear Him if only they knew better. Dear God, I apologize to You on behalf of the ignorant heathen, forgive them for they know not what they do."

3. Even if _ever single person_ in America believed in exactly the same single god, mentioning him is irrelevant in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge is an oath of loyalty to the country. If you want to swear an oath of loyalty to whatever god you believe in, well that's what prayer is for, isn't it?

4. If _you_ ever turn away from your God, maybe _you_ will fall flat on _your_ face, but _I'll_ get along just fine, thank you very much. Again, this is just like what I said in #2. I am constantly both amused and saddened by the way those of you that do believe in God keep thinking that if something about your religious beliefs change, all the rest of us will be affected, too. I can't see the deck on the back of my house right now, so I'm not sure if it's actually there or not, but I believe that it is still there. If I stop believing in that deck, do all decks in America disappear and do all houses-even the ones that didn't have decks in the first place-fall down? No, they don't.


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

Certainly not looking here in the Interchange to change anyone's beliefs. And it is not my place to tell you as a person what the consequences of your beliefs will be. But as a citizen of our nation, I WILL say that if in our arrogance we claim that we are the ultimate authority and have no need for God, we will flounder without Him.

As to the term "God-fearing", that one takes some study. It's a deep subject, and one that I still haven't fully wrapped my head around. But it's not a fear that one is scared of something. Instead, it is a deep, deep seated respect that goes beyond just simple social respect. It is respect, awe, reverence, humility, and more.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Wildblue said:


> Certainly not looking here in the Interchange to change anyone's beliefs. And it is not my place to tell you as a person what the consequences of your beliefs will be. But as a citizen of our nation, I WILL say that if in our arrogance we claim that we are the ultimate authority and have no need for God, we will flounder without Him.


It is specifically the way you state it as a fact that we (America) will founder without God that I was referring to when I said I am both amused and saddened. You see, when you are talking about Americans and you say "we", you include me in your statement, and I do not wish to be included. As I said, maybe _you_ will flounder, but _I_ will not. And maybe you will flounder because you believe that you will, and maybe I won't because I believe that I won't-who knows? But I _do_ know that we don't need to believe in any supernatural supreme deity to understand right and wrong, good and bad.



> As to the term "God-fearing", that one takes some study. It's a deep subject, and one that I still haven't fully wrapped my head around. But it's not a fear that one is scared of something. Instead, it is a deep, deep seated respect that goes beyond just simple social respect. It is respect, awe, reverence, humility, and more.


You said "God-fearing", not me. I was just using your phrase.

...
Freedom of religion and separation of church and state are core values of America. Many Americans do not believe in the same God that inspired some to insist that God be included in the Pledge some six decades after the Pledge successfully began fulfilling its intended purpose. I have yet to see one intelligent and convincing argument explaining why a religious reference that only applies to some needs to be included in a secular oath that's supposed to apply to all. Don't get me wrong, I'm not telling anyone they shouldn't believe in God; far from it. I have no idea. But if you want to praise God or fear God or pray to God, go to church and do it, and leave it out of the loyalty oath so _all_ Americans can say the whole thing comfortably and proudly.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Wildblue said:


> Certainly not looking here in the Interchange to change anyone's beliefs. And it is not my place to tell you as a person what the consequences of your beliefs will be. But as a citizen of our nation, I WILL say that if in our arrogance we claim that we are the ultimate authority and have no need for God, we will flounder without Him.


You contradict yourself with each sentence. The belief that your belief should be universal is disheartening, to say the least. And to say the most is unnecessary, since Justin's said it for me with the above two posts.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Besides my belief that we shouldn't force references to religious deities into our pledge or our money...

