"Under God" and "In God We Trust"

I am against gambling. We fought a horse race track in Indianapolis only to have it located in another county. The state by entering into the lottery had conspired to defraud the weak-minded.

 

Might not help but certainly won't hurt.

 

C4K,

Your citation of the religious test clause is a separate debate. Remember the rest of that clause which is

shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The two items in the OP have nothing to do with a requirement of public office. That there is no religious test was not a mandate that religion or a belief in God be stripped from the public square. It was a further protection against an established religion. Our history is very clear with what an "established religion" was in the sanctions attached to worship and belief which the Founders opposed.


Also, please clarify the typo in your OP:

I would note that "In God We Trust" was made our motto, there is no mandate or sanction attached to that motto.


Why is it only in the last 100 years or so that anyone saw the need for these things?

One thought is that someone saw the need, and that it was seen as a need because our nation had slipped its moors stated repeatedly by our Founders.


I do somewhat disagree with Aaron's statement that

An acknowledgement of a Supreme Being is not a religious test. when the Constitution was ratified 11 of the 13 states required an acknowledgement of God, and many states do today, of their officials.

Though he wasn't talking about public officials, Jefferson wrote

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

The same Jefferson, however, asked in the same work (Notes on the State of Virginia) [C]an the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?

Aaron is not entirely correct, either in his statement that

An acknowledgement of a Supreme Being is not a religious test. When the Constitution was ratified 11 of the 13 states required an acknowledgement of God.

It was not simply "an acknowledgement of God" that the states required. The Pennsylvania Constitution required that

North Carolina, Georgia, and South Carolina, denied public office to Catholics. Some states, such as New Hampshire, New York, and Massachusetts rejected such a limitation. I believe that Massachusetts required only that officeholders "believe the Christian religion".
It should stand as a contrast that the U.S. Constitution prohibited any requirement of religious belief.


C4K,

Adding those two phrases in 1954 and 1956 certainly has not done much to keep us on the right track. Do you really thinking keeping them is somehow going to get us back on track?

I believe there is certainly some value in helping us to "keep our eyes on the prize", though. They confirm the value of such belief, in the face of repeated assaults on such public expressions by the Supreme Court, expressions which are not an establishment of religion. What is a shame is that when "under God" was added it was done so in response to the Communist bloc's denial of Him, but that now the primary opponent of such expressions is our own Supreme Court. Stripping those items from public expression would serve to validate the Supreme Court's consistent efforts to secularize the public square.

 

C4K,

No problem, but actually I'm glad that it was discussed as several others thought it relevant. IMO, it is not especially relevant.


BiR,

In response to your question from the thread C4K noted, BEAUTIFUL weekend here.

Re your question, from the previous thread noted,

I have never understood why the words "under God" were inserted into the pledge in the '50's. My Dad told me he remembered when those words were not in the pledge. I know when and how it happened, I simply do not understand why it happened. How did that change anything? Does anyone think that things got better in this country after the words were inserted into the pledge?

That being said, why do you feel the need for these words to be added into the pledge? Why do you feel the way you feel?


As to why those words were added to the Pledge, I think the history is that it was as a response to Communist systems, as a public declaration that our system DOES rest on God, not a denial of Him. But I don't think that whether it changed anything or made anything better is a fair test for a simple declaration. The words were meant as an affirmation of an historical truth, not as a statutory correction or "fix" of a problem.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure when my next trip that way will be. Without boring you and others as to the details, some of us will still be having Reserve drills but am uncertain whether we will drill in Norfolk in October. If we do, it will be 8/9 October. For now, we are planning on being there 19/20 November. I flew up for the September drill and so was not in the Richmond area.

 

C4K/BiR,

I would use a quote earlier given, not just in answer to points raised by Aaron re the "no religious test" clause, but re the Pledge, from Thomas Jefferson:

[C]an the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?

The context of this statement in his discussion of slavery, rather than detracting from its relevance, in fact heightens it in its implicit argument also in behalf of equality before the law and natural law/rights. The Pledge is a continual reminder, to enhance that "conviction in the minds of the people" of the standards this country has set for itself and ultimately the source of those standards.

 

c4k is a Bible still involved when the president takes his oath?

 

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States.

 

since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

 

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.

 

http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/washington/inaugural.html

point is we keep taking our real history awayy from the kids. the pledge is part of it too.

 

but the change happened....then it becomes history.

 

and that history involves things of GOd. you did catch what I posted about what Ike said when the change was made.

 

http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

 

constitutions such as Delaware's -- which in 1776 required officeholders to "profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son."

 

so I guess using that reasoning we can say God started it by putting that tree there.