Freedom of Religion includes Freedom From Your Religion

The Pledge of Allegiance

www.fluidfaith.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07
www.fluidfaith.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07

A Nationalistic Indoctrination

The Pledge of Allegiance was officially recognized by Congress in 1942 as the Official National Pledge.

The Pledge was written in 1892, by Francis Bellamy. Francis Bellamy was a Baptist Minister. It was first published in a children's magazine for Columbus Day on the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's Discovery of The Americas in 1492.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Pledge_salue.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Pledge_salue.jpg

Salute the Flag

The Pledge was initially recited by school children at the beginning of the school day.

It was proper form to Salute the Flag. The original salute was known as the Bellamy Salute, named after the man who wrote The Pledge. The proper way to do the salute was to extend your right arm, with the palm facing up and outwards.

The 44 Star American Flag in use 1892

http://www.usflag.org/historical/44star.gif
http://www.usflag.org/historical/44star.gif

The Original Pledge

I pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all.

The 48 Star American Flag in use from 1912 -1959

http://stockholm.usembassy.gov/usflag/images/48star.gif
http://stockholm.usembassy.gov/usflag/images/48star.gif

The Pledge as amended in 1923

I pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

Changes in 1923 and 1924

In 1923 with a huge population of immigrants, the Pledge was amended changing the words from "my flag" to "the flag of the United States". This was to correct any confusion as to which flag they were Pledging allegiance to.

In 1924, the Pledge was amended again, to add "America", after "the United States"..

The Pledge as amended 1924

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/0/X/0/3/Our-Flag-e.jpg
http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/0/X/0/3/Our-Flag-e.jpg

Our Pledge became Official

The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Pledge as the official national pledge on June 22, 1942 in the United States Flag Code -(Title 36).

This was largely due to Americans renewed patriotism in the face of WWII.

In 1945 the Pledge to the Flag received its official title as:

"The Pledge of Allegiance"

The Bellamy Salute was changed to the current "hand over the heart" by President Franklin D. Roosevelt as the salute to be used by citizens for the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem. This was done due to the similarity between the Bellamy Salute and the Nazi salute. They were both based on the salute from the Roman Empire. Military and Police officers in uniform are to salute the United States Flag by tipping their fingers to the brim of their hat.

UNDER GOD

It was not until 1954 that "Under God" was added. It was signed into law by Eisenhower (who was brought up as a Jehovah's Witness, but baptized as a Presbyterian just 12 days after his inauguration.) on Flag Day

Ike

http://www.presidentialufo.com/Cheney/ike_photo.jpg
http://www.presidentialufo.com/Cheney/ike_photo.jpg

The Current Pledge of Allegiance as adopted in 1954

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

Thomas Jefferson on Freedom of Religion

"because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries".
-President Thomas Jefferson: in a speech to the Virginia Baptists (1808)

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-- President Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

The Pledge of Allegiance Is Un-Constitutional

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled, "the pledge's reference to one nation 'under God' violates school children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

A statement made by Thomas L. Bock, national commander of The American Legion said, "I am disgusted by this ludicrous attack on the traditional values of the citizens of this country. I'm sure the vast majority of Americans feel exactly the same way. The words 'under God' are a tribute to America's constitutionally protected religious freedom. There is nothing wrong with schoolchildren acknowledging the fact that the founders of our republic openly stated in their writings, before we even had the Pledge, that the United States is indeed 'one nation under God.'"

The first time that the term, "one nation under god" was used, was in President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

Time and time again, people site that our country was founded on "christian principles" based on the term "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on our currency. These were added much later in our country's history.

Our founding fathers believed in Freedom of Religion. God is religion, but it is not all types of religion. It is the right of All Americans to worship, which ever deities they wish, or not.

Our country was founded on these principles, as the majority of the people, originally immigrated here to leave the Religious state of England. The Atheists and the Pilgrims both sought freedom from political oppression.

It is not up to the court to make laws. It is up to congress to make the laws. It is my firm belief that it is not the Pledging to the flag itself that is unconstitutional. It is the version that was enacted in 1954 that is unconstitutional. It is my opinion, as a proud and patriotic American, that we should revert to the "Pre -Eisenhower" Pledge of Allegiance. Having a Pledge to the flag, of The United States of America, to that which it stands for, is in my opinion important to have for citizens of this great free country. This would be up to congress to change. In the state of our political system, I doubt that they would have the guts to do so. How would they get re-elected?

Exercise your rights here!

Do you think

See results without voting

"I gladly support the right of every citizen to say or refrain from saying any or all of the words in the Pledge of Allegiance, (just not to impose them on others).  I also support the right of every person to post their opinions here, and to those who think posting is a waste of time, I am happy to not read what you don't bother to write." - (unknown)

This is America. This is Freedom.

Wait! Don't forget to look at the bottom of the hub. The comments are not the end of this Hub.

Always look at the bottom of the page. You never know what you may find.

Comments 95 comments

Jewels profile image

Jewels 7 years ago from Australia

Great article. This speaks on more than one level to me, not just an Allegiance to the or a flag, but allegiance to anything. Allegiance means taking sides and that in itself is asking for trouble, whether it be now or a thousand years from now. Truth is personal, sure. If there has to be a salutation, I'd rather see an allegiance made to a virtuous ethic void of religious connotations as a replacement.


men are dorks profile image

men are dorks 7 years ago from Namibia

i voted"dont care" coz i'm not an US citizen, not that I don care, It doesnt concern me. Any citizen must have absolute loyalty to his country, BUT, dont force politics, religion or sex on to a child. The world is allready a big mess as it is, dont complicate it even more b involving young kids who didnt care if the sky is pink today.


Jewels profile image

Jewels 7 years ago from Australia

There's a forum discussion right there: Does a citizen have to have absolute loyalty to his/her country? What if you don't believe in their policies or leader's leadership and religious affiliations etc. etc.

PM delete this if it's going to railroad your hub.


men are dorks profile image

men are dorks 7 years ago from Namibia

I hear what you say jewels, but your cuntry looks after you to an extend, you wake up or go to bed safe. I live where we feared the night or the next day, before we got independence and its not nice, we got a new government. support your government coz they look aftr your safet and security.


Jewels profile image

Jewels 7 years ago from Australia

Fighting for rights and freedom is one thing. But borders at the end of the day are to keep people out and don't encourage unity. Same with swearing allegiance - it's devisive instantly by disregarding those who don't have an allegiance to a religion. Actually it's quite slimmy forcing people to do it without regard for a person's liberty.