"One nation, indivisible" is shorter, flows better, and is thus more powerful than "One nation, under God, indivisible." It sounds just like the shoehorned-in thing it is. I also say the older version when I pledge.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

This is the only creed close enough to a pledge that I ever say:

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae. Et in Iesum Christum, Filium eius unicum, Dominum nostrum, qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus, descendit ad inferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis, inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum, sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communionem, remissionem peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem, vitam aeternam. Amen.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

I'd like to just throw this out as something we could try for a few months and see how it works

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation in general agreement with some of the views of Dove World Outreach Center, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 

I'm not married to it but it might be fun and would satisfy atheists and those who want a touch of religion .:icon_smile:


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

I've never studied Latin at all, nor any Romantic language. I've worked with a bunch of Spanish speakers, and they taught me some Spanish, and I also got an English-Spanish dictionary to help me communicate better with them. As they taught me some of their language, and as I did my own research with the dictionary, I began to realize that there was a lot of similarity between English and Spanish, especially with the fancier English words. I know English is a hodgepodge of various languages, primarily Latin and German, and I've hypothesized that fancier English words come more from Latin, while simpler English words come from German.

I began to realize that with no formal training, I could actually read Spanish with pretty good accuracy. I can't understand it if it's spoken at me, and I certainly can't speak or write it, but if it's written, I can see the similarities to English, and often I can figure out other words based on context.

As I said, I've never studied Latin at all, but of course I know Spanish is based on it. While perusing the previous post, I decided to see how close I could guess a translation of what was written. Here's my guess, and I'd appreciate some feedback on how well I did:

"I believe in the omnipotent God the Father, creator of heaven (originally, I thought "caeli" to mean "sky", based on my knowledge of the Spanish word for "sky" being "cielo", but decided from the context that this word probably means "heaven", which is thought of as being in the sky) and earth. And in Jesus Christ, his only son, our lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of (not sure if "ex" is "of" or "by" or something else) the Virgin Mary, something about Pontius Pilate (not sure what "passes sub" means), crucified, died, and buried, descended to hell (where, in some Abrahamic religions, it is thought that all souls first go upon death), something (not sure about "tertia die") resurrected from death, ascended to heaven, something (not sure about "sedet") at the hand of omnipotent God the Father, (not sure about "inde" means, or "venturus" but I'd guess the latter is something like "venture") is life and death. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the sanctity of the Catholic Church, the sanctity of communion, remission(?) something (no idea about "peccatorum"), something (no idea about "carnis") resurrection, life eternal. Amen."


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Don't worry, someone will be along to insult your education soon enough. :rolleyes2:


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

But it won't be me. I was quite impressed. And my background in languages is similar to Justin's, i.e., sorta zip. But I can add that _tertia die_ may mean _third day_, in that _per diem_ means _daily_. _Carnis_ might refer to body, as in _carnal_. Thus endeth Peak's knowledge of the Latin I snoozed thru for two weary years at CEHS.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Forget knowing Latin, you've never heard of the Nicene Creed?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

I have, being that my father and brother were/are Episcopalian priests. However, we don't say it in Latin. And nowadays I don't say it at all.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Justin, that's a great effort! 10 year of Latin in school, and coming from a RC family that enjoyed a good Tridentine Mass now and again meant I spotted the Nicene Creed straight away...


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

JJR512 said:


> "I believe in the omnipotent God the Father, creator of heaven (originally, I thought "caeli" to mean "sky", based on my knowledge of the Spanish word for "sky" being "cielo", but decided from the context that this word probably means "heaven", which is thought of as being in the sky) and earth. And in Jesus Christ, his only son, our lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of (not sure if "ex" is "of" or "by" or something else) the Virgin Mary, something about Pontius Pilate (not sure what "passes sub" means), crucified, died, and buried, descended to hell (where, in some Abrahamic religions, it is thought that all souls first go upon death), something (not sure about "tertia die") resurrected from death, ascended to heaven, something (not sure about "sedet") at the hand of omnipotent God the Father, (not sure about "inde" means, or "venturus" but I'd guess the latter is something like "venture") is life and death. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the sanctity of the Catholic Church, the sanctity of communion, remission(?) something (no idea about "peccatorum"), something (no idea about "carnis") resurrection, life eternal. Amen."


You did quite well there mate using Spanish to translate Latin. I'm impressed

ex = is a prepositon that means both "out of" and "from"
tertia die = third day (compare Tertial report (i.e. Third quarter report) 
inde = is translated as either "from there" or "from that place" 
venturus = coming
peccatum = sin - the one word that every Catholic schoolboy knows, well at least knew when I was growing up 
peccatorum = our sins
remissionem peccatorum = the remission (forgiveness) of sins
carnis = (what are you a vegetarian? ) it means body but it also means flesh, and refers here to the buried earthly body.
(compare carne = meat)

Catholics learn the Apostle's Creed as 12 Articles, makes it much easier to remember the Latin correctly.

