Question for Atheists

The pledge was doing just fine until someone (I believe it may have been Dwight Eisenhauer) decided we needed some religion in it. The same thing happened back in the 1800s when somebody got the notion that "In God We Trust" should be on our currency when a simple "Liberty" had been sufficient for so many years.

I have no problem with anyone practicing whatever they believe in. However, arbitrarily mandating it into our government seems just a little arrogant. At least we're a couple hundred years past when non-believers were hung and burned at the stake.
 
I think what the previous poster is saying is that "under god" was added after it was being said for 50 years because a special interest wanted it.

It may be the same as how would you feel if it said "under allah" instead of "under god"?

thanks, yeah, i understood the reference (eisenhower).

my point is that if a word has no meaning to a person, it cannot have an effect on that person (in this case, unless you went to church as a kid and had some horrible experiences there i guess). to be bothered by something...to have a visceral response to it...there has to be something else besides the mere letters in the words and the sound they make when you speak them. i cannot imagine expecting my feelings about it to supercede those to whom god means absolutely everything.

your question about allah: if i were living in an arab country and believed in allah, saying "under allah" would have some significance to me; i'd feel humbled and devoted, and possibly sometimes guilty. if i were a citizen of that country and didn't believe in allah, i could say it as easily as if i were saying "cereal", but it would have less meaning to me than "cold breakfast"; it would only be a concept that other people believe in.
 
The pledge was doing just fine until someone (I believe it may have been Dwight Eisenhauer) decided we needed some religion in it. The same thing happened back in the 1800s when somebody got the notion that "In God We Trust" should be on our currency when a simple "Liberty" had been sufficient for so many years.

I have no problem with anyone practicing whatever they believe in. However, arbitrarily mandating it into our government seems just a little arrogant. At least we're a couple hundred years past when non-believers were hung and burned at the stake.

Addition of the words "under God"
The Knights of Columbus in New York City felt that the pledge was incomplete without any reference to a deity.[4] Appealing to the authority of Abraham Lincoln, the Knights felt that the words "under God" which were from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address were most appropriate to add to the Pledge.[citation needed] In New York City on April 22, 1951, the Board of Directors of the Knights of Columbus adopted a resolution to amend their recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at the opening of each of the meetings of the 800 Fourth Degree Assemblies of the Knights of Columbus by addition of the words "under God" after the words "one nation." In the following two years, the idea spread throughout Knights of Columbus organizations nationwide. On August 21, 1952, the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus at its annual meeting adopted a resolution urging that the change be made universal and copies of this resolution were sent to the President, the Vice President (as Presiding Officer of the Senate) and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The National Fraternal Congress meeting in Boston on September 24, 1952, adopted a similar resolution upon the recommendation of its President, Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart. Several State Fraternal Congresses acted likewise almost immediately thereafter. This campaign led to several official attempts to prompt Congress to adopt the Knights of Columbus’ policy for the entire nation. These attempts failed.

The Knights of Columbus tried repeatedly, but they were unsuccessful in their attempts to persuade the United States government to amend the pledge. Bills were introduced as early as 1953, when Representative Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan sponsored a resolution at the suggestion of a correspondent. It was a Presbyterian minister who made the difference in 1954 by preaching a sermon about Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. The minister was George MacPherson Docherty, a native of Scotland who was called to succeed Peter Marshall as pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church near the White House, where, in 1863, the same year as the address, Lincoln attended and even rented a pew. After Lincoln’s death, the pew that he rented became something of a national monument. It became customary for later United States presidents to attend services at the church and sit in the Lincoln pew on the Sunday closest to Lincoln’s birthday (February 12) each year.

As Lincoln Sunday (February 7, 1954) approached, Rev. Docherty knew not only that President Dwight Eisenhower was to be in attendance, but that it was more than just an annual ritual for him. While raised a Jehovah's Witness, Eisenhower had been baptized a Presbyterian just a year earlier. Docherty's sermon focused on the Gettysburg Address, drawing its title from the address, "A New Birth of Freedom."

Docherty’s message began with a comparison of the United States to ancient Sparta. Docherty noted that a traveler to ancient Sparta was amazed by the fact that the Spartans’ national might was not to be found in their walls, their shields, or their weapons, but in their spirit. Likewise, said Docherty, the might of the United States should not be thought of as emanating from their newly developed atomic weapons, but in their spirit, the "American way of life". In the remainder of the sermon Docherty sought to define as succinctly as possible the essence of the American spirit and way of life. To do so, Docherty appealed to those two words in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. According to Docherty, what has made the United States both unique and strong was her sense of being the nation that Lincoln described: a nation "under God." Docherty took the opportunity to tell a story of a conversation with his children about the Pledge of Allegiance. Docherty was troubled by the fact that it did not include any reference to the deity. Without such reference, Docherty insisted that the Pledge could apply to just about any nation. He felt that the pledge should reflect the American spirit and way of life as defined by Lincoln.

