Author Topic: One Nation under God (Read 1724 times)

Major · « **on:** February 09, 2005, 08:07:37 AM »

A college professor, an avowed Atheist, was teaching his class. He shocked several of his students when he flatly stated that there is no God; the expression, "One Nation under God", was unconstitutional; and further, he was going to prove there is no God.

Addressing the ceiling, he shouted: "God, if you are really there, I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you 15 minutes!"

The lecture room fell silent. You could have heard a pin fall. Ten minutes went by. Again he taunted God, saying, "Here I am, God. I'm still waiting."

His countdown got down to the last couple of minutes when a Marine, just released from active duty, and newly registered in the class, walked up to the professor, hit him full force in the face, and sent him behind over teacups from his lofty platform.

The professor was out cold! At first, the students were shocked, and babbled in confusion. The young Marine took a seat in the front row and sat silent.
The class fell silent...waiting.

Eventually, the professor came to, shaken. He looked at the young Marine in the front row. When he regained his senses, and could speak, He yelled, "What's the matter with you? Why did you do that?"

The Marine calmly said "God was busy. He sent me."

BamBams · « **Reply #1 on:** February 09, 2005, 08:18:53 AM »

HAHAHA! There is more truth to that than a lot of readers here, sadly, will ever know. I had something happen to me today when I was acting in a manner (rebellious) very similar to that professor.

PA-Joe · « **Reply #2 on:** February 09, 2005, 08:38:07 AM »

"One Nation under God" didn't come into existence until the 1950s during the cold war, as the commies did not believe in God and that made us "right"! There was no reference to God during our Nation's first 150 years!

BamBams · « **Reply #3 on:** February 09, 2005, 08:46:52 AM »

Sure there was Joe. Our founding documents are riddled with references to God and a higher power. If you just mean the "One Nation Under God" reference, I am currently looking into that out of curiousity. You may be quite right.

Hah! You are incorrect friend! -- about there being no reference to God during the first 150 years. I know you're going to appreciate me bringing this matter right up to speed aren't you? I do hope so.

I have, right in front of me, two large coins. One is a "1900" silver dollar. It says, "In God We Trust" on the back. That's 105 years old.

The other is a 1922 silver dollar. That's 83 years old. On the front it says, "In God We Trust."

Who trusts? Whomever authorized the coin. So it could be said that the leaders of our nation trusted in God over 100 years ago. I don't expect that anyone put a gun to their heads and forced them to put this information on these beautiful coins?

?

PA-Joe · « **Reply #4 on:** February 09, 2005, 09:22:35 AM »

BamBams - Thank you for the correction. Interesting isn't it! It must just be the One Nation Under God that was added in the 50s.

BamBams · « **Reply #5 on:** February 09, 2005, 09:28:30 AM »

Yes, that is what I'm seeing so far. The pledge of allegence has been changed twice so far. In 1994, Congress passed a bill preventing the Supreme court from mandating or ruling on the pledge of allegiance. Now the matter is deferred to state governments to decide whether they wish to change it or not.

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #6 on:** February 09, 2005, 10:08:39 AM »

"In God We Trust" was added to the coinage by a minor funtionary of the Civil War period. Nothing to do with the founders at all, and a lot to do with the willingness of zealots to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.

Must have puzzled Jesus who was quick to point out that money was a thing of Ceasar and not of God.

PA-Joe · « **Reply #7 on:** February 09, 2005, 10:11:24 AM »

What were the changes to the Pledge?

Brett · « **Reply #8 on:** February 09, 2005, 10:19:00 AM »

PA-Joe, who is the Creator mentioned in the Decloration of Independance signed July 4th, 1776?

" 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."

:grin:

NYH1 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 09, 2005, 10:47:10 AM »

Major, All I can say is God bless the Marine Corps! :grin:

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #10 on:** February 10, 2005, 03:23:00 PM »

Quote from: Brett

PA-Joe, who is the Creator mentioned in the Decloration of Independance signed July 4th, 1776?

" 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."

:grin:

"Nature's God", Brett. Says so right in the first paragraph.

And it says "Creator", not Jehovah. I'm pretty sure they knew the difference.

Glad to clear that up for you.

ironglow · « **Reply #11 on:** February 13, 2005, 01:50:31 PM »

The MAYFLOWER COMPACT has long been referred to as " America's Birth Certificate ".

Worthwhile reading, since it was written and signed by all before disembarking from the Mayflower to live at " Plimouth ".

The signers all agreed that their main purpose for setting forth for the new world was " for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith!"....

I'm quite sure you can find a copy of the Mayflower compact by doing a Google search for it..