1.Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae = I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. 
2. Et in Iesum Christum, Filium eius unicum, Dominum nostrum, = I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. (note the capital I for Jesus, there is no J in Latin. nostrum = our. Compare cosa nostra.) 
3. qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, = He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary 
4. passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus, = He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. descendit ad inferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis = He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again. (NOTE: that some English versions oddly say "after three days" it should be "on the third day") 
6. ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis = He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. 
7.inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos = He will come again to judge the living and the dead. 
8. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum = I believe in the Holy Spirit, 
9. sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communionem = the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, 
10. remissionem peccatorum = the forgiveness of sins, 
11. carnis resurrectionem =the resurrection of the body, 
12. vitam aeternam = and life everlasting. 
Amen


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

VictorRomeo said:


> Justin, that's a great effort! 10 year of Latin in school, and coming from a RC family that enjoyed a good Tridentine Mass now and again meant I spotted the Nicene Creed straight away...


I was server at our monthly Tridentine Mass last Wednesday (which the Pope in 2007 permitted to be said again) And as server you get to read out loud lots of Latin including the enitre Confiteor twice! But as a server on your knees most of the time, its not much fun for your back!


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

I was an Alterboy as a kid, Earl - I know what you mean! Kneeling on a marble step for long periods is no mean feat - I don't think my back would take it now! My time as an Alterboy was good - no problems whatsoever and always looked forward to doing a wedding or a funeral! Always got a few bob for that! My (brief)time with the Christian Brothers, on the other hand was another story altogether!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

On the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed.

The Latin verison I posted IS The Apostle's Creed (_Symbolum Apostolicum)_ I used that because it's simpler for people not very well versed in Latin to understand. It differs in a few places from The Nicene Creed. For starters The Apostle's Creed starts, "I believe" whereas the Nicene Creed (Symbolum Nicaenum) starts "We believe".

But most importantly of course the Apostle's Creed, which was a very early version mentions nothing about the divinty of Christ the Holy Spirit, the filioque and other vital theological tenets, which of course the council of Nicea rectified & thus making the orignal creed much longer and much more Catholic.

All Christians can say the Apostle's Creed.

Luckily though at the Traditional (Tridentine) Mass only the Priest reads the Credo. The server reads the confiteor twice and has some other quite wordy speaking parts  But the congregation are restricted to short,easy responses like "Et cum spiritu tuo," "Sed libera nos a malo" (but deliver us from evil), and one or two others but that's it!

I also have to remember to ring the bell at the right times, which I can only do if I keep an eye on the silently praying priest, as it is his hand movements above the altar that indicate where he is in the mass & when I should give the bell a good shake  Also at two points in the mass having to lift his chasuble at the back as he adores the Eucharist by raising his arms upwards, so as to prevent the chasuble from tightening round his knees & pulling him backwards.

Last week an old Polish woman came up to me after mass & she never having been to the Traditional Mass before asked me why I twice lifted the chasuble with one hand while ringing the bell with the other, she thought I was trying to pull him off the alter   or to get his attention for something....LOL!!!!

THIS is the Nicene Creed in Latin and English

_Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum, et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum non factum, consubstantialem Patri; per quem omnia facta sunt. Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis. Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, et h o m o factus est. Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus et sepultus est, et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas, et ascendit in caelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris. Et iterum venturus est cum gloria, iudicare vivos et mortuos, cuius regni non erit finis._
_Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre _(Filioque)_ procedit. Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur: qui locutus est per prophetas. Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam. Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam venturi saeculi._ Amen.

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of the same substance as the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (_and the Son_). With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. _Amen._ The forum censor wouldn't allow h.o.m.o. How ironic not allowing a perfectly good Latin word in a prayer, anyway that's why I had to space it out like that - h o m o.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

VictorRomeo said:


> My (brief)time with the Christian Brothers, on the other hand was another story altogether!


God, tell me about it. The horror stories my father told me about, at the hands of the Christian Brothers in Waterford during the 40s. I know he didn't let on everything and I don't blame him.

