Yeah, but Dude is wrong. It was added to show our commitment to Christian ideals and our opposition to Communism. One of the tenets of Communism is non-recognition of religion, and Marx called religion "the opiate of the masses," to get the quote right.
For this reason, the words are outdated and ridiculous when viewed through a modern lens. Seperation of church and state means precisely that the state cannot enmesh itself with religion, which is freedom from religion. The state should not involve itself with religion, and religion should not involve itself with the state. In America, people are in fact free from religion if they want to be.
2007-12-03 08:53:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by fredo 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
To add to what the other posters said, there's one VERY important factor about the First Amendment ban on "an establishment of religion" that is almost always ignored,
When it was written, the Bill of Rights restricted only the *Federal* Government, NOT the State Governments. What the founders were opposed to was giving the Federal Government the power to impose an established religion on the individual States. The reason for that was that, at the time the BoR was passed, MOST of the States *had* an established religion.
The founders had NO objection to an established "State Religion" - most of them came from States that had exactly that - they just didn't want the central power of Washington telling them to change it.
It wasn't until the passage of the 14th Amendment that the US Constitution was held to protect citizens of a State from actions by their own State government. Until then, the 1st Amendment prohibited the FEDS for establishing an official "American" religion - but it was no bar at all to there being an official Massachusetts religion, or an official Virginia religion, or an official Pennsylvania religion - and there were, in fact, official religions in all those States.
It wasn't until the 20th century that the last of the rules requiring that legislators in many states be Christians were struck from the books under a 14th amendment application of the 1st amendment.
Richard
2007-12-03 09:38:29
·
answer #2
·
answered by rickinnocal 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
.
Although Fredo got it mostly right, he goes a little bit astray when he talks about the meaning of the separation of church and state. You can look it up. The constitution is written such that the government shall not "establish" a religion. In other words, we did not want to live under the tyrrany of a state-run religion, like many of the wild-eyed fanatics that are currently attacking us. Not to mention the Church of England, with the king or queen as its head, which many of our forebears escaped.
When I look around me at people fighting over things like the "under God," or a Manger Scene being put up in a public place, I fail to see how that qualifies as the "establishment" of a religion. Christianity, the basis of Christmas, was established long ago, not by a local town council putting a plastic Jesus on the lawn of its municipal building.
Similarly, having "Under God" in the pledge doesn't establish a religion either. It reflects the values of the founders of our country, all of whom were religious people. No one is required to worship in any particular religion, nor to worship at all if that is their choice. If nothing else, the "under God" makes a nice historical artifact to show the mind-set of the founders of this country. There are lots and lots of examples of ways in which religion is enmeshed in public life. We start each Congressional session with a prayer, for example. This addition to the Pledge has been around since '54. That's over 50 years. It hasn't killed anyone yet. Must we totally eradicate all mention of a deity from public life? No.
Merry Christmas!
.
2007-12-03 09:11:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by Musicality 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
The Pledge of Allegiance was created by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, in 1892. It originally read:
'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'
*The "to" was added in October of 1892.
"Under God" was added in 1954 by Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus. According to Bellamy's granddaughter, he would have resented this change.
2007-12-03 09:21:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by Sturm und Drang 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
It was done during the Cold War to show that we are not a Communist nation. One of the tenants of Communism is "no religion." Marx called religion the "Opium of the people." For this reason, and many others, I fully support and am proud to have "Under God" in our pledge. Separation of Church and State means freedom OF religion, not FROM religion.
Fredo....What? You said I am wrong and then corrected me with the exact information that I said. Did you even read what I wrote?
2007-12-03 08:50:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by Dude 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
Separation of Church and State does not imply a total denial of a Deity. It does imply that the two shall not wield influence on the other . . .
2007-12-03 08:50:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by CHARITY G 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think it's simpy a matter of the pledge having been made years and years ago when the word "god" was still "pc" and acceptable to use.
But i agree with you, it should be taken out, as the bible should be taken out of court cases (in that we shouldn't be swearing on it), and our money shouldn't say "in god we trust".
2007-12-03 09:56:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Wow, I didn't realize that seperation of church and state was written in after the fact... thanks.
Amazing how things have gotten twisted over the years.
2007-12-03 08:53:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by Rita 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
separation of church and state - is also a write in, look it up.
2007-12-03 08:51:00
·
answer #9
·
answered by jasonzbtzl 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Because we are under GOD so to speak.ya dig ?
2007-12-03 08:56:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