Christian Nationalists keep saying America was founded as a Christian nation because apparently “We the People” was too inclusive and not enough like a church bulletin with a police budget. Qasim’s point is the whole ballgame: religious freedom only works when the state belongs to no religion. The minute one faith gets the crown, everyone else gets treated like a guest who overstayed. They are not defending Christianity. They are trying to turn the country into a members-only chapel with subpoenas.
I was in kindergarden when the phrase "under God" was added and I remember adults arguing about it.
As a researcher, I conducted a project on Jefferson's library, which contained books on the history of the rights of individuals and communities from ancient Greece on. One of the first books he owned was Paolo Sarpi's History of the Council of Trent, which refuted the notion that religious leaders (specifically the pope) have a right to dictate to civic leaders.
Before donating to Americans United, as for any charity, it is useful to read the report in Charity Navigator.
The words and the ideas in this piece are why I subscribe to both ‘Let’s Address This’ and ‘Americans United’. PS: the words “one nation under God” inserted into our current Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 discriminate against citizens of no faith.
The worst example of religion trying to control politics is the fight over abortion. If we indeed have freedom of religion then we all have the right to choose how we use our bodies.
I'm a bit of a word nerd so your point about the addition of "under god" in the pledge and how it split indivisible into two syllables really resonated.
Every molecule of my “spidey-sense” activated when I read Graham Platner had a Nazi tattoo, and even more as the allegations of sexual assault were repeatedly brought forward. He was a disastrous candidate from the start, and women knew this. You didn’t listen. Stop excusing white men for hateful behavior against women. It’s time for everyone who promoted and backed Platner to 1) apologize to their readers for not believing women 2)denounce him and demand he resign so the Dems can run a qualified candidate….start by looking at the progressive woman who ran against him.
"The pledge, as originally written in 1892, said: 'one nation, indivisible.' That is the founding sentiment. Everything added after is revision."
Thanks for clarifying all this! I was aware of the 1954 addition of "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance, but are you saying the part "with liberty & justice for all" was also a late addition? I like that part a lot, especially the "justice" part, which we've seen much too little of lately.
Qasim. American religion was not something the founding fathers could have envisioned it would turn into. I think, back then you were a country of 3 million not 300 plus million. Religions got invented to make sure the slave trade continued. Yes there were laws but most of them applied only to black men. The same crimes committed by the whites were not criminal acts back then. American slavery is what formed the religions, that is why they have so many and non of them adhere to the belief of equality for all men. I'll leave women out of this context for now because freedom never came for them until the last 15 to 20 years ago. Selling and trading of black people went on and now still does in the form of lower wages and not being allowed to get mortgages. In some cases as your prez liked to do, not even allowed to rent one of his properties! That philosophy continues. That you are brown and not black is just another variable. You are the "enemy" to these land owners and "Epstein class" individuals. He is deporting not white Scandinavians but only brown and black folk. Why do you think they use the technocrats "racial profiling?" Celebrating July 4th is a performance. Children are never taught their history. They are just taught that they wore the "white hats" and of course the bad guys wore the "black hats." America has so many religions to keep segregation alive and little dick has allowed them to crawl out from under their rocks and give it voice. They have no shame about how they feel because their prez has no shame either. Listen to a speech give by James Earl Jones in 1976. He tells it way better than I ever could. I would like all your subscribers to listen to it too if they want to see real change in America. Only then can they fix this and move on to be better people and a country to be respected for the first time.
I don't see the inclusion of "One Nation Under God" as a declaration of national religiosity. It is a refutation of state athieism, and that could rightly be seen as a weakening of secular resolve. But it can also be seen as consistant with The First Amendment and its promise that the states shall make no laws respecting religion.
One Nation Under God is a deist declaration. True, it does subsume the existence of God, but God is common to all the world's major religion and because the statement names no religion, it only endorces the exercise of one.
The Establishment Clause doesn't proscribe religion either, in fact the words enshrine the practice of any and all religions.
Even the author of the spirit of the American revolution, Thomas Paine, though he detested all religions, especially in the public sphere, believed in God, his God.