As regards the marble step, I can tell you, I'm kneeling on about six cushions. My 48 year old back and knees don't do marble!  

Also as a kid I always managed to avoid the glare of the Carmelite Brothers looking for new altar boys, I did so by standing at the very back & quickly nipping out straight after Communion.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Oddly, here it is the Nicene creed that is said in Mass however they never differentiate between creeds on the missal.... as in the Apostles' Creed seems to be a generic term.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Re; The Christian Brothers; In 1977, my Father, flush with some success in his business life decided he fancied a spell at being a 'Squire of the Manor and move the family lock, stock and barrel to a big old rambling house in County Meath. In due course I was packed off to the local boys school. This was the first time in my life I was presented with physical violence dished out to children as a form if pusishment. My crime of course was being from Dublin and having a wealthy father a thing one Brother in particular took great offense to.

Three days into my time in that school was when I got my first lashing - for not knowing how to play Hurling (I was born with a rugby ball). Anyhow, I kept it and other lashings quiet as I did not want to be broken by this freak. I never cried. And, in a great twist of irony, the only other kid in my class that got it as bad as me was a Traveller kid!!! 

However, one day I was beaten black and blue for not doing my homework to 'his' standard. I was a very bright boy(still am!), but seemed to fail a lot in his class - even though my work was always of a high standard. Anyway, I meant it when I said black and blue - I was punched in the face, kicked and I passed out.....(broken ribs, cracked jaw...) I woke up on the floor and sent back to my desk - my classmates were crying and one lad wet himself. I was 8 years old by the way. 

Hometime came and all left but I was kept behind - for what I had no idea. Amazingly that day, my father left the office early that day and was waiting for me outside the school - of course, my friends told him what had happened - he probed them some more and they told him everything. 

So, into the classroom strolled my father - that's when I cried, for the first time on front of this man - he told me to leave and wait in the car. A month or so later the Brother came back to school, an arm still in plaster and black and blue. Years later my Dad told me he beat him to an inch of his life - the headmaster had to stop him from probably killing him. The Brother had 'previous' so nothing happened my Dad.... big time previous, apparently. We moved back to Dublin shortly after that episode... Country life was not for us. Dad was a local hero for that one though. A few months later the Irish Government outlawed corporal punishment - what happened me was legal!! Though, in the scheme of things, what happened me was inconsequential compared to others. 

The greatest insult? All carried out by, protected by, hidden by, covered up by Men of God, using the word of God to control and submit a Nation.

Christian Brothers my a$$....


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I hear you Victor. I imagine my father in the 1940s suffered a similar if not worse "schooling" at the hands of such monsters hiding behind their Christian robes. I got a few lashings myself at school with cane and running shoe & the odd punch in the chest or slap round the head or objects thrown into my face but nothing as severe you suffered.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

These kinds of horrific stories frequently lead to what I refer to as throwing the baby Jesus out with the dirty bathwater.

While the dirty bathwater MUST be changed, imperfect men do not (should not) obscure basic Truths.

It would appear that even back in the "good old days" that beating schoolchildren was not an accepted tenet.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> While the dirty bathwater MUST be changed, imperfect men do not (should not) obscure basic Truths.
> 
> It would appear that even back in the "good old days" that beating schoolchildren was not an accepted tenet.


Thank you for saying that.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> I have never understood why you would ever have to say the Pledge of Allegiance, or any pledge, more than once in your life. Or in my case twice: the second being when Mrs. Burns told my 4th grade class that two words had been added.
> 
> 
> > I quite agree. I've only made an oath of allegiance, or something like it, once, when I was commissioned. Most people in Britain have never needed to do so, and have never seen the need. I haven't noticed anarchy and disloyalty being widespread.....


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> You did quite well there mate using Spanish to translate Latin. I'm impressed
> 
> ex = is a prepositon that means both "out of" and "from"
> tertia die = third day (compare Tertial report (i.e. Third quarter report)
> ...


Thanks...And no formal Spanish, either, just anecdotal from Hispanics, and a bit of dictionary surfing.

I was thinking that "tertia" had something to do with the number three, but couldn't find a context to guess at a translation. I should have gotten "die" for "day", though, since I know "dia" in Spanish is "day".