Let's face it ...even the likes of the ACLU and Micheal Newdow know in their hearts that the overwhelming majority of our Nation's founders were Christian and that the "establishment clause" was there ( as affirmed by the Federalist Papers ) to keep Congress from setting up any given denomination as a state religion...such as they virtually ALL experienced back in England.
They cautioned Congress not to "prohibit the free exercise thereof", for a reason...they had seen the Anglican church and the English royalty persecute Puritans, Jews and Separatists for just that...

When these weasles try to pretend that the framers wanted God out of public life...they are only lying to themselves...and everyone else...and THEY know it !

powderman · « **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2005, 02:54:15 PM »

IRONGLOW. Nudow and the aclu know the truth, and they know they are doing satans work. They worship the great deceiver. POWDERMAN.

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #13 on:** February 13, 2005, 05:49:21 PM »

Quote from: ironglow

The MAYFLOWER COMPACT has long been referred to as " America's Birth Certificate ".

Worthwhile reading, since it was written and signed by all before disembarking from the Mayflower to live at " Plimouth ".

Someone was playing loose with the facts, then. America was born in 1607 in Jamestown, VA.

Dunno why I should be interested in the doings of a latecoming religious cult that got itself run out of two countries.

williamlayton · « **Reply #14 on:** February 14, 2005, 12:16:08 AM »

Define your thoghts on religious cults leftoverdj.
Blessings

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #15 on:** February 14, 2005, 07:40:57 AM »

Technically. a cult is a religious group with a membership recruited as adults. Such groups are generally characterized by authoritarian leadership, extreme views, and rigid control of the individual. The Plymouth Colony qualified on all counts. In the classic phrase, "They came to America to be free to practice their religion and prevent others from doing the same."

A good many of the other early colonies had a religous beginning, or, at least religious rulers. A major impetus to the westward movement was the desire to escape religious rule. By the time of the Revolution, Americans had overwhelmingly rejected theocratic rule.

The Constitution codified this rejection. It included a ban on any religious test for public office, and, in the Bill of Rights, on the establishment of a religion. The wording is important. They most certainly knew the distinction between a religion, a church, and a sect; yet they chose the broadest term "religion". They also knew that "establishment" meant more than a formal designation. They chose to bar not only the designation, but the favoritism that was the essence of establishment. From the ratification of the constitution onward, the federal government was forbidded to favor or disfavor any religion. This was not always observed, but the ban was there.

There was no such ban on the states. They were free to do as they pleased until the ratification of the XIVth Amendment which extended the protection of basic rights to the states. Even then, that protection was slow in being implemented, but implemented it has been.

To sum things up, the major inluence of the Plymouth Colony and similar groups has been their absolute rejection by American politics. We have seen religious control of government and don't want it. Even huge numbers of religious don't want it. The chances are far too high that the dominant religion will not be theirs.

ironglow · « **Reply #16 on:** February 14, 2005, 12:31:23 PM »

A cult is a " religious group with membership recruited as adults"....what a crime! Guess they should only recruit little kids...
Please explain that logic..!
If you read the history of the separatists of the group begun at Scrooby, you will find that most voluntarily joined the group as whole families; much as today when families usually take their cue from the " head of household".
Not all in the Plymouth colony were separatists...some of the ship's crew as well as such as the Billington family were not of that persuasion..
John Alden was the ship's chandler and apparently joined the church/community with his eyes wide open..
Living in a small, closed community is probably rather difficult at times when one is at odds with other community members...
Yet, virtually all families voluntarily joined and voluntarily sailed to the New World....escaping persecution..

I can see where there was difficulty with the Plymouth experiment.
One of the great mistakes at the outset was that socialism was tried ...and abandoned within two years, for obvious reasons..

Although I can trace my lineage to some of the Mayflower families ( as many folks can)indirectly (Aldens & Hopkins)...my spiritual roots are with the Rhode Island colony, where my earliest progenitor (carier of my surname)this side of the pond was a cohort of Roger Williams.
Rhode Island was a model for religious tolerance...even for this nation today.
Catholics, all Protestants, Jews and others were not discouraged by my ancestor or Roger Williams....who were Baptists...

Of no great surprise, non-believers were welcome also, but were not allowed to dominate government or discriminate against believers...as the case is today.

Obviously, the Christian people in that day in the RI colony were simply more tolerant and less vindictive than the modern secularists of today ...

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #17 on:** February 14, 2005, 05:36:04 PM »

Yup. And Rhode Island became the model for America, not the Plymouth Colony.

Far as discrimination against believers is concerned, it exists mostly in the imagination and the whines of those outraged because they can't use the government to promote THEIR religion. ONE teacher in ONE school in ONE state teaches a mandated section on Islam in a way that some object to and millions of zealots scream that they have have been discriminated against.

I'd be kinda interested in a thread on the "discrimination" that Christians suffer in America. I'd suggest you check them against Snopes and Truth or Fiction first, because I'm sure gonna.