But that's all pretty clear and not the problem. The problem is that third of the country that understands none of that and instead is so convinced America is God's country and his representative Donald Trump's to command that they'll crawl, all over our Capitol like rats to prove it. And a good part of the other two thirds don't really get it either. We're in trouble here, please make your govt's stand up to our impunity, it is the source of our dangerous decline. You might not enjoy our fall.
whatever on your Buddhism, I shouldn't have said the whole world. how about the whole world of the founders? if that included Buddhism it couldn't have been to any significant degree. honestly, the absolutists around here are just infuriating
Anf, I'm sorry to sound mean. I'm not really, I'm a little out of my element with religiosity. It's beyond me and I think it should be for everyone (my acknowledgement of that in Buddhism) but it's just that we're trying to keep our founding document alive here, because everything else spells death. And your nitpicking my faulty but ardent try to connect on some kind of common ground hurt. I'll survive but please pardon the yelp!
name them then. they're not any of the 3 relevant to the time period. Ai could argue that the existence of God was subsumed by the whole country but I would be arguing against my favorite interpretation. You're petty substackers just have make mountains pit of molehill to satisfy your egos. I don't know about yours but in my country arguing for atheism gets you a tiny audience. if you can be reasonable and allow that religion is accommodated but not included in govt, people will listen. but stay on your high horse, just don't presume to tell me to stop doing what I wish to do. Whatever the hell a polite theist is
More than 50 years ago, when I had only been living in the U.S. for a few years, I found a columnist in a local paper where I lived named William Edelen. Amongst other things, he had studied religion and wrote on this subject. That was where I first learned that the U.S. was not founded on any religion and that “separation of church and state” meant that no religion was favored. Needless to say, the local biddies and pearl-clutchers got his columns banned, though he did keep on writing and giving talks.
He wrote several books on philosophy and religion, including Native American faiths, which, unfortunately, are not available as ebooks (my poor eyesight makes most books impossible to read) and the remaining paperback copies are quite rare and expensive. I found his obituary online—he was 93–but there was no date of death. Reading his columns back then was a very refreshing take on religions whose sole aim is absolute control over everyone.
Christian Nationalists keep saying America was founded as a Christian nation because apparently “We the People” was too inclusive and not enough like a church bulletin with a police budget. Qasim’s point is the whole ballgame: religious freedom only works when the state belongs to no religion. The minute one faith gets the crown, everyone else gets treated like a guest who overstayed. They are not defending Christianity. They are trying to turn the country into a members-only chapel with subpoenas.
How much love do you have for your country & freedom? Are you willing to step up & fight, starve, suffer, bleed, & die for it?
Serious question, are you an American, just a citizen, or a slave? Unite, speak up, arm yourselves to the teeth, show up & show out.
Are you free Americans or subject slaves?
Be brave, & fight!
Liberty is the American way.
Revolution is the solution.
I was in kindergarden when the phrase "under God" was added and I remember adults arguing about it.
As a researcher, I conducted a project on Jefferson's library, which contained books on the history of the rights of individuals and communities from ancient Greece on. One of the first books he owned was Paolo Sarpi's History of the Council of Trent, which refuted the notion that religious leaders (specifically the pope) have a right to dictate to civic leaders.
Before donating to Americans United, as for any charity, it is useful to read the report in Charity Navigator.
The words and the ideas in this piece are why I subscribe to both ‘Let’s Address This’ and ‘Americans United’. PS: the words “one nation under God” inserted into our current Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 discriminate against citizens of no faith.
Thank you, Zoe! Grateful for your support.
sure, kick us when we're down, we can take it - we're Americans and you're not! so there
The worst example of religion trying to control politics is the fight over abortion. If we indeed have freedom of religion then we all have the right to choose how we use our bodies.
I agree, like unless it's actually hurting tons of people, who cares? It's our bodies, we can do whatever we want with it.
I said I was and I said it was petty to emphasize that aspect, but good for you
I'm a bit of a word nerd so your point about the addition of "under god" in the pledge and how it split indivisible into two syllables really resonated.
Thank you! I love words, but I have to be careful. Every time I make a typo, the errorists win.
This is so clear. Thank you for getting the truth out there in pain, simple and memorable language.
My understanding is of the first 3 Presidents, 2 were not Christian, and the 3rd had little use for church.
Thank you for your clarity. A great history lesson!
Every molecule of my “spidey-sense” activated when I read Graham Platner had a Nazi tattoo, and even more as the allegations of sexual assault were repeatedly brought forward. He was a disastrous candidate from the start, and women knew this. You didn’t listen. Stop excusing white men for hateful behavior against women. It’s time for everyone who promoted and backed Platner to 1) apologize to their readers for not believing women 2)denounce him and demand he resign so the Dems can run a qualified candidate….start by looking at the progressive woman who ran against him.
Why did you post this here?
"The pledge, as originally written in 1892, said: 'one nation, indivisible.' That is the founding sentiment. Everything added after is revision."
Thanks for clarifying all this! I was aware of the 1954 addition of "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance, but are you saying the part "with liberty & justice for all" was also a late addition? I like that part a lot, especially the "justice" part, which we've seen much too little of lately.
Only "under God" was added. The rest, including "liberty and justice for all" is in the original.