After the service concluded, Docherty had opportunity to converse with Eisenhower about the substance of the sermon. The President expressed his enthusiastic concurrence with Docherty’s view, and the very next day, Eisenhower had the wheels turning in Congress to incorporate Docherty’s suggestion into law. On February 8, 1954, Rep. Charles Oakman (R-Mich.), introduced a bill to that effect. On Lincoln’s birthday, four days later, Oakman made the following speech on the floor of the House:


Rev. Dr. George MacPherson Docherty (left) and President Eisenhower (second from left) on the morning of February 7, 1954 at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church; the morning Eisenhower was convinced that the pledge needed to be amendedLast Sunday, the President of the United States and his family occupied the pew where Abraham Lincoln worshipped. The pastor, the Reverend George M. Docherty, suggested the change in our Pledge of Allegiance that I have offered [as a bill]. Dr. Docherty delivered a wise sermon. He said that as a native of Scotland come to these shores he could appreciate the pledge as something more than a hollow verse taught to children for memory. I would like to quote from his words. He 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.' Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Docherty hit the nail square on the head.
Senator Homer Ferguson, in his report to the Congress on March 10, 1954, said, "The introduction of this joint resolution was suggested to me by a sermon given recently by the Rev. George M. Docherty, of Washington, D.C., who is pastor of the church at which Lincoln worshipped." This time Congress concurred with the Oakman-Ferguson resolution, and Eisenhower opted to sign the bill into law on Flag Day (June 14, 1954). The fact that Eisenhower clearly had Docherty’s rationale in mind as he initiated and consummated this measure is apparent in a letter he wrote in August, 1954. Paraphrasing Docherty’s sermon, Eisenhower said

These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.
Docherty’s sermon was published by Harper & Bros. in New York in 1958 and President Eisenhower took the opportunity to write to Dr. Docherty with gratitude for the opportunity to once again read the sermon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_allegience#Addition_of_the_words_.22under_God.22
 
thanks, yeah, i understood the reference (eisenhower).

my point is that if a word has no meaning to a person, it cannot have an effect on that person (in this case, unless you went to church as a kid and had some horrible experiences there i guess). to be bothered by something...to have a visceral response to it...there has to be something else besides the mere letters in the words and the sound they make when you speak them. i cannot imagine expecting my feelings about it to supercede those to whom god means absolutely everything.

your question about allah: if i were living in an arab country and believed in allah, saying "under allah" would have some significance to me; i'd feel humbled and devoted, and possibly sometimes guilty. if i were a citizen of that country and didn't believe in allah, i could say it as easily as if i were saying "cereal", but it would have less meaning to me than "cold breakfast"; it would only be a concept that other people believe in.

It seems like you are privileging other people's (i.e. Christians, Jews, Muslims) religious-regarding beliefs above yours (and also above many other religious people, since I don't think talk of "God" does not really represent the religious beliefs of Unitarian Universalists, Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. very well.) I don't get that. I think all religious belief systems should be treated on par--all should be treated equally. There should be no contests about which group of people care the most or believe strongest.

Given that, I don't see why the government should favor some people by integrating their religious beliefs into government events/pledges/money etc. while ignoring the religious-related beliefs of others. What possible message could that send to anyone who is not a monotheist other than "your beliefs are not good enough"?

So I don't think most atheists (or people of other religions) who object to "under God" being in the pledge object because it somehow is inherently painful to hear the words. (Nor do I think there would be anything necessarily painful about monotheists having to hear the words "there is no higher being.") Rather, I think the objection is that the govt is favoring some beliefs over others and thus sending a message that some religions (or people) are better or more worthy of respect than others. That's what is painful--that some people are essentially being given the message that you don't count. (To me it's kind of like if the pledge said "one nation under the Democratic party" or "one nation of straight people" or "one nation of white people" or "one nation of abortion supporters." Not only are these claims outright lies, but it seems to me that it is completely disrespectful for the govt to purposely exclude groups of people in this way.)
 