IntrepidWizard · « **Reply #18 on:** February 14, 2005, 05:48:06 PM »

http://iris.biosci.ohio-state.edu/projects/FFiles/frfact.html

fe352v8 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 14, 2005, 07:32:56 PM »

A theocracy would be nice, as long as it's mine. I have no idea how many denominations or sects their are in Christianity. But if after 2000 years if their is still this much divergent opinion as to what the meaning of "Gods Word" is, I'd rather take my chances with the constitution, the ACLU and the supremes.

jon

ironglow · « **Reply #20 on:** February 15, 2005, 03:11:16 PM »

noone is talking theocracy....DUH...
And anyone that wants to "take a chance" mixing the ACLU with the Constitution...has my condolences...

fe352v8 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 15, 2005, 06:04:18 PM »

Fair enough. However when people declare that they are acting in Gods name, one has to question whether they were created in Gods image or they created God in their image. When reading the writings of the founding fathers they frequently ask for divine direction and rarely claim to act at the direction of God. People now seem to claim to be acting at God's direction. The Constitution begins with "We The People" not in Gods name. I think the founding fathers knew a man can not act in the name of God, he can only hope he is acting at Gods direction.

jon

JPSaxMan · « **Reply #22 on:** February 16, 2005, 03:29:29 AM »

Quote from: New York Hunter

Major, All I can say is God bless the Marine Corps! :grin:

Amen to that, Amen. And now they've been tryin to take "One nation under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Damn goths and atheists. We definetly need to make sure that DOESN'T happen. And that's like the steps they've taken towards the timeline of the world. They were going to (or already did :cry: ) take out the BC part of our timeline (Before Christ) and replace it with something dumb. Agh. What is this world comin to?

mag41vance · « **Reply #23 on:** February 16, 2005, 07:13:11 AM »

June 1954
On the adopting of the change into law the supreme court didn't have much to say at that time:
"The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this change to the Pledge. The Court has commented in passing on the motto saying that: " Our previous opinions have considered in dicta the motto and the pledge [of allegiance], characterizing them as consistent with the proposition that government may not communicate an endorsement of religious belief." [Allegheny, 492 U.S.]

I don't know how reliable this article is.

The link to this article:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm

PA-Joe · « **Reply #24 on:** February 16, 2005, 07:36:16 AM »

Ironglow - As I understand it, most of our founding fathers were freemasons, as were most of George Washington's Generals, and we know that they are not Christians!

I think we should post all 70 versions of the ten conmandments. That way no one of the Christian faiths are favored!

superhornet · « **Reply #25 on:** February 17, 2005, 04:10:27 AM »

Leftoverdj-------kinda along the lines of Ayn Rand philosophy of objectivism??

Leftoverdj · « **Reply #26 on:** February 17, 2005, 04:56:26 AM »

Superhornet, more a Jeffersonian or a constitutional absolutist with a libertarian bent.

ironglow · « **Reply #27 on:** February 17, 2005, 10:50:42 AM »

Joe;
I have known several Masons that were active, serious Christians..

From what I have read in some serious works. the average Freemason is not apprised of the true aims and deeply held beliefs of their organization until they are past the 32nd-33rd degree...

Not being an insider..I cannot tell more or vouch for the veracity for what I read...however, if what I read is true, a freemason below 33rd degree can't confidently tell more or vouch for the accuracy either..

And above 33rd...they won't talk..

If a Mason wants to claim Christ as Savior and "walk the walk"...I won't berate him or anyone else that claims/does the same.....God can do his own sorting...

BamBams · « **Reply #28 on:** February 17, 2005, 11:11:01 AM »

Ironglow,

I USED to be a 32nd degree Mason, but I left for two reasons.

1) It was absolutely impossible for me to reconcile my personal relationship with the Lord and be a Mason at the same time. For one thing, you don't even have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God to be a Mason. A Muslim qualifies to be a Mason.

2) The dues got REALLY expensive also.

As far as big secrets go.....there aren't any. At least no more than any other organization might have. It's no different than being an Elk, or a Moose, or whatever. It's just a fraternity with a bunch of hokey pokey rituals that won't a think more for you, and anyone else, than simply being a Christian would do. Masonry is dying a slow death also. People are losing interest in it.

CornCod · « **Reply #29 on:** March 07, 2005, 12:59:19 PM »

All nations and peoples are "under God," so I have no problem with people using the term. The folks that worry me are those who use the term to indicate that the United States is somehow exempt from the laws of history or that this country is somehow more "under God" than others. All countries are run by crooks. Some are run by crooked dictators in funny uniforms. This one happens to be run by by a bunch of corrupt businessmen and Wall-Streeters, six of one and a half dozen of the other!