Thanks for straightening that out!
Qasim. American religion was not something the founding fathers could have envisioned it would turn into. I think, back then you were a country of 3 million not 300 plus million. Religions got invented to make sure the slave trade continued. Yes there were laws but most of them applied only to black men. The same crimes committed by the whites were not criminal acts back then. American slavery is what formed the religions, that is why they have so many and non of them adhere to the belief of equality for all men. I'll leave women out of this context for now because freedom never came for them until the last 15 to 20 years ago. Selling and trading of black people went on and now still does in the form of lower wages and not being allowed to get mortgages. In some cases as your prez liked to do, not even allowed to rent one of his properties! That philosophy continues. That you are brown and not black is just another variable. You are the "enemy" to these land owners and "Epstein class" individuals. He is deporting not white Scandinavians but only brown and black folk. Why do you think they use the technocrats "racial profiling?" Celebrating July 4th is a performance. Children are never taught their history. They are just taught that they wore the "white hats" and of course the bad guys wore the "black hats." America has so many religions to keep segregation alive and little dick has allowed them to crawl out from under their rocks and give it voice. They have no shame about how they feel because their prez has no shame either. Listen to a speech give by James Earl Jones in 1976. He tells it way better than I ever could. I would like all your subscribers to listen to it too if they want to see real change in America. Only then can they fix this and move on to be better people and a country to be respected for the first time.
I don't see the inclusion of "One Nation Under God" as a declaration of national religiosity. It is a refutation of state athieism, and that could rightly be seen as a weakening of secular resolve. But it can also be seen as consistant with The First Amendment and its promise that the states shall make no laws respecting religion.
One Nation Under God is a deist declaration. True, it does subsume the existence of God, but God is common to all the world's major religion and because the statement names no religion, it only endorces the exercise of one.
The Establishment Clause doesn't proscribe religion either, in fact the words enshrine the practice of any and all religions.
Even the author of the spirit of the American revolution, Thomas Paine, though he detested all religions, especially in the public sphere, believed in God, his God.
But that's all pretty clear and not the problem. The problem is that third of the country that understands none of that and instead is so convinced America is God's country and his representative Donald Trump's to command that they'll crawl, all over our Capitol like rats to prove it. And a good part of the other two thirds don't really get it either. We're in trouble here, please make your govt's stand up to our impunity, it is the source of our dangerous decline. You might not enjoy our fall.
Buddhism has no commitments one way or the other about the existence of God. The subject simply doesn't come up, except to be dismissed.
whatever on your Buddhism, I shouldn't have said the whole world. how about the whole world of the founders? if that included Buddhism it couldn't have been to any significant degree. honestly, the absolutists around here are just infuriating
I can name three major world religions that do recognize a creator deity.
Stop with your 'polite theist' nonsense.
Anf, I'm sorry to sound mean. I'm not really, I'm a little out of my element with religiosity. It's beyond me and I think it should be for everyone (my acknowledgement of that in Buddhism) but it's just that we're trying to keep our founding document alive here, because everything else spells death. And your nitpicking my faulty but ardent try to connect on some kind of common ground hurt. I'll survive but please pardon the yelp!
name them then. they're not any of the 3 relevant to the time period. Ai could argue that the existence of God was subsumed by the whole country but I would be arguing against my favorite interpretation. You're petty substackers just have make mountains pit of molehill to satisfy your egos. I don't know about yours but in my country arguing for atheism gets you a tiny audience. if you can be reasonable and allow that religion is accommodated but not included in govt, people will listen. but stay on your high horse, just don't presume to tell me to stop doing what I wish to do. Whatever the hell a polite theist is
I'm not the person being pissy they got rightfully called out for misinformation.
You also don't get to move the goalposts. You presented your comment as encompassing the entire world, and were thus wrong.
But rather than admit that and continue the discussion, you choose to be petty and whine.
I admitted it and I said you were being petty and pissy too I guess
More than 50 years ago, when I had only been living in the U.S. for a few years, I found a columnist in a local paper where I lived named William Edelen. Amongst other things, he had studied religion and wrote on this subject. That was where I first learned that the U.S. was not founded on any religion and that “separation of church and state” meant that no religion was favored. Needless to say, the local biddies and pearl-clutchers got his columns banned, though he did keep on writing and giving talks.
He wrote several books on philosophy and religion, including Native American faiths, which, unfortunately, are not available as ebooks (my poor eyesight makes most books impossible to read) and the remaining paperback copies are quite rare and expensive. I found his obituary online—he was 93–but there was no date of death. Reading his columns back then was a very refreshing take on religions whose sole aim is absolute control over everyone.