Fiach

"…one nation, UNDER GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Is this to be taken seriously in the light of recent developments in America, The United Theocracies of America.

Notice the contradiction created when Eisenhower in 1954 added "under God." If America is "under God," that implies exclusion of those not under God: Atheists, Agnostics,Freethinkers, and Polytheists (Hindus, Pagans, Wiccans.)

If those not under God are excluded, then America is not “one nation.” It is two nations, a Theistic/Christian Nation, and a non-
Theistic nation of second-class subjects.

If those not under God are excluded, then America is not indivisible. It is deliberately
divided into a ruling class of Theists and a subject class of non-theists.

And finally, if those not under God are excluded, then America cannot possibly give liberty and justice for all. It must give more liberty to Theists/Christians, than to non-Theists.

Christians can put Christmas Crèches on State property, and the 10 Commandments in Schools and courthouses. In that atmosphere an Atheist cannot expect equal justice.

One solution is to drop the "under God" and restore the original pledge that was not self-contradictory. Add in place of "under God," this revision, "under one God, many Gods, or no gods"
with liberty and justice for all.

The court ruling in California was a strategic mistake. It was doomed from the start. But it did have the effect of energising the radical fundamentalists who all but rule America already. Now they are pushing for a number of possible amendmentss to the constitution. One just to add "under God" to the Pledge, and the more extreme by Reconstructionists to nullify the first amendment and declare the USA a Christian Nation. The failed ruling has given the fundamentalists, already powerful, the momentum to eventionally Talibanise America.

Fiach

OCL

I normally dislike congratulatory responses that add nothing to the thread, but...

well done.

Buffman

I hope you don't mind, but I used your other post, with attribution to you, in response to an audio of the Red Skelton radio show, where he lauds the "under God" addition, making the e-mail circuit.

(Yes, I caught the Eisenhower change.)

Oresta

Excellent post, indeed!
I would add that "under God" is intended to imply this nation's sovereignty is derived from god/a supernatural source. This is not so, of course. US sovereignty rests with the people; that being the genius of our Constitution, a truly revolutionary concept at that time.

Edited for spelling.

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: Oresta ]</p>

Fiach

Crikey, so I had to correct Eisenhower. Its not an easy name, and he was your president not mine. I think he was a gomeral, and I do spell that right. Field Marshall Montgomery thought "Ike" was daft.

Fiach

Buffman

I'd hate to repeat what some of the "yanks" thought about "Monty." Hell! I'd hate to repeat some of the things that Monty probably thought about himself. I'm just thankful that we kept MacArthur in the Pacific.

I bet if we could check back far enough your original spelling of Ike's surname would be closer to the original one.

Here is a brief extract I just received back from the friend who sent me the Red Skelton tape.

Glen after the initial shock, then contempt for the Ninth's Circuit Court wore off and your very good pointed message below, I join your opinion

Your post was used for the body of my e-mail to him, Thank you. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Divide et Impera

Nice post! Way to keep your eyes on the ball, because you nailed it.

Seeker630

In a lot of the rest of the world it still is a revolutionary idea.

{fix tag}

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Fiach

Just like the modern American Fundamentalist Movement was ignited by 3 court defeats, the recent "under God" ruling will only further energise them. Christian Fundamentalism was apparently not popular in the 1940’s, and they were referred to as "Holy Rollers," a not too complimentary name. By the late 1940’s Communism emerged as America’s major enemy, and they also rejected God. In the 1950's the Supreme Court ordered an end to legal racial segregation in public schools. The Christian Fundamentalists of the south began to organise and rallied to mount a strong third party movement behind George Wallace of Alabama. Their numbers surged even in northern cities where racial relations were already tense, increased membership in white fundamentalist churches paralleled this.

Then they suffered two more court defeats, the Roe-Wade decision to legalise abortion, and the ruling to prohibit mandatory prayer in public schools. The Fundamentalists then felt the country was going to Hell in a basket. They rallied, recruited and increased their numbers to 35-40% or half of all Christians. In the past few years they have stagnated, not losing or winning much. Secular democracy is still in place if tenuously. Now they have a new cause amplified by the California court. God (by that name is essentially the Christian one) is now linked to American patriotism. An Atheist cannot be a patriot, and some are questioning if an Atheist can even be a citizen (George Bush Sr.) Unbelievers now face a possibility of actually losing their citizenship.


I hope that I am wrong, but I fear for you and my other American friends. Your freedom is on the line now. The final stages of the struggle between Secular Democracy and Theocracy may be at hand.

Fiach

Splat

Fiach--very impressive analyses. Thanks.

I too hope you are wrong. It may look bad from overseas, but as you point out, the fundies' power, while significant, has peaked. I don't think the pledge fracas is going to revive them.

The mainline xian denominations, I think, recognize that church-state separation is really in their best interest (and, if they're paying attention, consistent with their theology). That should take a lot of wind out of a lot of sails.

And despite the yammerings and posturings of Bush the Elder and Bush the Dimmer, I don't think we're in danger of losing our citizenship. There are, after all, about 27 million of us, so it would be a monumental undertaking to boot us all out. If nothing else, they need the tax revenue .

The Big Fear that's driving everything now is, of course, Islamic terrorism. That's forced both the Bushies and the public to acknowledge that they have to be nice to Islam, so I'm not too worried about religious liberties. It's all the other civil rights that they're trying to undermine, especially our right to know what our government is doing, that worry me.

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Splat ]</p>