"Venturus", as I said, I thought might be something having to do with "venture", and I'm sure the English word does come from that Latin word. But I would have thought of it more like "going" than "coming", as in "venture forth out into the world".

"Carnis" I thought probably was the basis of the Spanish word "carne" which means "meat" in English, but I was also thinking of the English word "carnal" which, as an adjective, means "relating to physical, especially sexual, needs or activities". Since I was much more confident of the other word in that phrase meaning "resurrection", I couldn't figure out how to put either "meat" or the sexual "carnal" in context with that. Looking up the word "carnal", I see it does come from the Latin word "carnalis" or "carn-" which means "flesh". I suppose that after the languages diverged, the word in Spanish leaned more to the meaty aspect of flesh, whereas in English the word took on its more sexual meaning.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

VictorRomeo said:


> Oddly, here it is the Nicene creed that is said in Mass however they never differentiate between creeds on the missal.... as in the Apostles' Creed seems to be a generic term.


Oh absolutely yea,it is the Nicene Creed that is said at all Catholic masses nowadays whether in English or at Latin High Mass or by the priest at the Traditional (Tridentine) Mass. But Apostles Creed is NOT a generic term.The Apostles Creed is a very different much earlier Creed, a pan-Christian creed if you will - and as such it is the orginal creed, the Apostle's Creed, in it's simpler purer Christian from that is still used by many Chrsitian Churches, hence my use of it here.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Don't get me wrong Earl, I do know the difference between them! It's just on the missal distributed every Sunday, the Creed is always entitled the Apostles' Creed regardless - and it is nearly always the Nicene Creed said.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

VictorRomeo said:


> Don't get me wrong Earl, I do know the difference between them! It's just on the missal distributed every Sunday, the Creed is always entitled the Apostles' Creed regardless - and it is nearly always the Nicene Creed said.


Ah right sorry, I did misnderstand you then. I see what you mean now.


----------



## Tooch (Jun 26, 2010)

To address the original point: I'm a life-long atheist myself, but I never got to worked up about the "under God" -- I just omitted it as a kid, as soon as I was old enough to consider the implications. Beyond that, it just never struck me as a battle worth fighting.

Oaths of allegiance in general, though ... I'm really not comfortable with those. Frankly, my political allegiance is conditional on the maintenance of a restrained governing structure and respect for basic liberties. If things go pear-shaped, I reserve the right to behave in a way that doesn't square with any such oath. That's why I stopped reciting the oath a very long time ago, and I'm raising my son with a healthy skepticism toward the whole concept, so he's equipped to make a decision of his own about the matter when he's old enough.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

I understand, and to some extent agree. However, I personally feel that the Pledge of Allegiance is more swearing loyalty to the ideals of America than to its actual current leadership. I don't believe it's a blind statement of absolute agreement with, and support of, everything that America currently is, in other words.


----------



## Tooch (Jun 26, 2010)

> I personally feel that the Pledge of Allegiance is more swearing loyalty to the ideals of America than to its actual current leadership.


I understand that point, and I'm perhaps I'm being extra-sensitive about the issue, but if we accept that the pledge of allegiance is to broadly defined ideals rather than the nation's current policies and political leadership, then it strikes me as a bit of an irrelevance -- though, arguably, a harmless one. But then there's the question of which ideals are at stake, given Bellamy's somewhat totalitarian views (a nation organized along military lines, at least as espoused in his cousin Edward's novel, _Looking Backwards_.)

And then again, my resistance may be come from a family history of treating national affiliation as temporary, and for good reason. On one side, I'm descended from "conversos" -- Spanish Jews who converted to Catholicism to escape the Inquisition. They then moved to Italy for a little extra breathing room, later going to Argentina, and then the U.S. If I recite a Pledge of Allegiance, I'm almost obligated to cross my fingers.


----------



## Fraser Tartan (May 12, 2010)

Tooch said:


> To address the original point: I'm a life-long atheist myself, but I never got to worked up about the "under God" -- I just omitted it as a kid, as soon as I was old enough to consider the implications. Beyond that, it just never struck me as a battle worth fighting.
> 
> Oaths of allegiance in general, though ... I'm really not comfortable with those. Frankly, my political allegiance is conditional on the maintenance of a restrained governing structure and respect for basic liberties. If things go pear-shaped, I reserve the right to behave in a way that doesn't square with any such oath. That's why I stopped reciting the oath a very long time ago, and I'm raising my son with a healthy skepticism toward the whole concept, so he's equipped to make a decision of his own about the matter when he's old enough.


