Why "Under God" does not violate the Constitution

[The Alma Mater]

America was created by anti-religious theists who believed in natural rights and considered atheism a mental illness.

And yet did not add "under god" to the pledge

[Sociobiology]

America was created by anti-religious theists who believed in natural rights and considered atheism a mental illness.

who also owned slaves and shot each other in duels, what's your point?

[Liriena]

The thing is, even if it does not directly affect the quality of life of most non-Christians in the United States, "Under God" has no place in any official document or pledge.

America is a christian nation.

Nope.

[Farnhamia]

America was created by anti-religious theists who believed in natural rights and considered atheism a mental illness.

And yet did not add "under god" to the pledge

Well, to be fair, the Founders were all dead a good 60 or 70 years before the Pledge was written, if not more.

[Cumalas]

America was created by anti-religious theists who believed in natural rights and considered atheism a mental illness.

And yet did not add "under god" to the pledge

Their entire political ideology was based on the idea of a God. The declaration of independence reads "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[Sociobiology]

And yet did not add "under god" to the pledge

Their entire political ideology was based on the idea of a God. The declaration of independence reads "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

they also owned humans as property, what's your point?

[United States of Cascadia]

And yet did not add "under god" to the pledge

Their entire political ideology was based on the idea of a God. The declaration of independence reads "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The declaration of independence has no legal meaning in the United States, so it's kinda irrelevant. Even then, you're applying modern theistic views to deistic arguments. For many deists (and pantheists too), god doesn't necessarily mean what theists think. It tends to be either another term for the Cosmos, or for the Creator (which some would interpret as the Cosmos anyways). The founding fathers were deistic men by and large, after all, the same man who wrote the declaration also wrote the Jefferson Bible (a version of the Bible with all supernatural and OT things from it, all that was left was a few pages about good works).

[The Alma Mater]

And yet did not add "under god" to the pledge

Well, to be fair, the Founders were all dead a good 60 or 70 years before the Pledge was written, if not more.

Oh shush, I wanted him to discover that

[Roski]

Yes, its technically not violating it.

Its still not necessary.

[Cumalas]

Their entire political ideology was based on the idea of a God. The declaration of independence reads "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The declaration of independence has no legal meaning in the United States, so it's kinda irrelevant. Even then, you're applying modern theistic views to deistic arguments. For many deists (and pantheists too), god doesn't necessarily mean what theists think. It tends to be either another term for the Cosmos, or for the Creator (which some would interpret as the Cosmos anyways). The founding fathers were deistic men by and large, after all, the same man who wrote the declaration also wrote the Jefferson Bible (a version of the Bible with all supernatural and OT things from it, all that was left was a few pages about good works).

The declaration of independence is a statement of justifications for abandoning the british government and is pivotal in american history. It does give a good picture of what the founders(or at least thomas jefferson) believed.

I never asserted that they were christians. I happen to think "deist" is an incoherent idea. I called them "non-religious theists". But to fully understand what they believed, you have to go read about natural rights and natural theology. I also think it doesn't matter if jefferson edited and made his own personal version of the bible, because it doesn't change the idea that he was a very religious man in his personal life(though he believed in a rather twisted idea of God).

[Cumalas]

Their entire political ideology was based on the idea of a God. The declaration of independence reads "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

they also owned humans as property, what's your point?

It seems you took absolutely no care in addressing the issue with any intellect or respect. I might as well address you in the same manner.

If you are willing to discard their ideas, under the pretense that they are out dated, you should apply that consistently. We should also question and perhaps discard freedom of religion, freedom of speech, democracy, non-autocracy, human rights, and written constitutions. I'd be willing to engage in a debate about the morality of those ideas, if you'd be so inclined.

Furthermore, speaking out against them is a way of speaking out against the highest law of the land, and it is effectively a form of treason. As well as a great form of disrespect to your ancestors.

[Roski]

they also owned humans as property, what's your point?

It seems you took absolutely no care in addressing the issue with any intellect or respect. I might as well address you in the same manner.

If you are willing to discard their ideas, under the pretense that they are out dated, you should apply that consistently. We should also question and perhaps discard freedom of religion, freedom of speech, democracy, non-autocracy, human rights, and written constitutions. I'd be willing to engage in a debate about the morality of those ideas, if you'd be so inclined.

Furthermore, speaking out against them is a way of speaking out against the highest law of the land, and it is effectively a form of treason. As well as a great form of disrespect to your ancestors.

You seem to forget a large part of them weren't active theists.

[The Serbian Empire]

In God We Trust is far worse as we can't handle a coin without running into religion.

[The Union of the West]

1. It's a promotion of theism over atheism by the State, which is wrong. The State should stay out of religious matters.

2. Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights protects religious freedom.

[Cumalas]

It seems you took absolutely no care in addressing the issue with any intellect or respect. I might as well address you in the same manner.

If you are willing to discard their ideas, under the pretense that they are out dated, you should apply that consistently. We should also question and perhaps discard freedom of religion, freedom of speech, democracy, non-autocracy, human rights, and written constitutions. I'd be willing to engage in a debate about the morality of those ideas, if you'd be so inclined.

Furthermore, speaking out against them is a way of speaking out against the highest law of the land, and it is effectively a form of treason. As well as a great form of disrespect to your ancestors.

You seem to forget a large part of them weren't active theists.

