4 ms·

> But ya know, at least we shoehorned religion into our pledge. "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienabl

by mp05 3y ago

> But ya know, at least we shoehorned religion into our pledge. "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Look I find it way overplayed to the point of losing any meaning, and a lot of people (civilians) assign some deeper meaning to the ceremony than is likely warranted, and probably partisan. But like it or not, America's middle finger to England asserts that some higher power endows us with rights that may not be infringed. It's the basic premise of the whole damn thing. I'm not here to argue whether this is good or bad, but insinuating that it was "shoehorned" doesn't seem fair to history.

dylan604 3y ago
But it was shoehorned in. The founding fathers very much did not want the government to be dictated to by religion. They also very much wanted people to be able to practice which ever religion they wanted. This is why there is the concept of separation of church and state with the establishment clause. The pledge itself wasn't even around until the Civil War, and was worded differently than what is used today. There's a lot of things that people accept as "always been that way" because it was that way when they were kids. It's not dissimilar to how most of the Civil War memorials weren't actually installed until the 1950s.
- rayiner 3y ago
  Actually, it’s the “separation of church and state” that’s more analogous to the civil war memorials being a 20th century creation. “Separation of church and state” isn’t in the Constitution. It was something Jefferson said, but he was not representative of the founding fathers on that point. John Adams, by contrast, said: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Public schooling was invented in Massachusetts for the purpose of educating kids about religion. Massachusetts had an official state church (the Congregationalist church) until 1824! The “Establishment Clause” says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” That’s not old-timey speak meaning separation of church and state. It literally just says the federal government can’t interfere with the official state churches, which were called “established churches” (and that the federal government couldn’t establish a church itself). For the first 170 years of the nation’s existence, nobody thought the Establishment Clause meant that state governments could not teach kids religion in state schools. That was invented pretty much out of thin air in the mid-20th century.
  - selimthegrim 3y ago
    It sounds like you’re perfectly fine with secularism being removed from Bangladesh then.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - rayiner 3y ago
      I think imposing secularism on an overwhelmingly Muslim country was overreach by western-influenced elites. But nonetheless, Bangladesh’s Constitution, which was legitimately adopted by a government that had the support of the people, expressly incorporates a principle of “secularism” (using those words). Article I of the French Constitution likewise states that France is a secular republic: “La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale.” Secularism in France, too, was legitimately adopted into law by elected governments. By contrast, the US Constitution doesn’t mention secularism or anything like it. It has a prohibition on the federal government interfering with established state churches, and a protection of freedom of religion. In that respect, the First Amendment is more comparable to the German Basic Law, which guarantees freedom of religion but lacks any requirement of secularism. And the Basic Law has been understood to allow quite a bit of public religion. Religion classes are required in school (though you can opt out and take a class in secular morality instead). Government buildings in Bavaria are required to display crosses. There is a church tax. I think the German approach better fits America both as a legal matter and in terms of what the people want. (America is by far the most religious developed country—the percentage of Americans who pray daily is comparable to Iran!) What happened with the Establishment Clause in the US is more like what Ershad did in Bangladesh: he changed the constitution from its original meaning, without going through the proper means for amending the constitution. At least in Ershad’s case, the public probably supported theu result. Even as of 2013, most Americans still opposed the prohibition on school prayer.
      - selimthegrim 3y ago
        Thanks for the detailed reply.
ceejayoz 3y ago
It's notable that when it came time to write the Constitution, those "all men are created equal" folks put the Three-Fifths Compromise into the actual backbone of the new country's legal system. Said Creator they deliberately left out entirely. It popped into the Pledge during the era of fighting the "godless Commies".
- dylan604 3y ago
  > It popped into the Pledge during the era of fighting the "godless Commies". and fighting against civil rights. it is also the same era that people want to make great again. oops, i said the quiet part out loud again

by mp05 3y ago

dylan604 3y ago

But it was shoehorned in. The founding fathers very much did not want the government to be dictated to by religion. They also very much wanted people to be able to practice which ever religion they wanted. This is why there is the concept of separation of church and state with the establishment clause. The pledge itself wasn't even around until the Civil War, and was worded differently than what is used today. There's a lot of things that people accept as "always been that way" because it was that way when they were kids. It's not dissimilar to how most of the Civil War memorials weren't actually installed until the 1950s.

rayiner 3y ago
Actually, it’s the “separation of church and state” that’s more analogous to the civil war memorials being a 20th century creation. “Separation of church and state” isn’t in the Constitution. It was something Jefferson said, but he was not representative of the founding fathers on that point. John Adams, by contrast, said: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Public schooling was invented in Massachusetts for the purpose of educating kids about religion. Massachusetts had an official state church (the Congregationalist church) until 1824! The “Establishment Clause” says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” That’s not old-timey speak meaning separation of church and state. It literally just says the federal government can’t interfere with the official state churches, which were called “established churches” (and that the federal government couldn’t establish a church itself). For the first 170 years of the nation’s existence, nobody thought the Establishment Clause meant that state governments could not teach kids religion in state schools. That was invented pretty much out of thin air in the mid-20th century.
- selimthegrim 3y ago
  It sounds like you’re perfectly fine with secularism being removed from Bangladesh then.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 3y ago
    I think imposing secularism on an overwhelmingly Muslim country was overreach by western-influenced elites. But nonetheless, Bangladesh’s Constitution, which was legitimately adopted by a government that had the support of the people, expressly incorporates a principle of “secularism” (using those words). Article I of the French Constitution likewise states that France is a secular republic: “La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale.” Secularism in France, too, was legitimately adopted into law by elected governments. By contrast, the US Constitution doesn’t mention secularism or anything like it. It has a prohibition on the federal government interfering with established state churches, and a protection of freedom of religion. In that respect, the First Amendment is more comparable to the German Basic Law, which guarantees freedom of religion but lacks any requirement of secularism. And the Basic Law has been understood to allow quite a bit of public religion. Religion classes are required in school (though you can opt out and take a class in secular morality instead). Government buildings in Bavaria are required to display crosses. There is a church tax. I think the German approach better fits America both as a legal matter and in terms of what the people want. (America is by far the most religious developed country—the percentage of Americans who pray daily is comparable to Iran!) What happened with the Establishment Clause in the US is more like what Ershad did in Bangladesh: he changed the constitution from its original meaning, without going through the proper means for amending the constitution. At least in Ershad’s case, the public probably supported theu result. Even as of 2013, most Americans still opposed the prohibition on school prayer.
    - selimthegrim 3y ago
      Thanks for the detailed reply.

ceejayoz 3y ago

It's notable that when it came time to write the Constitution, those "all men are created equal" folks put the Three-Fifths Compromise into the actual backbone of the new country's legal system. Said Creator they deliberately left out entirely. It popped into the Pledge during the era of fighting the "godless Commies".

dylan604 3y ago
> It popped into the Pledge during the era of fighting the "godless Commies". and fighting against civil rights. it is also the same era that people want to make great again. oops, i said the quiet part out loud again