I'm an atheist also and didn't grow up with any sort of religion at home. Some time in elementary school when I realized what I was saying during the Pledge of Allegiance, I skipped the "under God" part myself too. It always struck me as something forced into the Pledge by politicians during the McCarthy era to separate us further from the "godless" Communists. I don't think we even said the Pledge by high school here (I'm 42), though I may be mistaken.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Might as well throw out the first legal American document the Declaration Of Independence since God is mentioned in it numerous ways.

As far as Church and State being seperate that is Church and State, not God and State as the Declaration Of Independence shows. Church and State seperation means that the USA can not be a Catholic country or Baptish country, and so on. But Christian it is. Jewish are fine. Most others seem to find a way to fit in to the grand scheme of rest of what this country is about. Not really interested in stepping on toes of others. Live and let live.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

WA said:


> Live and let live.


Yeah, but only as long as they can find a way to fit in with the Christians (and maybe the Jews) that deserve to be here, right?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Japanese and Chinese have been here for decades and are doing fine, so others should to.

What is nice about the Declaration Of Independence is there is clearly a limit to government power, because God says so. History shows that other governments stepping over the boundaries with greed, even the so called Christian ones. Look at the Queen of England the richest women on earth, and she just started paying taxes?! So many other governments the people running them have treated people like garbage instead of their equal. The Declaration Of Independence puts an end to that through God. Remove God from the Declaration Of Independence and we will have a government like all the other crappy countries. Look at Europeans. To this day they are ruled by other people. First it was overbearing governments and now it is socializm. Nobody really owns themself over their. From that perspective they are just a bunch of slaves. And slavery is wrong.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

... uh huh.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

WA said:


> Japanese and Chinese have been here for decades and are doing fine, so others should to.


Yes...and? Is there a relevant point there? I mean one relevant to this discussion, which is about religion and the government. I may as well tell you I like peanut butter; that's just as relevant to this discussion as what you said here.



> What is nice about the Declaration Of Independence is there is clearly a limit to government power, because God says so.


I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a history expert, but I could have sworn the Declaration of Independence was written by man (several men, in fact), not by any god. And in my opinion, it is the people being governed that have the final say over how powerful their government can be.



> History shows that other governments stepping over the boundaries with greed, even the so called Christian ones. Look at the Queen of England the richest women on earth, and she just started paying taxes?! So many other governments the people running them have treated people like garbage instead of their equal. The Declaration Of Independence puts an end to that through God. Remove God from the Declaration Of Independence and we will have a government like all the other crappy countries. Look at Europeans. To this day they are ruled by other people. First it was overbearing governments and now it is socializm. Nobody really owns themself over their. From that perspective they are just a bunch of slaves. And slavery is wrong.


The Declaration of Independence established (through the words written on it, not through any supreme deity) that America felt it was time to become an independent nation free from the rule of Great Britain. Remove any religious references from it, and you still have a document that established America's desire for independence. The mention of any god in it did not validate it.

Furthermore, it was the Constitution that determined where the power is, and how much is there. Do you remember how that particular document starts?


> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


That clearly establishes that the Government of the United States of America is a government made up of its _people_, not of any religious figurehead or supreme deity.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Sounds nice. 

Yes, men choose and they put God in the first legal document of the USA which all others stand upon. With that document they were creating a New Country. Right at the beginning they put God in it. Why did they put God in it?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Obviously because God led this nation to be the best country in the world.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

The DoI mentions God one time, basically saying that the nation is entitled by God to be a separate nation, equal to others. A "Creator" is also mentioned once; who or what this "creator" is isn't specified, and therefore can be interpreted by the reader any way he or she so chooses. An atheist might interpret this as nature, or evolution. This passing reference does not establish, in my opinion, that the Founding Fathers wanted America to become a religious nation. If anything, the overall tone of the entire document suggests that they are saying they want to be free to rule themselves. As I've already pointed out, the Constitution, which actually _established_ the government of America, further reinforces this secularism.