Define "active theists" and then provide a citation. I know thomas jefferson was a pretty religious person, at least according to one biography I read of him.

[United States of Cascadia]

It seems you took absolutely no care in addressing the issue with any intellect or respect. I might as well address you in the same manner.

If you are willing to discard their ideas, under the pretense that they are out dated, you should apply that consistently. We should also question and perhaps discard freedom of religion, freedom of speech, democracy, non-autocracy, human rights, and written constitutions. I'd be willing to engage in a debate about the morality of those ideas, if you'd be so inclined.

Furthermore, speaking out against them is a way of speaking out against the highest law of the land, and it is effectively a form of treason. As well as a great form of disrespect to your ancestors.

Those were things the founding fathers encouraged. Speaking out against authority is what the declaration itself does, it's not treason, it's freedom of expression, opinion, and thought. To be honest, respect fro ancestors is a stupid idea to begin with, but respecting slave owners in particular? Don't get me wrong, many of the founding fathers are heroes to me, but I don't respect the owning of people as property.

The declaration of independence is a statement of justifications for abandoning the british government and is pivotal in american history. It does give a good picture of what the founders(or at least thomas jefferson) believed.

I never asserted that they were christians. I happen to think "deist" is an incoherent idea. I called them "non-religious theists". But to fully understand what they believed, you have to go read about natural rights and natural theology. I also think it doesn't matter if jefferson edited and made his own personal version of the bible, because it doesn't change the idea that he was a very religious man in his personal life(though he believed in a rather twisted idea of God).

Important to US history doesn't mean anything in US law though.

Deists were not very religious though, by there very nature, they don't think the creator did anything beyond the initial creation, an as such don't do much in the way of worship. Jefferson's Bible did not include a single instance of God, it was a short book about good works, that was it, and his personal life was devoted to doing good deeds.

[The Union of the West]

You seem to forget a large part of them weren't active theists.

Define "active theists" and then provide a citation. I know thomas jefferson was a pretty religious person, at least according to one biography I read of him.

Thomas Jefferson was a deist, not a theist.

[Roski]

You seem to forget a large part of them weren't active theists.

Define "active theists" and then provide a citation. I know thomas jefferson was a pretty religious person, at least according to one biography I read of him.

1: Active Thiests are active theists. If you need that defined then you may need to jump off NSG and read a dictionary.
2: http://www.alternet.org/story/153727/5_founding_fathers_whose_skepticism_about_christianity_would_make_them_unelectable_today. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002564447

[United States of Natan]

The seperation of Church and state is a marvelous thing that was meant to actually protect Religion and religious freedom from being crushed by the Government, while at the same time ensuring Governmental neutrality on religion as a whole.

Having the phrase "God" on there is not the Government setting a official position on Religion. God is a very very broad term and can mean alot of things, however it is generally assosciated with Religion.

As long as Government isn't opressing religious freedom and it's stance doesn't favor any certain religion, seperation of Church and State has not been broken.

Your thoughts on this argument?

Nope. while its fine for Jews and Christians, who refer to Him as G-d, it violates separation of church and state, because not everyone worships Him or refers to Him as G-d. Therefore, it violates the constitution.

[The Union of the West]

The seperation of Church and state is a marvelous thing that was meant to actually protect Religion and religious freedom from being crushed by the Government, while at the same time ensuring Governmental neutrality on religion as a whole.

Having the phrase "God" on there is not the Government setting a official position on Religion. God is a very very broad term and can mean alot of things, however it is generally assosciated with Religion.

As long as Government isn't opressing religious freedom and it's stance doesn't favor any certain religion, seperation of Church and State has not been broken.

Your thoughts on this argument?

Nope. while its fine for Jews and Christians, who refer to Him as G-d, it violates separation of church and state, because not everyone worships Him or refers to Him as G-d. Therefore, it violates the constitution.

It violates religious freedom, a part of the first amendment in the bill of rights. The Constitution doesn't talk about Separation of Church and State. But you have the right idea.

[The Orson Empire]

America is a christian nation.

I really detest when people try to say this crap. America is not a Christian nation. This argument has been debunked so many times.

[Imperializt Russia]

they also owned humans as property, what's your point?

It seems you took absolutely no care in addressing the issue with any intellect or respect. I might as well address you in the same manner.

If you are willing to discard their ideas, under the pretense that they are out dated, you should apply that consistently. We should also question and perhaps discard freedom of religion, freedom of speech, democracy, non-autocracy, human rights, and written constitutions. I'd be willing to engage in a debate about the morality of those ideas, if you'd be so inclined.

Furthermore, speaking out against them is a way of speaking out against the highest law of the land, and it is effectively a form of treason. As well as a great form of disrespect to your ancestors.

None of this is really true.

[Cumalas]

Define "active theists" and then provide a citation. I know thomas jefferson was a pretty religious person, at least according to one biography I read of him.

Thomas Jefferson was a deist, not a theist.

There's no such thing as a deist.

[The Alma Mater]

In God We Trust is far worse as we can't handle a coin without running into religion.

Ironically, there are quite a few christians and jews who consider it blasphemy to have the word "God" present on money.

[The Orson Empire]

Thomas Jefferson was a deist, not a theist.

There's no such thing as a deist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Perhaps you should actually know what you are talking about before making this argument.