you want a definition of God? There are currently 43,235 different ones (in 46 languages)

Lets get part the "One Nation" part first...

Did that get completely settled in 1865?

As for who says so...YOU say so. What ever you think metaphorically, biblically litteraly, the 20,000 Gods of past and present, or a humorous acronym, say,

Greatly Overrated Democrats

Great Official Deciders

or such.

(The 'Under God' part was added in the Eisenhower administration, to emphasise how not atheistic Communises we were)

tt's your thread. What's your problem?

That slogan needs some serious updating. Maybe "One nation thinks they're God"

It needs to be returned to its pre-Cold-War "...one nation, indivisible..."  Because, of all of America's faults, it was not built upon Christianity.

My problem is that I must have had a bad dream last night and started my day wondering about imposters and imposers. I think that their best line is One Nation Under God. At least it seems to serve their purpose.

It serves the purposes of American theocrats.  Most U.S. citizens don't even realize that "under God" wasn't part of the original Pledge of Allegiance.  It was added during a time of fear and suspicion and McCarthyism.

Just a point Jefferson wanted sacred and it was rewritten by Adams and Franklin to remove the word sacred.... this does not mean a Christian nation but religious views were part of the conversation of the time - much more liberal than those who now want to go back to the original signers.     This does not mean a theocracy but that some sense of the providence of God was lurking in many of those signers minds.  Now what they meant about providence is all over the map- many were deists - others Unitarian -others mainline - others Quakers - but no fundamentalists among them.

One nation under god???????? Constitutionally?  Now??? 

Let me think....  the Tibetan government in exile? Vatican City? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Yemen? Somalia? Sudan?

I prefer Waterfalls view

One Nation who thinks there God 

It was bad enough when they thought they were God's spokesman, but now that they think they're God's speechwriter...

I know Clinton was 

God

o God 

yes God 

ooooo God!!!

G_d uses the Missionary Position?  Gawd.

Where was this word sacred going to be used?

Who says so?  The U. S. Court system and by extension the will of the American people.  This phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance has  repeatedly been upheld by Federal Courts and Courts of Appeals after many legal challenges.  Likewise, the phrase "In God we trust on U. S. coins and currency has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the face of various legal challenges. The phrase is derived from various biblical allusions.  Similarly, the ALCU has tried in vain to force us to remove the giant cross on the mountain overlooking our  town.   

so the question then is, which God do they trust?

That reminds me of how ironic it is that the Christian Right in the US so vilifies the ACLU.... until they need them...

Which town is that, if you don't mind me asking?

Would be more compelling if that phrase in the pledge of allegiance hadn't been added many, many years after the fact as a way to flip the bird to "them commie bastards".

Wouldn't that qualify as taking the Lord's name in vain?

68% of Americans agree with the courts that the phrase "under God" does not violate the separation of church and state.--and they don't give a ratsass what Wiccan Canadians find" compelling."  The Pledge is spoken with great  emotion at well-attended national holiday events like Memorial Day, the 4th of July, Veteran's Day, and most recently, all the special memorial services for the 10th anniversary of 9/11. The patriotic fervor at such events is perhaps the greatest cultural difference between Canada and the USA.   The main reason for the revised Pledge was to pay respect to the phrase in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and thus distinguish the American Way from that of other nations.   

That sort of fallacy of appeal to popularity was exactly why your founding fathers intended the "wall of separation between Church and State" (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802).  Keeping religion out of government was the only way to make sure the majority religion wouldn't end up trampling over the rights of all Americans to freedom of religion. Your founding fathers were wise men, and students of history.

Is that the current revisionist version of the history of the phrase? Interesting.

Of course the reality of the McCarthyism roots of the insertion are too well known for your version to catch on with anyone who doesn't have a need to believe it.

Yes your kind is very loud and showy about their supposed patriotism. Kind of reminds me of a story I once read, Luke 18:10-14 I think it was.

That sort of fallacy of appeal to popularity was exactly why your founding fathers intended the "wall of separation between Church and State" (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802). 

The issue is not a Wiccan's penchant for moralizing; the issue I addressed is "Why is this so?"  The answer is the consistent finding of the courts that in fact reflects American public opinion.   It is you who commits the fallacy by addressing a separate  question.  

"Your kind?"   This screed exemplifies your typical penchant for ill-informed ugly stereotyping.  I am a Canadian.  And far from 'showy,"  these events display profound sensitivity to our many residents whose families lost loved ones in combat,  compared to which the number of Canuck casualties is very small.   Why do I get the impression that you post your replies with a broom up your-ass?

Actually the opposite is true. In every major conflict that Canada has been involved in, our casualty per capita has been much higher than the US, but I can't blame you for making a big show of your incorrect data, it's what your kind likes to do.

Here's the example from Afghanistan, for instance: (http://cursor.org/stories/relativelethality.html) and (http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/Publications/PDFs/PERIOD9fatalitiesinAfghan...)

Table: Lethality ratios in Afghanistan, 2006 (soldiers killed in-theater / 1,000 troop level in-theater)

Table: Canadian deaths per capita compared to the U.S. and U.K. (as of February 2009)

Table: Canadian deaths compared to the U.S. and U.K. (May 2006 - May 2009)

Of course I've done my service to my country, so I can speak first hand... can you?

Possibly because of that stereotyping problem you have , and the fact that you tend to get very annoyed when anyone dares to challenge your costume of intellectual superiority.