I hear you too, I'm not being disrespectful. I'd fight for my country too if my family and personal freedoms were at risk. Oooo, it's such a subject though.


men are dorks profile image

men are dorks 7 years ago from Namibia

You are so right, i thought you are hard-arsed, but you r cool. If you dont I'm gonna start a forum bout this...

So by the way, aussies suck at cricket, we whped you... Haha


Jewels profile image

Jewels 7 years ago from Australia

Spit all you want over our cricketers - I think it's as boring as watching paint dry! LOL But proof is in the history. Aussies whip most arses sooner or later at sport.


countrywomen profile image

countrywomen 7 years ago from Washington, USA

Well they used the word "God" without specifying whether it was Jesus, Allah, Buddha or even FSM (as Mark says)..hehe. Btw I don't know too much about US history but I feel the status quo is ok for now. And for the title I would say whether to have any religion or even no religion is a personal choice and government should totally stay out of it in the future.


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

@Jewels- I will not delete any comments based on any part of the subject. You raised a wonderful question. I hope that this comment section will be a forum for discussion, dissension and debate. I believe that the flag represents two things. First, the principles on which this country was founded. I give that 5 stars. Second, the current government. At the moment two stars (which is up from 0 stars from our last president). When the government no longer represents what the country was founded upon, when it no longer represents "The People", then we have trouble. This is why I fly the flag upside down at the bottom of the page. It is a distress symbol. One should not follow their government blindly. As a free citizen it is our duty to exercise our rights, including free speech, redress grievances to our government and becoming informed.

Thank the two of you for your comments. :D


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

Countrywomen. Thank you for coming by. There are some religions that would not work with the term god. They should not have to use the term in a government sanctioned government imposed pledge. This was intended to be a christian god, and was placed in the pledge to show the communists during the cold war that we were not a godless people like them.


Jewels profile image

Jewels 7 years ago from Australia

Go for it on the forums, I'll tag along.


countrywomen profile image

countrywomen 7 years ago from Washington, USA

Well what it was intended we aren't certain and we can only go by what is mentioned. And if it was meant with an attitude of "holier than thou" than certainly it is not advisable. Btw what is the procedure to have the pledge altered in US?


Gypsy Willow profile image

Gypsy Willow 7 years ago from Lake Tahoe Nevada USA , Wales UK and Taupo New Zealand

Good hub, all that needed saying!


Cellar Door profile image

Cellar Door 7 years ago from South East UK

thought provoking stuff, im not surrrre at all!!


Dink96 profile image

Dink96 7 years ago from Phoenix, AZ

You know you've opened a can of worms here, don't you? I'm going to side with Thomas Jefferson on this one. Remember Tom, the author of the Declaration of Independence, which put the British Empire on notice that the colonists were freeing themselves from religious persecution, taxation without representation and other injustices they faced across the pond? Good old Tom. What a guy!


frogdropping profile image

frogdropping 7 years ago

Papermoon - this is indeed a great, thought provoking piece of writing. I'm with you on the pre-Eisenhower version. I view the flag of any nation as the universal representation of that country, its people and so on. I don't quite see how it can be used to express an allegience to God. Maybe I'm just a little confused?


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

countrywomen- I am always glad to read your comments, and they are much appreciated on my hubs. I believe that it would take an act of congress to initiate a change in the flag code in the US.

gypsy willow- thanks for leaving a comment.

CD- glad to stir a thought.

Dink96- can of worms? I just felt like fishing. I am with you on good ol' Tom. thank you for your comment.


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

frogdropping- Religion is the sovereign right of our citizens and can be a great thing. Just not attached to our flag. I am glad that you agree.


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 7 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

In reference to the pledge of allegiance being unconstitutional .That,is not exactly true.It would be unconstitutional if anyone is required to make the pledge.If you do it voluntarily it's not unconstitutional. The words "under God" , "in God we trust"and one nation under God" are not,and never were religioious statements.Believing in a superior intelligence is not a religion.

I see no hypocracy in believing in a superior inteligence as proposed by christianity as that represented by Jesus,budda,confusious,and others,who inspired the worlds religions ,yet non of these leaders promoted any religion.Just their own particular viewpoints on how to live life.Any of us could do the same without promoting any religion.

Being tolerant of many religions ,is not the same as promoting religion.It,is promoting freedom of religion.The Atheists seek freedom to not believe in God or religion.Deists believe in one God,but not in any religion.Theists believe in either one or more Gods,and not in any religion.

A "pagan":is one who has more than one belief,some believe in many different religions,as they did in Ancient Rome , Egypt.Greece or one many other's in the past,or someone who has no religious beliefs what so ever called Heathens who are exclusively materialistic with only self interest in mind.

To ;men are dorks

One of our founding fathers said ;those who would give up their rights for a little safety and security deserve neither.

To;jewels

Without borders? What your describing is laudable but impractical to the extreme.

To; Countrywoman

well said!


countrywomen profile image

countrywomen 7 years ago from Washington, USA

Paper moon- Thanks for the explanation about the procedure.

Someonewhoknows- Thanks for appreciating me.


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

countrywomen- to elaborate on the procedure from above,

A member of congress would have to write a bill (or add it into another bill) and submit it to congressional leaders to see if it could be put to a vote in congress.    So the congressional leaders would have much control over whether or not other members of congress would be able to vote on it.  It would have to pass in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.  Then the President would have to sign it.  If the president did not sign it, they would need 2/3rds majority in both the House and Senate.


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

SomeOneWhoKnows- You are correct, it is not a solid true statement. It is a “thought stopping” cliché. The case was argued that they were not allowed to force children to recite it in a public school. I am glad that you caught that, though the catch phrase was intended.

The idea for adding the “religious “ statement “under god”  was first conceived of by the Knights of Columbus, which is the worlds largest catholic fraternal service organization.  It was specifically placed in for their deity.   They used it in their meetings and tried several times to get the government to change The Pledge of Allegiance. Many other religious groups started to follow suit and started using the term themselves.  It was a Presbyterian minister, George Docherty, who headed the church that Abraham Lincoln attended and thus Subsequent Presidents would attend on the Sunday closest to Lincolns death, that put the case forward to President Eisenhower.    He pleaded that the Pledge was so similar as not to be distinguishable from that of many other nations.  He felt that in a good Christian country that we needed reference the deity.   And whether or not people who believe in a deity follow an established religion or not, it is a religious reference.  One can believe in no higher deity and still have a religious life or dogma. 