Most, if not all, of the Founding Fathers believed in God. I have no problem with that. They also felt that America had a God-given right to be an independent nation, apparently. That's fine. Anyone can believe whatever they want to believe. But I see nothing there that establishes that they wanted America to be a religious nation.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Most of them were not even Christian, even if they did believe in a single God.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Creator is capitalized which is never done for nature or evolution. Neither does nature or evolution give unalienable rights because neither nature or evolution can think. If they can't think, then they sure can't give any rights. Which leaves one thing left- God.

The problem with evolution is that those who push it can't seem to explain evolution without evolution thinking. How can evolution think? Evolution is total accident, right? So, how can it think? It has no brain. So, how can it think? They explain it like evolution can plans ahead what it will be. But without a brain how can it think? The evolutionist have shot themselves through the each foot so many times with this "thinking evolution" that they have no foot to stand on. Why do you believe in them?

Jovan you are right. But they seemed to want Gods blessings for this country even if they hated Him.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Did I ever say they hated God?

https://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

https://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

WA said:


> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
> 
> Creator is capitalized which is never done for nature or evolution.


Nope, sorry, this argument holds no water. _Many_ of the words are capitalized, and if there's a rhyme or reason to how they decided which words to capitalize, I can't discern it. Furthermore, capitalization was different between different copies. For the record, I have no doubt that Thomas Jefferson was thinking of God when he wrote that phrase. This does not equate to an absolute statement on his part that all Americans must unequivocally believe in God, and it does not establish America to be a Christian nation.



> Neither does nature or evolution give unalienable rights because neither nature or evolution can think. If they can't think, then they sure can't give any rights.


Nature or evolution doesn't have to be a thinking entity to give human rights to humans anymore than it has to be a thinking entity to give humans two arms, two legs, two ears, two eyes, one mouth and one nose. Someone who believes in evolution can say that human beings evolved to have intelligence, and that they used that intelligence to determine that they should have basic rights.



> The problem with evolution is that those who push it can't seem to explain evolution without evolution thinking.


Nope, sorry, I already proved this statement wrong in my previous paragraph. Evolution doesn't need to think, and your interpretation of it is, frankly, completely...


> How can evolution think? Evolution is total accident, right? So, how can it think? It has no brain. So, how can it think? They explain it like evolution can plans ahead what it will be. But without a brain how can it think? The evolutionist have shot themselves through the each foot so many times with this "thinking evolution" that they have no foot to stand on. Why do you believe in them?


...ass-backwards. The evolution theory doesn't state that evolution planned anything or "thought" about anything; quite the opposite.

In any event, ultimately, it comes down to this: You believe in God. Good for you. I'm happy for you. Seriously, I'm not trying to be smart-ass here; you've found something to believe in that works for you, and that's wonderful. But not everybody in America believes the same thing that you do. No official legal document that establishes or defines America or its government says that America is a Christian country or that any one particular religion is the nation's official religion. In fact, Thomas Jefferson himself expressed an opinion in favor of the separation of church and state (the very phrase itself comes from a letter that he wrote).

If you want to create a debate about intelligent design vs. evolution, you have my blessing to start your own thread about it. That's beyond the scope of my argument here, which I'll restate to make it clear: America is a secular nation. It has no official religion, has no right to promote one religion over another, and has no right to interfere with the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of its citizens. Freedom of religion is a fundamental principle of America. The Pledge of Allegiance is an oath of loyalty to America, was written without the phrase "under God", and was intended to be said quickly. As an oath of loyalty to a nation with freedom of religion as a core value, a religious reference in that oath is out of place. Very out of place. Furthermore, it is unnecessary because one does not need to believe in any supreme deity, nor acknowledge any such belief, in the oath of loyalty; including it does not validate it, nor does its omission invalidate the oath. As proof of this last statement, consider the fact that not only is it perfectly acceptable today for a person to not say "under God" without being accused of being anti-American, it was also perfectly acceptable for all the World War I and II soldiers to not say it, since it hadn't been put in there yet, and nobody would accuse _them_ of being anti-American.

You can boil that entire paragraph down to this: It's out of place, and unnecessary. Period.


----------

