Obama Orders Phrase ‘Under God’ to be Banned on all Government Property

[Unveiled Artist]

Obama Orders Phrase ‘Under God’ to be Banned on all Government Property

Really????
Freedom of religion? What did our founding fathers want?
Why did the pilgrims come to this land?
Freedom from religious persecution. NOT freedom from God.

The issue is, there are so many cultures in America that to deprive us of our religious freedom whether it's written or not is, well, wrong. We'd be doing just like some Muslim countries do and going back to the days where protestants and the Church killed (take a step up from picketing on the side of our streets and shutting down businesses). Every time any person says "this should be a Christian nation" I cringe. That phrase just deprive hundreds of us who should be entitled to religious freedom.

What would America be like without religious freedom? Our morals about marriage would oppress many people who should have, in their own privacy without government and other religious intervention, the rights to get married. Our morals about government would change (well, hopefully for the better; but, history never portrayed that unfortunately). People who do not believe in god would be slaves to those who do and even more so, watching people who believe in their god(s) fight over each other since not everyone believes in one god.

Yes, it would have been nice to keep tradition. Many Muslim countries let Americans come in their country but women have to dress in cultural garments or they would be arrested. Keeping "in god we trust", "so help me god", and god in the pledge of legience doesn't seem to cause trouble.

However, keeping god in the government suppresses many people who do not share in this foundation. It's somewhat forcing people to believe in god or acting in god-centered morals that they disagree in. Unless the forefathers where, well, mean, at their time period I don't feel that was their intention.

 

[Revoltingest]

Keeping "in god we trust", "so help me god", and god in the pledge of legience doesn't seem to cause trouble.

Try refusing to say the pledge in public school.
It caused this student some trouble.
Besides, the "under God" part is not traditional.
It was added in 1954.
True deference to tradition would have us return to the original pre-1954 pledge.

 

[columbus]

Bold type isn't mine but a quote from the article.
F.W.I.W.
Is the article true? Don't know. Read and reach your own conclusions.

The order is scheduled to go into effect in June and is one of many measures outlined by the White House to “ensure religious freedom after The President leaves office next year.”1
Posted by Fox Entertainment at 11:04 AM

So here we have solid evidence that two sources you trust will knowingly lie to you.
Yeah, I am drawing conclusions.

Tom

 

[HonestJoe]

I checked and snopes says it IS false.
So who does one believe on the internet?

Well this allegation is about an executive order and claims to quote from a White House press release. Given both executive orders and government press releases are all published on government websites as standard, it should be a simple task to link to them... if the allegation is true of course.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It was added in 1954.
True deference to tradition would have us return to the original pre-1954 pledge.

Seriously? Learn something new every day.

I know in elementary school, it's true, if we didn't stand up we'd get in trouble. We were looked at if we didn't say "under god" though. I don't know how everyone else felt on it since I was too young to know who or what god was at all. No one taught us the Pledge from a religious perspective. I guess we did it out of routine and respect for those who died for us rather than religious tradition and continuity.

 

[Revoltingest]

To anyone who might claim that having everyone (including heathens)
say "under God" is a minor matter, I offer this experiment....
For one week, change the pledge to say "under Allah".
Let's see if people will find this to be a deminimis imposition.

 

[Revoltingest]

Seriously?

You betcha!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

 

[columbus]

Seriously? Learn something new every day.

And that is only part of the story

The Pledge was originally written by a man named Bellamy. He published it in a magazine for youth, sort of aimed at Scouting aged people. This was in 1898, IIRC.
He intended it to be a unifying pledge. This was in a time when the USA was still suffering from bitter resentments over the Civil War. Bellamy specifically meant it to be recited by youngsters from ANY republic, there was no mention of the USA or god. He fought the hijacking of his work, when the U.S. government took it and inserted USA, arguing that restricting it violated the basic spirit of his intentions of inclusivity. But to no avail.
He was dead by the 50s, but I'm sure he rolled over in his grave when the McCarthyism people added "under God" . They were intentionally making it yet more divisive. They wanted to draw a line between "good people " and "godless commies ".

I despise the pledge because what it represents. It represents coopting a symbol of inclusivity and using it to lie.
Tom

 

[Sees]

To anyone who might claim that having everyone (including heathens)
say "under God" is a minor matter, I offer this experiment....
For one week, change the pledge to say "under Allah".
Let's see if people will find this to be a deminimis imposition.