Actually the opposite is true. In every major conflict that Canada has been involved in, our casualty per capita has been much higher than the US, but I can't blame you for making a big show of your incorrect data, it's what your kind likes to do.

Thus, you duck my point about the thread's purpose to detour the thread to save face.  But again you fail.  As I said, I am Canadian; so your stereotyping is as off base as it is bigoted.  Secondly, you are unable to defend your claim that US local memorial services are "showy" because you have not been present and, as usual,  don't know what you are talking about.  Third, your point about percentage of casualties is irrelevant on 2 levels: (1) Americans have been active in far more theaters of war than Canadians in the past 60 years and hence have far more casualties, even by percentage.  (2) In any case, the percentage of casualties is irrelevant to the point: that American memorial services are far from "showy" as you allege; rather they are exquisitely sensitive memorials to self-sacrifice offered up by local families.

Not very clear to me. Seems that sovereign right to rule and bigotry are involved.

They changed sacred to self evident - these rights are ****** - see the shift and the debate was not that they were not sacred but that it flowed better to be self evident and this term was broader.

The reasons why mottos like "In God we trust" and "one nations under God" have survived judicial scrutiny is simply because, despite the biblical roots of "In God we trust" at least," both slogans are legally deemed nonsectarian.  The roots of "one nation under God" in Lincoln's Gettysburg address have elevated the phrase to the standing of "the American way" and the anti-Communist aspect is of marginal historical significance.   Atheists and nontheistic religious devotees are not damaged by the use of the Pledge because they can decline participation if they so wish.  These grounds, though legally decisive, are of course morally debatable, but answer the question posed by this thread. 

Though the many American Remembrance services are very tasteful and respectful, they are too frequent for my Canadian taste.  My aversion to this excess came home when I had to attend a church convention and asked a retired United Church of Canada minister  to substitute for me.  He and his wife drive down from BC and are a real asset to our church.  It was Memorial weekend and our church leaders thought they should sing both the Canadian and American national anthems to honor their Canadian preachers!  I urged that we sing neither and sing the beautiful naval hymn instead ("Eternal Father, Strong to Save").

Thanks Berserk, You have given me quite a bit of insight as to how I can view or not view the slogan without being carried carried away - either way.

There is a new book out by an historian - read the review and now lost the name- but he shows how all sides of the debate on church and state separation miss the point and how religion did operate in the minds of the framers and how secularization was the goal -not some "chrisitian nation' - Maybe some one else heard of the book and knows the name of the author - I am still searching for it.  It actually helps to read history to get behind such phrases and to know how they actually function..

it makes me think of palin and her dumb bus tour. 

what a twit.

In my view, a far more serious problem than American religious slogans is the extent which Americans are blind to the contamination of truly New Testament values and ethics with American imperialistic values (e. g. their presumed role as policemen of the world).  For example,  a while ago, I asked my congregation, "How many of you knew that, until recently, just under 4% of Palestinian Arabs were Christians?"  No one knew!  Then I added: "Consider this: it is against Israeli law for Christians to openly proselytize in Israel."  But these Palestinian Arab Christians are asking, "Why don't western Christians love us as needy members of Christ's body?  Why are our poverty and rights off the American radar?  Do you American Christians not consider us sisters and brothers in Christ?"  The congregation seemed stunned by such simple questions that the American political pro-Israeli stance had prevented them from addressing. 

I believe that qualifies as "blind faith", but other's interpretation of both blind and faith probably differ.

While I do appreciate the sentiments in this, it is still promoting an "us against them" belief system.  I do not interpret Jesus'  "And the second is like, namely this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is none other commandment greater than these." (American King James Version) as identifying which neighbour we are to love but to love all neighbours even those whose faith, blind or not, is different from our own.

But perhaps the word "neighbour" is like "love",  "indivisible",  "sacred" and even "God", open to many interpretations and as a result to so many divisions.

LB

-----------------------

It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religion profession of sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship....

      Massachusetts Bill of Rights, Part the First, 1780

I have heard it said that, " You shall love your neighbour as yourself" means "everyone".

What do others think this commandment of Jesus means?

Well, PP, Jesus certainly didn't mean just  the "roofer".imo

Lol - did they have roofer's in Jesus's time?

And here's me thinking they just wandered around - tending their flocks by night.

During the day they went fishing and listened to Jesus preach.

If they got hungry they ate fish and bread - and washed it down with the wine that Jesus obligingly made from water.

I'm sure that's what Mrs. Stanyer taught me in Sunday school.......

I got a book for a prize, so it must be right.

(No, wait,  - the book was for attendance.)

For me, this is what wikipedia has done to the masses. They read something and that is the only truth that exists.

As an ex-pat, let me say that I was taught even in school the "under God" distinguished Americans from the communists who were called commie atheists. I can tell you of many Jehovah Witness and Jewish families who will tell you that their childrens refusal to stand and recite meant they must be pinkos long after the McCarthy years.
 

As far as US memorials being "showy", I would not say that.

What I will say is that they are patriotic propoganda. They keep the American people telling their children that death for someone's hissy fit, profits, pissing contest... is a worthy thing. They keep people believing war is about medals and parades and not people blown to bits. They show parades and refuse to show bodies returning home, there is a reason. Showing dead people are bad business for the war machine, parades and memorials get 'em signing up.