It seems like you are privileging other people's (i.e. Christians, Jews, Muslims) religious-regarding beliefs above yours (and also above many other religious people, since I don't think talk of "God" does not really represent the religious beliefs of Unitarian Universalists, Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. very well.) I don't get that. I think all religious belief systems should be treated on par--all should be treated equally. There should be no contests about which group of people care the most or believe strongest.

Given that, I don't see why the government should favor some people by integrating their religious beliefs into government events/pledges/money etc. while ignoring the religious-related beliefs of others. What possible message could that send to anyone who is not a monotheist other than "your beliefs are not good enough"?

So I don't think most atheists (or people of other religions) who object to "under God" being in the pledge object because it somehow is inherently painful to hear the words. (Nor do I think there would be anything necessarily painful about monotheists having to hear the words "there is no higher being.") Rather, I think the objection is that the govt is favoring some beliefs over others and thus sending a message that some religions (or people) are better or more worthy of respect than others. That's what is painful--that some people are essentially being given the message that you don't count. (To me it's kind of like if the pledge said "one nation under the Democratic party" or "one nation of straight people" or "one nation of white people" or "one nation of abortion supporters." Not only are these claims outright lies, but it seems to me that it is completely disrespectful for the govt to purposely exclude groups of people in this way.)

Exactly!
 
It seems like you are privileging other people's (i.e. Christians, Jews, Muslims) religious-regarding beliefs above yours (and also above many other religious people, since I don't think talk of "God" does not really represent the religious beliefs of Unitarian Universalists, Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. very well.

lemme try again. i am not puting others' religious beliefs above mine, because i do not have religious beliefs. simple as that.
they like something, and that something means nothing to me (as in it does not exist), so why would a nothing bother me?

there has been discussion about this before, but i DO believe that when THIS country was founded, that it was founded on christian foundations. (read the documents.) even in the 50s when eisenhower completed the effort to have "under god" added to the pledge, i suspect the majority of u.s. citizens were christians and jews. other religions were somewhat quieted; i suspect that is because they recognized the majority's belief in god. there isn't a law against making the pledge one's own.

as for wicken, muslim, whatev....again i say that if you are a u.s. citizen, you SHOULD pledge your allegience to this country...i don't give a good gosh darn what word you choose to say, if any, where others might be saying "under god".

as for the expression to be painful...i think people who claim somebody else's rights (probably the majority of people) to be painful are full of themselves. they need to get over it. if no one belief is more important than the other, and people's belief in and mention of god causes somebody to feel a lesser person, that's their issue to work out with their therapist.
 
lemme try again. i am not puting others' religious beliefs above mine, because i do not have religious beliefs. simple as that.
they like something, and that something means nothing to me (as in it does not exist), so why would a nothing bother me?

there has been discussion about this before, but i DO believe that when THIS country was founded, that it was founded on christian foundations. (read the documents.) even in the 50s when eisenhower completed the effort to have "under god" added to the pledge, i suspect the majority of u.s. citizens were christians and jews. other religions were somewhat quieted; i suspect that is because they recognized the majority's belief in god.

as for wicken, muslim, whatev....again i say that if you are a u.s. citizen, you SHOULD pledge your allegience to this country...i don't give a good gosh darn what word you choose to say, if any, where others might be saying "under god".

as for the expression to be painful...i think you're full of yourself. get over it. if no one belief is more important than the other, and people's belief in and mention of god causes you to feel a lesser person, that's your issue to work out with your therapist.

You sure did make this personal.
Why? :confused:
 
Maybe you should take your own advice that you give to atheists 'n chill a li'l. :flower3:

i AM an atheist. perhaps those who think their atheism doesn't make them important enough to be noticed need the chill.

and a flower for you too.:hippie:
 
lemme try again. i am not puting others' religious beliefs above mine, because i do not have religious beliefs. simple as that.
they like something, and that something means nothing to me (as in it does not exist), so why would a nothing bother me?

there has been discussion about this before, but i DO believe that when THIS country was founded, that it was founded on christian foundations. (read the documents.) even in the 50s when eisenhower completed the effort to have "under god" added to the pledge, i suspect the majority of u.s. citizens were christians and jews. other religions were somewhat quieted; i suspect that is because they recognized the majority's belief in god. there isn't a law against making the pledge one's own.

as for wicken, muslim, whatev....again i say that if you are a u.s. citizen, you SHOULD pledge your allegience to this country...i don't give a good gosh darn what word you choose to say, if any, where others might be saying "under god".

as for the expression to be painful...i think people who claim somebody else's rights (probably the majority of people) to be painful are full of themselves. they need to get over it. if no one belief is more important than the other, and people's belief in and mention of god causes somebody to feel a lesser person, that's their issue to work out with their therapist.