I appreciate everyone’s comments.  They are all good.  Everyone has their own views and exchanges of ideas are important. 


Jewels profile image

Jewels 7 years ago from Australia

Someonewhoknows: When the word God is placed in any communication it opens the gates for a wider viewpoint. Am well aware of practicalities but at the end of the day this is about people's liberties. I don't think what I said was laughable, but if it amused you I hope it was a satisfying amusement. I am a lateral thinker but I am not stupid. A bit idealist, but not stupid.


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

Jewels, I believe he said LAUDABLE, ( meaning to praise, commendable) not laughable. :D And you are so on point about peoples liberties. This Declaration of Independence that is the heart and soul of the US, states that our inalienable rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.


Jewels profile image

Jewels 7 years ago from Australia

ooops, I need to be more thorough. Sunday morning eating cereal. Apologies. Plus I'm getting paranoide - been to the religious forum too many times!


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

Sunday morning already? I happen to be getting ready for a rare Saturday night date with my wife. Cool. Round earth, electronic communication! Religious forums can get heavy! LOL.


Jewels profile image

Jewels 7 years ago from Australia

Yeah, we're always first which is why we do well in cricket LOL

Doesn't pay to be sensitive on the religious forum:( but it's character building :)

And your surprise visitors, enjoy dinner.


countrywomen profile image

countrywomen 7 years ago from Washington, USA

Thanks Paper moon for the time and effort taken for explaining the process and educating me.

Jewels: I agree for almost a decade the Aussies were invincible like the erstwhile mighty Windies but now even India/SA are breathing down the neck. I guess the exodus of Champions like Warne, Mcgrath, Gilchrist and Hayden within a short time is a gap that is irreplaceable (and the quality of these champions can still be seen in IPL). Btw I hope you don't get too affected by the religious forums (although I realize arguments tend to drain us but sometimes I do learn from those discussions).


Jewels profile image

Jewels 7 years ago from Australia

CW, your such a cricket buff. I have 5 brothers and growing up I drowned in that game plus football. I even played myself. But I don't follow it. I'd rather a good conversation. Speaking of liberties, there is one guy that got to me on the forum and I was bruised. I have allot to pass but not if he interjects and dismisses everyone else thru being patronizing and condescending.


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

It was just such a situation that prompted me to write this hub.


Jewels profile image

Jewels 7 years ago from Australia

And a good hub it is. Was dinner good?


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

Thank you and yes it was. :)


LondonGirl profile image

LondonGirl 7 years ago from London

Interesting hub. I'm not American, but I find it a bit odd that a country with no established church has such a vow.


Neil Sperling profile image

Neil Sperling 7 years ago from Port Dover Ontario Canada

Great hub - thought provoking content - and by the comments you have achieved that objective. It is actually scary to see any subliminal messages used to control/lead the "unthinking masses." It appears the changes in the pledge were made to do just that.

I love this quote - "those who would give up their rights for a little safety and security deserve neither." ... who said it?


Deltachord profile image

Deltachord 7 years ago from United States

This history of the Pledge is interesting. The Pledge of Allegiance is a good thing. The pledge is in theme like what this country was founded upon.

Though the pledge came later...the fact is the founding fathers didn't mean separation of church and state. That phrase isn't found in the Constitution.

They meant no state church. The Bible was the first book printed by the U.S. government.

Another point, when people don't really believe in God, they fall for anything and the values fall...witness the state of the U.S. today when many don't believe in God.

As to not forcing children to say the Pledge because it mentions God...again the more God is taken out of the public life of our country the more this country goes on the skids.

When kids said a prayer in schools and the Pledge of Allegiance and people generally believed in God the schools didn't have shootings and gangs as a status quo.

Every since atheism was forced into public life the country has been deteriorating.

For people that want to oppose this comment...I expect you will.


Deltachord profile image

Deltachord 7 years ago from United States

One clarifying point: "Separation of Church and State" was written in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote. He wrote the letter to insure a pastor that there would be no interference from the "state" in religion. The phrase was first misued and misquoted in the 1940's.

Also, at the time the letter was written, religion was "understood" by the public to mean Christianity when speaking of it in the United States.


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 7 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

To Paper moon

A statements that acknowledge the existance of a Diety,is just that,and does not promote a "religion",even though the Knights of Columbus may have promoted it.The fact remains ,it does not promote a religion .For proof of that,how many people would have known that the knights of Columbus promoted the insertion of that statement if, you did not tell them?. Why should we be concerned with that.To me is not the promotion of a religion. The fact that religions are promoting the belief in a existance of a Deity. Do you believe in toleration,or discrimination?Why discriminate against a group just because they just happen to believe in something many of us have in common? Namely the belief in Intelligent design.in the universe.It's my opinion that it's xenophobic,to believe otherwise.

To Jewels

Apology accepted!

To Neil sperling

Sumliminal messages don't stare you in the face ,they hid from your conscious mind.

Ben Franklin made that statement,and I agree with him..

To Deltachord

I see no difference between seperation of church and state and no state church

I find it interesting that your next statement refers to the bible being printed first,is that in preference to the constitution?


Deltachord profile image

Deltachord 7 years ago from United States

Usually, when people promote separation of church and state, they mean that there shouldn't be any public display on government property of Christian symbols or prayer in schools. Many towns have been sued by the American Civil Liberties Union for having a Christmas Nativity scene displayed on public property like for example, the city hall lawn.

The American Civil Liberties Union has sued them and won, unfortunately, on the false premise of separation of church and state.

Saying there shouldn't be a state church is different than trying to push Christianity out of public life.

The constitution was hand written. They simply printed the Bible as the first book off of the government press and distributed them to schools.

Thanks someonewhoknows for commenting on my comment,


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 7 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

To Deltachord

I have to take the side of keeping the" Government" from putting religious displays out in or around public buildings,or on public property. To me it's religious if it is obviously associated with one or more religious denomination's.

I would not object to a display that simply said ;"HAPPY HOLIDAY'S".That is a general statement about "Holiday's" that is too generalised to be identifiable with a particular religion or religion's

I would mind if a display is clearly identifiable with any religion or any offshoots of a religion,such as Christianity,with all of it's offshoots,or any association with religion even non denominational

religions.

Someone may feel they need to promote their religion in public places.

People can practice their beliefs in public,without promoting their religion outright.

For example; if what you do in public is not decernable as promoting religion,such as when you do a good deed for someone,or show someone by example how you think you should act ,to me is not promoting a religion.,as long as you make no mention unless asked what if any religion you belong to.

That is much different than someone openly promoting a religion with a public display or vocally promoting your religious belief's in public.


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

LondonGirl- Oh fair lady from across the pond, you stopped in with your comment of which I am so fond. A bit odd indeed, but only if one thinks about it. ;)

Neil Sperling- It certainly was meant to manipulate and alter the minds of the children. Indoctronation through rote means tends to imbue childrens heads with images, which in the forefront they do not as of yet understand, and in the background starts creating a landscape in which this god (the one so prevalent in our “great society”) is synonymous with the very Idea of the flag, in which, the representation of the foundations of this country is formed. Then our illustrious leaders can sway “The masses” with the flip of the switch, using such key words “thought stopping cleches” as will tap upon the seeds planted through out childhood. This is similar to how the Nazi’s took power through the “Hitler Youth”, as the children subverted their parents value systems, with the parents being afraid as their children would turn them in. (Can you say D.A.R.E, but that is another hub altogether) These are brilliant tactics. If one reads George Orwell. One can see that he fully understood the implications of using such devises. Thought stopping clichés are for example War on drugs, war on terror, war for peace. You are correct in my opinion about the subliminal. Not everyone is blind to the subliminal, and surly not everyone is blind to blatantly obvious attempts at manipulation forms which include subliminal.

Deltachord- I am glad to have you here. I do take issue with your view that Christians are good, and non Christians are not, which is, I know, I vast gross generalization of what you say, but in essence, your point. Peoples following of god, in my mind, has caused as many problems as it has solved in the world. It gives them an excuse, as it is sanctioned by their god. I am glad that you have found peace in your worshiping of your god. I wish all people could find peace. I have added quotes at the bottom and may add a video as well in response to some of the things you have brought up. Thank you for sharing your ideas. :)

Someonehwoknows- Thank you for involving yourself and sharing your valuable views. I feel that many of your statements would prompt a reply so long as to be a book. So I will skip much of that and try not to go into details. A statement on an official proclamation, on a government sanctioned and imposed “Pledge of Allegiance” is no longer just that. A statement. It becomes a promotion, albeit a general one. Deity in common society=a god. In our society=”The god”. Ask 10,000 Americans what god on the dollar bill means, and 999,999 of them will describe the “Christian” god, even those who do not believe in or follow that particular god. What picture does “one nation, under god” elicit? Used in indoctrination upon children where upon one is trained, not taught, (a series of books on that point alone) creates powerful semi-conscience, as well as subliminal images which can then later be manipulated like an on and off switch. This is not even an advanced form of psychology. By using the term GOD on an official government document, on the national currency and in the official government “Pledge of allegiance” is a form of discrimination. Those who fear any form of Christian crusades, or Witch burnings or even cross burnings certainly have every right to feel discriminated against. So do you promote the tolerance of the Christians imposing a general form of their religion on a “free countries” official documents, and requiring children to recite the official “Pledge of Allegiance” in public schools? Do you promote the tolerance of this against the discrimination of others, being officially sanctioned? And is the removal of the term “God” from the Pledge of Allegiance an attack on god? Would changing the term to “Deity (ies)” be more inclusive? Do you not understand how people who have a religion outside of the Mainstream religion in our country feel? Do you not care? Do you of all people think that they should take it as a little thing and ignore it? If so what of "those who would give up their rights for a little safety and security deserve neither."

Again, to everyone, thank you for the wonderful thoughts and comments. :)


Deltachord profile image

Deltachord 7 years ago from United States

Thanks for communicating with me about my comment, Papermoon. I'm sorry that you think that I mean non-Christian people can't be good people. There are non-Christians that are good people and good friends of mine.

I do mean that there is a higher good found in Jesus, which one has to be open to experiencing to understand where I'm coming from with that statement.

Some people seem to take offense at the idea that Christmas displays can be Christ oriented in public, which is odd because without him there wouldn't be any Christmas.

I certainly understand how many people have a religion outside of Christianity in the United States. But it is part of Christianity to follow Jesus in public and private or not follow him at all.

The difference in following Jesus is that it is a relationship with someone who is still alive.

The Pledge and "In God We Trust' are part of what this country stands for and standing for something good isn't discrimination.

When Nativity scenes can't be displayed on public lawns in small towns (or large cities for that matter) where people want them displayed and outsiders of that town like the ACLU come in and disrupt what those people want in their town that is discrimination and violating their rights.

For someonewhoknows: Happy Holidays sounds nice, but it dilutes the meaning of Christmas. It divorces Christ from Christmas. It really isn't a secular holiday, though it has been made to seem like it. By the way, holiday is a corruption of Holy Day.


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 7 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

James

Using the word God is promoting the belief in a Deity,though it be identifiable with a religion in the mind of the general public,as you say,it is through some subliminal association ,but not by a thinking individual who knows better.

If the majority of the people really want to remove any reference to God on our money,the pledge of Alligence or any other government document,they should get their congressman to propose that change.It wouldn't change my belief in the least in a ubiquitous God.I can't speak for other's

I see the fact that it is still there,as a tolerance of a belief in a God..

Although I don't believe in government public promotion of religion.

Ihave no problem with government statements that include the open acknowledgement of the existance of a God.The only problem I would have is if there we were required to believe in only one religion.To me that would be reason for concern when it comes to freedom to believe what ever you want to.Dictatorship in religion is just as bad as Dictatorship in government.


Captain Cloud 7 years ago

I see no reason why you wouldnt be allowed nativity scenes can't be allowed on the whitehouse lawn or city hall, but they would than have to allow Buddhist shrines and pagan sacrificial alters (just kidding about the sacrificial alter. No. Ok, yes just kidding. Not. Then again maybe)


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

@sowk- James?

Captain Cloud- LOL Thanks for stopping by. :D


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 7 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

Delta Chord - I see your point about the statement Holidays coming from the words Holy Days. But I see no promotion of a religion in those words in any case.

My mistake Paper moon I was thinking of another hugger when I made my last statement!


tony0724 profile image

tony0724 7 years ago from san diego calif

The pledge Is just fine as Is !


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free"  -- Johan Goethe

((((((hugs))))))

tony- thank you for your valued comment. :)


JamaGenee profile image

JamaGenee 7 years ago from Central Oklahoma

I'm still back at Eisenhower was raised as a Jehovah's Witness and only became a Presby 12 days after taking office. I grew up in Kansas and *of course* went to the Eisenhower Museum in Abilene many times on field trips, but I recall ever seeing or hearing Ike was a JH. Maybe it was played down or hidden altogether *for a reason*? Hmmmmmm......


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 7 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

checkout   ----sinisterforces.info


Jewels profile image

Jewels 7 years ago from Australia

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free"  -- Johan Goethe

I'm having a lovely moment over this quote.  Though bitter sweet because there are so many who think they are free but entangled in a conditional belief.


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

Jama- I have never been to the Museum in Abilene, though would love to. Hoping to pass through this summer.

The Eisenhower's house was the local meeting hall from 1896 - 1915. It seems as though he broke ranks with them when he joined west point millitary achademy as they were (are) against war. He would have been 6 years old when they started meeting at his house.

sowk- Seems interesting, I wish they would give more info though.

Jewels- yes, freedom within confined realms is something to think about!


Nadia Ribadu profile image

Nadia Ribadu 7 years ago

Nothing to say, just so well writen and researched. Great job! I hope I can begin to write like you.


Nadia Ribadu profile image

Nadia Ribadu 7 years ago

Nothing to say, just so well writen and researched. Great job! I hope I can begin to write like you.


ColdWarBaby 7 years ago

It is my humble opinion, and nothing more, that two of the most lethally pathological psychoses in existence are fundamentalist religion and fundamentalist nationalism.

If our species survives long enough it will leave both behind or, perhaps it's the other way round.

If our species doesn't grow out of both soon, it won't survive all that much longer.


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

Nadia Ribadu- Thank you and good luck with your writing.


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

CWB- I am afraid that the latter will face us sooner than later. :(


Misha profile image

Misha 7 years ago from DC Area

Wow! Thank you Paper Moon for a moment of agreement with ColdWar Baby :)


tony0724 profile image

tony0724 7 years ago from san diego calif

Coldwar Baby over the course of history I do have agree that religion has been a big part of the problem In mans history . But the larger problem has always been greed ,the lust of power and materialism , none of these are have any thing to do with religion but with mankinds weaknesses . And I for one think we are reaching the final chapter and we did It to ourselves .


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

Misha- thank you for stopping in and commenting. :D

tony- greed and lust for power are the biggest preverters of religion. Religiousness is a good thing, but in my opinion, religion is and has been in a sad state.


tony0724 profile image

tony0724 7 years ago from san diego calif

PM I am not a religious man . I was baptised Catholic and that Is about as far as It went . However I do believe In God and I do believe that when my time here Is through I will be held accountable . I do not see that as a bad thing . Secularism has gained ground In our society and as our society keeps unraveling I cannot help but feel there Is a direct correlation .


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

I too believe that a lack of true spirituality as well as worshiping at the alter of consumerism is our societies undoing.


usmanali81 profile image

usmanali81 7 years ago

Freedom from religion leads to anarchy, disorder, chaos, lawlessness etc. A religion provides the best guidlines for leading a depressionless life.

The main problem is with the misuse of religion or any thing else just as a knife can be misused to kill an innocent.

So, religion is not responsible for the mismanagement and class system which we see around. It is we ourselves whom to be blamed. And regarding children, they desperatly need training even the whole human life needs constant training and education from time to time, the religion provides that very training, only we have to consult the recommended books and prophets of that religion. Avoid following the current followers of religion as they are unaware how to become religious. For that, just consult the origional books and the life style of the prophets and their companions.

When any child is taught about religion, it does not mean that it has been imposed on that child rather its the child's right to let him / her know about the true religion and way of life which God Almighty has chosen for them to lead the life in peace.

The pledge of allegiance of every country must be the one which the God Almighty wants from us because countries are built in this world of Allah - God Almighty and each and every religion of the world praises and confirms worhshiping Allah alone-the one true God whom we and every other thing belongs.

And the pledge must be "There is no god but Allah-God and Prophet Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah"


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

usmanali- I am happy to have your comment here. I do have a question to ask of you. Is Allah God, in essence the same god as the Christians, or the Jewish, just called differently and worshiped differently?


Deltachord profile image

Deltachord 7 years ago from United States

As far as Nativity scenes on the court house lawns as opposed to Buddha etc.--The Nativity scene being displayed is a long tradition in many places. When the ACLU sues a small town over it, they don't usually have the money to struggle with them a long time to try and keep their rights.


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

Deltachord- I hope they did not show up with out the bequest of someone who felt discriminated.


tony0724 profile image

tony0724 7 years ago from san diego calif

I believe In watching out for the minority but how about lets quit offending the majority too !


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

Tony- that is a good point, to a point.....


countrywomen profile image

countrywomen 7 years ago from Washington, USA

Jewels- Growing up I had no choice and even now I have little since now even my hubby is a cricket buff(if you don't trust me then read the hub I wrote about Cricket).

Btw now I get it whom you were hinting about hurting you. I hope nothing prevents you from sharing your knowledge and experiences which many of us can learn from.

PS: I hope your opinion of Indians isn't based on limited exposure to certain individuals.


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

CW- indeed, there are bad apples in every group, and no group should have to pay for the bad apples amongst them.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 7 years ago from Chicago

I see my name referred to in this discussion but I haven't said anything! You equate the Pledge of Allegiance with the Hitler Youth? You fear witch burnings and cross burnings and that is why you hate the public mention of God? I do hope this is hyperbole.


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

James A Watkins- I see reference to James Madison and to “a” James, but unless I am mistaken, no one has mentioned your name. I did put a link at the bottom to one of your hubs, as I thought it fit to offer an alternative to such liberal and slanderous hyperbole. If you would have read the section with reference to “The Hitler Youth” you should have understood that it was in reference to the psychology behind indoctrination. I apologize if I did not make that clear, but with constraints in length, I may have taken some shortcuts that I assumed the average reader would get the general idea. I could go off into book form and length if not careful. Allow me to attempt to clarify.

in⋅doc⋅tri⋅nate

verb, -ed, ing

1.

to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

2.

to teach or inculcate.

Synonyms:1. brainwash, propagandize.

A system of learning through rote. (a memorization process through repetition, usually without full attention or understanding) which in itself is a problem in our educational system (again, a series of books could be written on that alone)

Education played one of the most important roles in the rise of power for the Nazis. Hitler understood that if they used these learning tactics in children, they would be unwaveringly loyal as adults. So created the Nazi Youth program. At the end of the war, America adopted many of the Nazi psychologists and Scientists. One of the things that the American government learned from them, was how to control the masses, by changing the educational system by which our children were taught. If you notice, History became “social studies”. Through this indoctrination of the Pledge of Allegiance, which is already a powerful psychological tool, the “recent” addition of “Under God” also became a tool of the religious right.

As far as Witch Hunts and Cross burnings, how do you think peaceful American Muslims felt when they were attacked, slandered, their mosques vandalized because of their religion? Many Jewish people, who share the same god by the way, feel very uncomfortable with the Christian dominance and saber rattling. They worship the god that Jesus worshiped, they are only different in that they believe that they are waiting for the first coming and you the second coming. This is The United States of America isn’t it? And that is just a small sliver of those who feel oppressed by the radical right inseminating their god on State business. As a Christian, would you would feel uncomfortable being a citizen in one of the religious states of the Muslim persuasion in the middle east. I am sure you would stand proudly with your god and not pull a “Simon” and deny your faith, but the thought of persecution, and discrimination should make you uncomfortable. Why should the whole populace of the United States of America, have to deal with “Your God”? This is not a Christian State. Or is it? This is a free country. I think you misunderstand the scope of hyperbole if you would equate anything I have said as such when your picture from some sensationalistic Jerry Springer sideshow freak is labeled as the “Typical American Liberal”


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

@ someonewhoknows- I have no problems with any form of spirituality, or any one's express right to worship in any form they choose. i am an extremely spiritual person. The term was STATE. The government is a regulatory body, that where its members may have any, or lack of any spirituality or religion, the governing process should be free from it. The term GOD is limiting and its use is limited to only a handful of religions. Therefore the term included in governmental use, is unsubstantiated in a free society. I would fight to the death for your right to your religion, but will not have your religion imposed upon those who do not want it. I feel sorry for atheists, but would not think for a moment to impose my religion upon them, or the spiritualists that have definitions other than god for their idea of "superior intelligence" or underlying order to the universe and beyond. I often use the term "Kleenex" for any brand of facial tissue. Some parts of the country use the term "Coke" for any sweetened carbonated beverage. "I'll have an orange coke". I know of a cherry coca-cola, but no orange coke. So it is with the word GOD. It has become a "Brand Name" if you will, for a small hand full of religions. It is not a term that must be accepted for any and all deities, especially as some have more than one and by not having GOD ('s) it is discriminatory. Native americans live here too. God does not swap out and translate into great father. What about Great mother. Brother wind. What of Goddess? Or the Hindu faith. GOD is a brand name. Trademarked. i cannot approve of others having to identify with the term of only a handful of religions. Not all godless people are bad. Not all spiritually people are bad. Just as not all religious fundamentalists are bad.


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 7 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

I stand by my contention that my belief in an intelligence design in the universe is not a religon despite any religions beliefs in the same intelligence.Even scientists who don't have a religious affiliation have come to the same conclusion based one pure science They can't explain how such complex life forms have developed without having to admit the existance of some fantastic intelligence in the universe.I defy you to explain how life came into existance.Don't tell me it just happened on it's own through natural selection alone.Scientists can't prove that natural selection is not intelligent design anymore than they can prove DNA is not intelligent design.Of course the use of the word God is limiting,why should using the word God be anything but an acceptance of intelligence in the universe.I don't want religon in government anymore than you do.But you can't tell me there aren't people who believe in intelligent design that don't believe in keeping religion out of government.You say the word God has been filed as a trademark? I never knew that!If that's the case it should be brought to everyones attention as soon as possible. Something is rotten in Denmark if they can try to stake a claim being a government approved religion.In my mind the term God is a generic term for intelligent design and nothing more.If any other word were used that indicated a specific religon I would concede the point of not using it.but if what you say concerning The word God being trademarked .I would have to agree with you that it shouldn't be used.In that case I would propose using a term such as "universal intellect"although that sounds like it's an incompatible replacement for the term God.It just doesen't sound right to say one nation under a universal intellect. However I disagree with your reasoning concerning equating the term used by the various religions or races to describe a superior intelligence with "our" traditional term for the same intelligence as a reason not to use the word God to descibe intelligent design. The fact remains by whatever name is used it is the same intelligence. What your proposing is like saying that superior intelligence has to be limited by our peception of it's existance. That in itself is nonsense.But,I have to agree with you when as you say The word God has been trademarked .You definitely got my attention about that. No doubt about it.We can't be stand for that kind of nonsense.No religion should be legally allowed to use the word God to claim that were should be governed by any religion. period!


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

We seem to disagree on the meaning of the term god.  God can be used for any one of a number of deities, though in its singular form, I equate it with "The God".  (notice the singular tense, god, not gods) The One God.  This automatically shoots out all of the little Hindu Gods.  And those who believe that it is a beautiful complex mathematical formula that makes up the universe and life.  In our society (common place America) the term is most often related to Yahweh if you want a name for it.  This also shuts out the atheists.  I am not one of them.  But politically I feel they have a right.  It seems we are hung up on whether or not the term God is a religious term.  To me it is.  It is not only a religious term, it is, as it stands, one that is limited to monotheistic faiths.  On top of that, it refers to this "One" god in the masculine. Therefore limiting to the numbers of specific religions that it can be equated with.  Thus eliminating those who see a feminine power at work, which is not so far fetched.  So it seems to me, that i am not a lone nut in the fact that the term god is equated with religion.  Therefore, it is also my feeling that the term should not be used based on that context.  No, God is not legally trademarked (that would cause an uproar) but is equated with The Judeo Christian masculine monotheism to many people, both those in those sects and out of the sects.   The whole brand name thing I tried to explain with the Kleenex.  I am sorry if I did not do a good job coming across with that.  I still feel it is a religious term regardless of my belief in universal intelligence. 


ColdWarBaby 7 years ago

someonewhoknows,

Intelligent design?

OK. Billions of years ago there was this mad alien scientist experimenting in its secret laboratory.

Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble.

When the experiment was ready, the switch was thrown and, voila, the universe was intelligently designed. That's just as likely as god I suppose.

All you’re doing is taking the word “god” out of the discussion and trying to replace it with the “intelligent designer”. It’s the same religion with a different name for the deity.

I cannot disprove that a designer existed any more than anyone can prove it did. Nor can you disprove evolution, the big bang or the existence of a singularity.

Let's just call it a draw and get on with things that actually matter.

Just for the sake of discussion, tell me this, if god, or the designer if you prefer, created everything, who created the creator? Where did the designer come from? If you can’t give me a sound answer to that question then you need to stop insisting that I accept intelligent design on faith, which is a prerequisite since there is no science to support it.

If the human race was part of the plan, the designer was apparently not all that intelligent anyway!

It's the same problem faced by scientists who have managed to take us back to the moment the universe began. They have determined there was a "singularity" from which the universe was born.

OK. Where did the singularity come from? What was its source?

The only difference is, at least the scientists are attempting to offer an explanation. They have thousands of years of study, research, scientific investigation and reproducible experimentation to give credence to their conclusions.

The creationists have faith and nothing more. There is no science to support intelligent design.

I understand that faith is so much easier than scientific investigation. It doesn’t require any critical thinking, just unconditional surrender.

Everyone needs to stop conflicting over this issue.

It doesn't ultimately matter where we came from if our disputes over the question are only contributing to our headlong race toward extinction.

Believe what you want. I really don’t give a rat’s ass!

No one should care since it makes no material difference whatsoever.

Others will believe as they wish. Get over it!

The problem isn’t what people believe, it’s their insistence that everyone else believe the same thing.

This attitude does not foster peaceful coexistence. We’ll never end war as long as belief is what we’re fighting over.

Let’s get together and get beyond this petty bickering and see if we can’t prevent our species from committing collective suicide!

Oh wait! I almost forgot. We don't need to worry. God will take care of everything.

There is no way to Peace. Peace is the Way.


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

Ahh, the begining of the universe. So here is how that went. The big bang. But what caused the big bang? So every thing is spinning spinning expanding. The universe is expanding. Eventually gravity will take hold and bring it all spinning back. When it all comes back together you get? The big bang. We keep doing it over and over again. This could be where we get deja vu from. LOL. Could not a mathamatical formula be the underlying intelegent force in the universe? It is all beyond our comprehension, thus we postulate on what it is so to better understand it. Problem is that some people insist they are right, because their parents showed them a book and it said so. And it is ok, we know it is for real because it says "Our God" wrote the book. Really! It says so right here! So lets all insist upon placing our ancient pontifications along side these political things like a pledge and put it on our national currency to show the godless heathens of the eastern block that we know our business. And no, the Bhagavad Gita is not our book because our booksaid so. We will all burn in hell if we take God out of the picture. Never mind crazy Christians, Jews and Muslims have their finger on the button. Hmm, not a bad idea. Our book does say fire and brimstone.......


ColdWarBaby 7 years ago

Actually, some evidence suggests that the universe is not slowing in its expansion. There is recent data, not yet totally conclusive, which strongly indicates that it is in fact still accelerating. If this is indeed the case, then heat death will occur at some point in the unimaginably distant future. The universe will not contract to a singularity and start the whole thing over again.

Then of course there is the Steady State Theory, which states that new matter is continuously created as the universe expands. Although very few adherents to this theory remain, I suppose some may find it comforting.

Then again, it may be determined at some point in the future that the expansion is actually slowing, which reopens the possibility of a cyclical universe again.

That's the beauty of science. It doesn't claim to be immutable. Change and the understanding and acceptance of change are most of what it's all about.


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

Ah, yes, the paper moon theory as yet has some holes. Ahem... But, till they prove otherwise, I am sticking to it, as no one will be around to discredit me if I am wrong. ;)


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 7 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

To Cold War Baby

You know I can't tell you who created God.If I told you that I'd have to kill myself to find out,and you wouldn't know anyway lol.Is this a sound enough answer for you?How can you say there is no science to support intelligent design.Where did DNA come from? If not intelligent design?Iknow only a small percentage is needed by us for reproduction,but still what are the odds against all of the cells in our bodies differenciating into heart, lungs, kiddneys,brain,eyes,nose,mouth,arms,legs,hands and feet?I don't think there are odds high enough for even the biggest super computer to calculate.

P.S. Who loves you baby? God does lol!


ColdWarBaby 7 years ago

someonewhoknows,

There are many possibilities for the origin of life on Earth.

There is strong probability that the necessary components for assembling RNA and DNA were delivered by impacting comets, asteroids or meteors during the formation of the planet.

"For instance, the amino acids and nitrogen-containing bases needed for life on the earth might have been delivered by interstellar dust, meteorites and comets. During the first half a billion years of the earth's history, bombardment by meteorites and comets must have been intense, although the extent to which organic material could have survived such impacts is debatable. It is also possible, though less likely, that some of the organic materials required for life did not originate at the earth's surface at all. They may have arisen in deep-sea vents, the submarine fissures in the earth's crust through which intensely hot gases are cycled."

http://proxy.arts.uci.edu/~nideffer/Hawking/early_...

Life is also being discovered frequently in environments where it was previously considered impossible.

“Making its home near extreme temperatures of thermal vents on the ocean floor, the organism Methanopyrus kandleri harbors a molecular secret that intrigues evolutionary biologists and even HIV researchers.”

http://opa.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=6591

Asking me a question to which you don't know the answer certainly does not produce scientific evidence to support your assumptions.

What I mean, when I say there is no scientific evidence to support intelligent design is that there is absolutely no evidence to support intelligent design.


druneric profile image

druneric 7 years ago from Ohio

Wow, again. Great writing! Great info! I will DEFINITELY pass this along to many of my friends who may turn into my enemies. Brigstocke piece is absolutely fabulous. Thanks Papermoon! You're a treasure.


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 7 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

Come on now,cold war baby You have totally,and seems to me purposefully disreguarded any reference as to how that DNA came to be on those meteors and astoroids. No proof of intelligent design? Someone very intelligent once said the lack of evidence is not proof that what is evident is lacking.

There is no proof that intelligent design dosen't exist.Quite to the contrary.We have evidence that DNA is intelligent design.