I can actually imagine plenty of liberals celebrating that week.

God/Creator references don't really bother me if it is a vague mention here and there, not really a going to Church moment.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can actually imagine plenty of liberals celebrating that week.
God/Creator references don't really bother me if it is a vague mention here and there, not really a going to Church moment.

It can feel that way to us contrarians who refuse to utter the words.
Tis only de minimis to those who are having their way over others.

 

[YmirGF]

To anyone who might claim that having everyone (including heathens)
say "under God" is a minor matter, I offer this experiment....
For one week, change the pledge to say "under Allah".
Let's see if people will find this to be a deminimis imposition.

A fair point but also not really valid due the insertion of a non-English expression. To be a fair comparison entire phrases would have to be in Arabic.
It's sort of like mixing statistics, warping trends in the process.

 

[leibowde84]

Obama Orders Phrase ‘Under God’ to be Banned on all Government Property

Really????
Freedom of religion? What did our founding fathers want?
Why did the pilgrims come to this land?
Freedom from religious persecution. NOT freedom from God.

The Constitution's Establishment Clause demands that the Government not endorse any kind of religion. Imho, that should mean that religious beliefs, such as the belief in God or requests for God's support, are inappropriate when paid for with public dollars.

And, fyi, many of the founding fathers were Deists, and some were even atheists.

 

[YmirGF]

And, fyi, many of the founding fathers were Deists, and some were even atheists.

That the so-called "atheist" founding fathers went along with these inclusions is indicative that their atheism is only vaguely similar to atheism we have today.

 

[leibowde84]

Obama Orders Phrase ‘Under God’ to be Banned on all Government Property

Really????
Freedom of religion? What did our founding fathers want?
Why did the pilgrims come to this land?
Freedom from religious persecution. NOT freedom from God.

Why does it matter to you whether "under God" is kept on Government property if it might offend some American Taxpayers? Why not play it safe?

 

[Revoltingest]

A fair point but also not really valid due the insertion of a non-English expression. To be a fair comparison entire phrases would have to be in Arabic. It's sort of like mixing statistics, warping trends in the process.

English name for a god, eh?
How about "Satan"?
He has his worshipers too.
The point is that to say the country is "under" some greater authority, & to name that
authority, creates conflict for those who recognize a different one or none at all.
Believers in "God" will be sanguine about the controversy which befalls others cuz
they're happy with the status quo.
By introducing some discomfort, they'll better understand how the other half feels.

 

[leibowde84]

That the so-called "atheist" founding fathers went along with these inclusions is indicative that their atheism is only vaguely similar to atheism we have today.

But, many atheists today are not OK with it. So, it seems like a reasonable thing to do. I am not all that convinced that he is actually doing it though.

 

[YmirGF]

English name for a god, eh?
How about "Satan"?
He has his worshipers too.
The point is that to say the country is "under" some greater authority, & to name that
authority, creates conflict for those who recognize a different one or none at all.
Believers in "God" will be sanguine about the controversy which befalls others cuz
they're happy with the status quo.
By introducing some discomfort, they'll better understand how the other half feels.

I hear what you are saying, but this issue is really, really small potatoes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why does it matter to you whether "under God" is kept on Government property if it might offend some American Taxpayers? Why not play it safe?

I favor keeping it where it's carved in stone (or otherwise quite permanent) as an historical relic.
But ditch it elsewhere, eg, the Pledge Of Allegiance, swearing in court, oaths of office, money.

 

[Revoltingest]

I hear what you are saying, but this issue is really, really small potatoes.

That's why it's so important, you big silly!
If Xians had to suddenly pledge allegiance to a god they don't worship,
then they too would find the matter pitchfork & torchworthy.

 

[YmirGF]

But, many atheists today are not OK with it. So, it seems like a reasonable thing to do. I am not all that convinced that he is actually doing it though.

I don't believe he would bother either. It's too big a rat's nest, especially with the freight train of an oncoming election. Personally, this devout atheist doesn't give a rat's hindquarters about it. They are meaningless expressions from a bygone era. Big fricken deal. When we have cleaned up all the other messes we can revisit the topic.