So essentially Wiccans, Hindus, atheists etc should just shut the hell up. They don't deserve any respect. (Same with blacks, gays, pro-lifers I take it. Majority rules after all. Nothing wrong with having a pledge that says "a nation of white people" I guess since your logic of "majority rules" would having nothing to say against that.)

Thanks for the advice that I should go therapy though. I already do actually. Funny, I think my therapist would completely agree with me that it is disrespectful of minority religious beliefs to have a *government* pledge. I guess she should probably have her license revoked because she doesn't agree with you. Where'd you get your PhD in psychology again? :rolleyes:
 
So essentially Wiccans, Hindus, atheists etc should just shut the hell up. They don't deserve any respect. (Same with blacks, gays, pro-lifers I take it. Majority rules after all. Nothing wrong with having a pledge that says "a nation of white people" I guess since your logic of "majority rules" would having nothing to say against that.)

Thanks for the advice that I should go therapy though. I already do actually. Funny, I think my therapist would completely agree with me that it is disrespectful of minority religious beliefs to have a *government* pledge. I guess she should probably have her license revoked because she doesn't agree with you. Where'd you get your PhD in psychology again? :rolleyes:

man alive! who said that?!?!? what i SAID was that people SHOULD replace "under god" with whatever suits them. it would be a very long pledge if we officially added everybody's belief system to the words. instead, people can change it to suit their own beliefs. why not?

however, my original point was that words with no meaning cannot invoke a visceral response...to do that, there is something else going on.

no need for over-the-top reactions. i find it is best to read the actual words rather than reading things into them.
 
lemme try again. i am not puting others' religious beliefs above mine, because i do not have religious beliefs. simple as that.
they like something, and that something means nothing to me (as in it does not exist), so why would a nothing bother me?

there has been discussion about this before, but i DO believe that when THIS country was founded, that it was founded on christian foundations. (read the documents.) even in the 50s when eisenhower completed the effort to have "under god" added to the pledge, i suspect the majority of u.s. citizens were christians and jews. other religions were somewhat quieted; i suspect that is because they recognized the majority's belief in god. there isn't a law against making the pledge one's own.

as for wicken, muslim, whatev....again i say that if you are a u.s. citizen, you SHOULD pledge your allegience to this country...i don't give a good gosh darn what word you choose to say, if any, where others might be saying "under god".

as for the expression to be painful...i think people who claim somebody else's rights (probably the majority of people) to be painful are full of themselves. they need to get over it. if no one belief is more important than the other, and people's belief in and mention of god causes somebody to feel a lesser person, that's their issue to work out with their therapist.

Or were afraid of being burned at the stake......:rolleyes1
 
Or were afraid of being burned at the stake......:rolleyes1

yeah, well, there was a time, right?:scared1: :scared1: :scared1: but i think with some of the other stuff going on at the time (mccarthyism, etc.), people kept their beliefs somewhat quiet. the war had just ended, and that may have had something to do with it too...it was a pretty scary time, by all accounts.

my final word: the word/name "god" doesn't bother me. i don't care which god it is or in whose religion, it doesn't bug me. people have the right to their beliefs. i don't mind saying "god" or "under god" any more than i mind saying "over the rainbow". they are words to me.
 
Just one more thought on the subject...

There seems to be an attitude that atheism is some new and we are but few in numbers. I suggest that there have always been a fair number of atheists in our country. For many years, many, many years, atheists and agnostics were, well, for lack of a better word, persecuted by religions believing in God, especially Christians. Many who were on the fence about their beliefs simply found it easier to at least pretend to believe. That still exists today. The fact is that we are growing in numbers and getting just a little tired of being put down.

We are not the devil. We are not satan. We are not witches and warlocks. We do not worship anything evil, or anything at all. The best way I can put it is that we are rather ordinary, free-thinking people who simply don't buy into the concept of worship of any god, or multiple gods, or anything. Except for the one about worshiping only one god (the one you are specifically told to worship) the rest of the ever-popular "Ten Commandments" are basic common sense. "Thou shalll not kill." Well, duh... I guess the religions forgot about that one when they slaughtered so many non-believers.

Most of all, we are not organized and have no plans to convert anyone to our beliefs. If you are happy saying things like "under God," "God bless America," "In God we trust," by all means, say it. Just don't mandate it it for the whole country because we atheists are good Americans, too! Forcing your beliefs on others is not what freedom is about.
 
Just one more thought on the subject...