If you think "cells" are not intelligent,you must be saying that they are just like machines.It is obvious some intelligence created that machine.Logic dictates one follows the other.Just as a computer is a machine created by an intelligent designer.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 7 years ago from Chicago

The picture of the "Typical American Liberal" was tongue in cheek.  Then again it is juxtaposed against the Boy Scout because the Boy Scouts have been singled out for persecution by the Left, which is shocking to me.  Who has done more for fatherless little boys than the Boy Scouts in the past 100 years? 

Eisenhauer would not have considered himself a member of the Christian Right methinks. 

How many Muslims were presecuted? How many Mosques were vandalized? You might note at least we do have mosques here in the terribly intolerant America.  What would happen to me if I tried to build a Church in Saudi Arabia? 

If I moved to Saudi Arabia I would respect their historical culture.  I would not demand that they no longer speak of Allah in public.  I would not take the ACLU with me to sue everybody in sight to destroy their culture. 


Ivan the Terrible profile image

Ivan the Terrible 7 years ago from Madrid

Paper moon, I used to be a U.S. citizen but no longer. I remember saying the pledge before the words "under God" were inserted. I also remember that once the national anthem was America the Beautiful, which I found much more pleasant than the current one based musically on an old English drinkng song.

Keep up the educational good work!


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

The words under god bothered me when I studied our government. At the time I suppose I was a church going christian, but thought that it had no place in the government. Years later when I researched the origin, I figured I should have realized that it was inserted in the 50's.


ColdWarBaby 7 years ago

someonewhoknows, you have, as I knew you would, entirely missed my point.

Neither you nor I can disprove the belief system of the other. All we can do is waste time uselessly and endlessly going back and forth to absolutely no avail.

This is exactly what our numerous “civilizations” have been doing forever. Instead of saying, “OK, you believe that and I’ll believe this, now let’s get to work and build a better world together”, we bicker, argue, fight and even kill each other over esoteric mumbo-jumbo, which is irrelevant to the survival of our species.

Meanwhile, whilst we’re distracted with our endless feuding, a small cabal of supremacists has taken over the planet and is in the process of decimating the human race to secure all the resources of Earth for the exclusive use of their master race!

One thing I know with certainty is that organized religion has been used as a great divider, a wedge between the brothers and sisters of humanity, for millennia. Along with racism, nationalism and sexism it has kept the vast majority of the human family in a constant state of conflict.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, those who worship no god but wealth and power, who hold no allegiance to any nation, who seek no knowledge but that which advances their agenda of complete global dominance, move ever closer to achieving that goal.

As we debate pointlessly, we pave the way to a global slave state for which the abuse of religion and science will be equally responsible.

Adolf must be smiling up from hell at this very moment. Assuming, of course, there is a hell.


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

Beautifully put coldwarbaby. I might add that these supremacists will gladly use religion, sprout and speak it as a means to their ends, whether or not they believe one iota of it.


tony0724 profile image

tony0724 7 years ago from san diego calif

They ,re using the Bankers PM. And also the Fed Reserve It Is called the Bilderberg group . Which by no coincidence Giethner was at their meeting In Greece last week .


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 7 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

That's strange,I thought the name of this hub was freedom of religion,includes freedom from your religion. Now as I look at my browser is says Reverend crispies tater tots. lol


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

Thanks for that Tony

someonewhoknows- Perceptive of you. I like to occasionally have a different web address and hub name. Adds spice for those who notice things. I also enjoy putting things at the bottom of the page. Lots of people miss that.


usmanali81 profile image

usmanali81 7 years ago

Paper Moon!

Yes, ALLAH is the same ONE God which is also mentioned in almost all other religious scriptures but their followers usually do not take it in their notice and just ignore. Even in Hebrew Bibles, the word used for the ONE God sounds similar to ALLAH.


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

Thank you for reading my hub and answering my question. :)


ethel smith profile image

ethel smith 7 years ago from Kingston-Upon-Hull

Interesting, though as a Brit not something I had given much thought to :)


Paper Moon profile image

Paper Moon 7 years ago from In the clouds Author

Thank you for reading and commenting. :)


HLPhoenix profile image

HLPhoenix 4 years ago

Excellent Hub... I see I arrived a few years late. Still I love seeing this argument in print... stated so clearly and so well, it fits perfectly in with my first Hub and so I am going to share and hope they arrive togther to folks interested in knowing what happened in this Country and when... I voted to return to the original pledge... the one I have on my wall.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Fire and Brimstone

    whose finger is on the trigger?
    whose finger is on the trigger?

    A brief Intermission for your viewing enjoyment.

    This is not the video I was intending to use, but seeing as I can't seem to find it, please enjoy this one. Do take into account it is comedy. The view expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the maker of this hub page, hub pages, or any of the commenter’s. This video is to be used for entertainment and levity only. No religious fundamentalists were actually harmed in the production of this video.

    Intermission

     

    OK, shows over.  Please return to the hub at hand and take your seats.  Thank you.

    Reverend Crispies Tater Tots

    Ironically some of these same fundamentalists refuse to Pledge Allegiance to the Flag, because they refuse to pledge to any power other than “their” god.

    Several quotes from our founding fathers

     

    When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
    - Benjamin Franklin: in letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780

    History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
    -- President Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

    because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
    We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
    - President Thomas Jefferson: in a speech to the Virginia Baptists (1808)

    Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.
    - James Madison; Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments

    The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both;
    - James Madison; Letter to Edward Everett, March 18, 1823

    Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations.
    The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles.
    The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.
    - James Madison,

    More by this Author

    • Vodka and Dark Chocolate
      36

      Say it with Grey Goose Romeo and Juliette, Godiva Cheesecake and Champagne, Pastrami and Rye, Summer and Ice Cream, these are things that go well together. So it is with Vodka and Dark Chocolate. candy is dandy ...

    • Our Country Has Our Sexes Backwards
      49

      Our Country Has Our Sexes Backwards. The social stereotypical roles imposed upon us by society are antiquated and need to change. I am here to be that voice of change. Not that long ago, Pink used to be a boys color....

    • My Squirrel Karma or When Squirrles Go Bad
      51

      Axis of Evil This is a true story. The events and the pictures of the locations are real. Only the pictures and names of the squirrels have been changed so as not to make martyrs of them.    This hub was...


    Click to Rate This Article
    working