Essay talk:One Nation

Brilliant. I don't agree with some of the historiography, but otherwise simply brilliant. 20:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree 100% with this essay. It blows an issue way out of proportion, and I'm an agnostic/lean atheist. The gist of this essay essentially says that the two words "under god" encroaches freedom of religion, which is absolutely ridiculous. While many of the founding Fathers were deists, they were not explicitly atheist either. For this reason, this essay is misguided. king of the rats do you wanna kick it in the backseat? 16:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"... -- 16:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Under God" is not a religion. Catholicism is a religion. Judaism is a religion. Mormonism is a religion. God is not a religion. It is a religious figure that doesn't threaten anyone, except those who feel unjustifiably threatened by it. Also note that students are not required (at least in my HS) to say the pledge. Even if they are required to stand, they always have the right to remain silent. king of the rats do you wanna kick it in the backseat? 17:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It gives privileged status to Christianity (or monotheistic religions, if you decide to be obtusely literal and ignore the context). Together with "in God we trust" it has been used to bolster the claim that "America is a Christian nation". If it's not a big deal, why its defenders make a fuss about it?
 * As for the "not required", the essay states that it still is in some places.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, it probably does give preference to monotheistic religions. I don't think that the US is a Christian nation though (and those like John McCain who think it is are very very misguided). So it gives preference to monotheistic religions. Are there any polytheists? I'm sure there are. Ignoring the fact that these people are an extremely small minority, they still don't have to say the pledge or stand sometimes. But to be honest, it's such a small minority that I feel like making like Judge Judy and saying "get over it." As far as agnosticism or atheism is concerned, they, including myself, should respect the history of the US and still understand that the Founders were not atheist. king of the rats do you wanna kick it in the backseat? 18:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wat? You do realize that all the religious trappings like "in God we trust" were added during the Cold War to stick it to the dirty Commies, right? If we "respected the history of the US," we would get rid of it. Personally, I don't lose any sleep over the word "God" on the change in my pocket, but it doesn't even have claim to any Constitutional legitimacy or history going back to the founders. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never heard that before. Do you have a reference? Regarding the In God We Trust was to combat communism. But nonetheless the founders were still not atheist and still believed in God, so "Under God" being a restriction on freedom of religion/speech is a far stretch from reality. king of the rats do you wanna kick it in the backseat? 21:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, have you read the essay? There are citations there. Pre-Cold War, the phrase appeared on some currency, but it was not a legal requirement (in fact, Teddy himself thought it to be sacrilege). SCOTUS rulings since then have basically written it off as "ceremonial." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You realize that the US census can't even ask about religion because it's been declared off limits by the government, right? So, here we are in a nation that can't even ask it's citizens what religion they believe in during their census, yet can proudly declare on currency and in our pledge belief in a religious supernatural being.
 * The courts have ruled before that mere mention of god excludes those who are without religion, and thus effects a form of establishment of religion. That's why schools can't force children to say the pledge. (Although some schools still might force students, they're not allowed to by federal case law.)
 * The fact that the founders that didn't believe in Christianity were deists is a poor argument as well, because remember that this was well before science had any explanation for the origin of species. The gaps in science were so large at that time that the only rational choice at that time was that some supernatural entity had created them all. Of course, the choice was oft made by rationalists for an "unknowable and non-personal deity" (deism) rather than specific claims, because even by that time specific religions were losing credibility. -- 22:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides non-believers, it isn't representative of a number of religions, either, e.g., pagans, Hindus, polytheists, Jews (unless it's changed to "In G-d we trust"), etc. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if it were "G-d" the Jews would still have religious reasons not to say it. Look at the crazy circumlocutions that they invent to avoid saying it in the first place. "HaShem" (The Name) wasn't sufficiently displaced enough, so they go do "AdoShem" which is a nonce portmanteau. -- 22:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Great essay, my personal favourite on this site!
You wouldn't mind if a few hard copies of this got sent to a few people I know, namely school faculty and family members? -TheMyon, again logged off because school. 165.138.64.112 (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)