There seems to be an attitude that atheism is some new and we are but few in numbers. I suggest that there have always been a fair number of atheists in our country. For many years, many, many years, atheists and agnostics were, well, for lack of a better word, persecuted by religions believing in God, especially Christians. Many who were on the fence about their beliefs simply found it easier to at least pretend to believe. That still exists today. The fact is that we are growing in numbers and getting just a little tired of being put down.

We are not the devil. We are not satan. We are not witches and warlocks. We do not worship anything evil, or anything at all. The best way I can put it is that we are rather ordinary, free-thinking people who simply don't buy into the concept of worship of any god, or multiple gods, or anything. Except for the one about worshiping only one god (the one you are specifically told to worship) the rest of the ever-popular "Ten Commandments" are basic common sense. "Thou shalll not kill." Well, duh... I guess the religions forgot about that one when they slaughtered so many non-believers.

Most of all, we are not organized and have no plans to convert anyone to our beliefs. If you are happy saying things like "under God," "God bless America," "In God we trust," by all means, say it. Just don't mandate it it for the whole country because we atheists are good Americans, too! Forcing your beliefs on others is not what freedom is about.

as a nearly lifelong atheist, i agree completely with everything you said. i think if people don't want to say those things, they should not say them, they should never feel forced to say them, or they can replace the words with something else. i can't change our money, but again, the words don't bother me but they do make some people very happy, and i'm okay with that. same for all the other "god" stuff.

(i keep trying to figure out where you are in your picture...is that you? is it at a disney park?)
 
i would appreciate it if you'd stop being accusatory and inflating what i've written to suit your particular political issues. that isn't what this thread started out to be.

I'm sorry, what you said was:

as for the expression to be painful...i think people who claim somebody else's rights (probably the majority of people) to be painful are full of themselves. they need to get over it. if no one belief is more important than the other, and people's belief in and mention of god causes somebody to feel a lesser person, that's their issue to work out with their therapist.

I can see only two ways to interpret this:

1) you're saying that people who feel bad or get offended merely because they know (or hear) that other individuals believe in God have a problem for which they need professional help

2) as implying that *I* or people who share the view I put forth a few posts back (a very significant number of non-religious people in my experience) that it is disrespectful/offensive for the government to take up the beliefs (religious or otherwise) of one particular group of people (and ignore the beliefs of others) and put them into a government pledge/event/document because it sends the message that some beliefs are more valuable than others have a problem for which they need professional help.

I assumed you weren't saying (1) since that would be a complete non-sequitor. No one on this thread ever said that it is painful to have to hear that others believe in God. I explicitly denied that in the post you were responding to in fact.

Since (1) would be a tangent that had nothing to do with the topic at issue, I assumed you meant (2). I could be wrong. Perhaps there another way to interpret what you were saying. Maybe you could clarify.

Who exactly are you saying has a psychological problem and is in need of professional psychological help?

(Personally I haven't seen anyone on this thread who seemed to be in need of therapy because of their view about religion or "under God" or any of it. Hence my confusion.)
 
my final word: the word/name "god" doesn't bother me. i don't care which god it is or in whose religion, it doesn't bug me. people have the right to their beliefs. i don't mind saying "god" or "under god" any more than i mind saying "over the rainbow". they are words to me.

See I can completely respect this view even though I disagree. I have no need to tell you that you belong in therapy because I disagree with you. THAT is what I took issue with in your earlier post.

Some atheists (Wiccans, Unitarian Universalists, etc.) feel the way you do. Many of them (in fact, pretty much every single one I know) disagree with you and find it disrespectful that the govt has written a pledge that explicitly endorses some religions and ignores others.

None of us have a psychological problem.
 
as a nearly lifelong atheist, i agree completely with everything you said. i think if people don't want to say those things, they should not say them, they should never feel forced to say them, or they can replace the words with something else. i can't change our money, but again, the words don't bother me but they do make some people very happy, and i'm okay with that. same for all the other "god" stuff.

(i keep trying to figure out where you are in your picture...is that you? is it at a disney park?)


That is me and it was taken in Epcot near the Imagination pavilion. The concert band I play with did a concert there a few years ago and our buses were parked behind Imagination. We were required to leave the park, change, and then come back through the main gate.
 
[/B]

That is me and it was taken in Epcot near the Imagination pavilion. The concert band I play with did a concert there a few years ago and our buses were parked behind Imagination. We were required to leave the park, change, and then come back through the main gate.

NOW i see the pyramid!!! that is soooo neat that you performed there.
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom