One Nation Under God?

Not sure of what you question is, McTag, but as an agnostic, I resent the fact that our government deems it proper to place the motto "In God We Trust" on our money -- and the phrase "...one nation under God..." in the pledge of allegiance to our flag.

I do not in any way "trust" any of the gods currently being worshiped -- and I do not consider our country to be one "under" any of the gods currently being worshipped.

Right... didn't we just blow away a theocracy in Afghanistan recently. And there seem to be concerns that we may be setting up an eventual theocarcy in Iraq...

Oh, sorry... wrong god.

Thank Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury Solomon Chase for "In God We Trust" and right wing McCarthite fanatics for "One Nation under God". Religion gets unto this nations public life only during periods of extreme duress.

The "Founding Fathers" were mostly theists, but not the practitioners of organized religion--Washington, who was very active in the Truro vestry near his home, was nonetheless publicly one of the staunchest opponents of the introduction of dogma into the polity. This likely results from the "recent" events of the two English civil wars in the mid-1600's, and the terrible strife which arose in the colonies during the "Great Awakening" in the first half of the 18th century. Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Baptists all split into two opposing sects; the rift between the "Old Lights" and the "New Lights" among the Congregationalists was so strong that it was poisoning politics in Connecticutt more than a generation later at the time of the "Stamp Act Crisis." By the time the revolution had been won, almost all public men of a decent will and a good understanding were squarely in favor of the separation of church and state, and as we now understand that. Modern conservatives like to pretend that this is not true; they are either ignorant of or choose to pretend there was no force in the historical antecedants of the separation imposed in the First Amendment, and the steadfast opposition to sectarian influence on the part of the early leaders of our nation.

By the time Salmon Chase was Secretary of the Treasury, the old insidious influence of sectarian prejudice was already creeping in. Thomas Nast, celebrated in our history as the political cartoonist whose work exposed the abuses of Tamany Hall (as though those could not be seen without his aid) was virulently anti-catholic, and the most of his political cartoons deal with that subject. He opposed the orphanages supported by Tamany Hall by suggesting that Catholics were going to "pollute" the good Protestant youth of America with their anti-christian Papist doctrines. In one cartoon, "alligators" which are really Catholic bishops, their mitres transformed into the snapping jaws of reptiles, threaten the innocent youth cowering on the shore. Certainly Tamany Hall was corrupt--making it no different the political machines of all our cities at that time. That the Catholics provided orphanages at a time when Protestant denominations did not, nor did the State of New York, speaks better for them than do the hateful slanders of a bigot like Nast. Sadly, the history of our nation strongly suggests that sectarian influences will always threaten the plurality of our nation's political life--which has always been our strength.

I think "one nation under God" was in the Gettysburg Address.

My question, apart from "what do you think" is in the apparent determination of the founding fathers to disassociate the country from organised religion of any kind, and the current zeal of many to do just the opposite.

try explaining that to Bush/Ashcroft el al

That part about "one nation under god' in the Gettysburg address is not a certainty. I found this at the Library of Congress:

Religion has been the partner of politicians for so long that if anyone's looking for a reason to discredit it, they don't have to look far.

I'm wondering if anyone believes Washington, Adams and Jefferson were wrong, and Ashcroft and Bush are right.

Would the Founding Fathers approve of the current philosopies and direction of this administration, their successors?

So, is it a good idea to have separation of Church and State, or not?
We seem to be moving away from that idea. Should this be a concern?

I know it worries me when somebody tells me he knows what God wants him to do. Pretty soon he'll tell me, he knows what God wants me to do. I find this notion disquieting. Should these people be in charge of more than the Sunday morning collection?

McTag- I think that separation of church and state was one of the precepts that made our country great. As soon as a government attempts to superimpose the morality or precepts of a particular religion, freedom flies out the window.

I cannot think of a theocracy on this Earth where the people are free. A theocracy mandates that people adhere to the dictates of a particular religion. Once people are obliged to follow a particular religion, options are constricted.

Quick sidenote on Thomas Nash -- he also popularized the jolly fat dude in red that we think of as Santa, and while I was finding a cite for that, found out he was behind the Democratic donkey and Republican elephant, too:

http://newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/400-499/nb475.htm

On earth peace, goodwill towards men, Rosie the Riveter.

I'd doubt the Founding Fathers would approve of much of anything that has happened at the Federal level since the Civil War.

Washington would likely be appalled at the development of political parties.

Jefferson would decry the complacency of youth.

Adams would denounce the prostitution of legality.

John Dickenson would condemn the apathy and lack of participation of the "ordinary man," the "small holder."

Roger Sherman would be disgusted by the venality and criminality of the "mercantile" class.

Robert Morris would denounce the fiscal policies of the government and the accounting practices of corporations.


And . . .



John Rutledge and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney would be livid that a descendant of slaves were Secretary of State.


Feet of clay . . .

Lovely round-up, Set. Thanks!

Setanta, I take my hat off to you, Sir.

Power to your pen.

McT

this is funny
god is on our money, now money is our god. what?