Pledge of Allegiance not what the Founding Fathers had in mind

I have two of those

 

Everybody else here seem to disagree. When did the SCOTUS declare that the US is a Christian nation?

 

We did the DAILY pledge in my school in East Boston and we knew full well its meaning.

We also sang patriotic hymns like "God Bless America" or "My Country Tis of Thee" and others in my public school in East Boston. Then in MOST classes a morning prayer time in an EAST BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOL (Early 50's).

During the course of the 4th to 6th grade we wrote out (In CURSIVE) almost the entirety of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and several Abraham Lincoln letters and speeches in our PENMANSHIP class!

I realize that was a time and place (post WWII) like no other.

 

WWTD

 

Oh you should know this... what would trump do?

 

Notice no one had mentioned Trump. Trump is not a remotely possible topic in this thread. But EW&F feels a need to make the thread about Trump. Give it a rest.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

The first time I said the pledge was in 1954. In 1955 I was retaught it with the now added words, "under God."

 

Take a hike

 

You are wrong.

"In his Holy Trinity opinion, Justice Brewer wrote that “beyond all these matters no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people.”He then gave a summary of America’s religious history and concluded that “this is a Christian nation”. Finally, he rhetorically asked “in the face of all these [utterances that this is a Christian nation], shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?”16

 

When did the SCOTUS declare that the US is a Christian nation?

 

It’s not

 

1892

 

This one or another one?

Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892),[1] was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding an employment contract between The Church of the Holy Trinity, New York and an English (Anglican) priest.
The court held that a minister was not a foreign laborer under the statute even though he was a foreigner.

Subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the Constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama, and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen"; the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Com., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania."
****************************************************************************************************
This is interesting. I have never heard of this case. But, there were some misgivings expressed later by the Justice who wrote the opinion in this case (Justice David Josiah Brewer) about calling the US a Christian nation.
************************************************************************************************
In a 1905 book titled: The United States: A Christian Nation, Brewer explained further:

But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that people are in any matter compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Neither is it Christian in the sense that all of its citizens are either in fact or name Christian. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian Nation—in fact, as the leading Christian Nation of the world. This popular use of the term certainly has significance. It is not a mere creation of the imagination. It is not a term of derision but has substantial basis—one which justifies its use.[4][5]
********************************************************************************************
Here we have the Justice who wrote the opinion in this case clarifying what was meant by it. My take on this is it is against the establishment clause of the First Amendment to say that in any legal sense "America is a Christian nation." That claim is made by many people but it's their view and not legally binding.

The summary statement is also important: . In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.

 

I cited his quote directly as he stated it in his written decision. Saying the United States is a Christian nation is not saying that The Established national religion is Christianity. It is saying just what he said in his majority decision. His commentary does not contradict it. Quit moving the goal posts.

 

I'm not moving the goal posts. I was just working through this to understand the case. To me this says that you or anyone can look at the US as a Christian nation but it doesn't have the force of law behind it. There's no legal basis for someone to disobey the law because of their Christian beliefs. They can choose to do so but would be charged with a crime. This is of course true for someone having a different faith as well. Saying I don't have to do something because of my faith is not a valid defense. If a new law is passed allowing this to be done it would have to apply to people of all faiths. Otherwise it would violate the first amendment. This is what's meant by freedom of religion.

 

Here is how Washington, with the help of Hamilton and Madison, put it to the nation (excerpts only):

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Washingtons_Farewell_Address.pdf​

In September 1796, worn out by burdens of the presidency and attacks of political foes, George Washington announced his decision not to seek a third term. With the assistance of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, Washington composed in a “Farewell Address” his political testament to the nation.​

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.
​

With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts—of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.​

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.​

 

That is backward, but no doubt you are imagining an example which you think justifies your generality. Dare I ask what your exception is that proves the rule?

At some point, reality will dictate that there be an absolute standard by which to judge laws. Because the US standard is its Constitution, it is not easily amended. The biggest problem is activist judges sidestepping the standard.

 

There is an absolute standard to measure everything against including laws. That is everything that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Only He holds absolute truth. But we have to deal with the laws of one of the kingdoms of this world. None of these including America is perfect. The perfect kingdom is the Kingdom of God.

That said, the Declaration of Independence is imperfect and the Constitution as well. We were discussing a Supreme Court case which seemed to justify calling America a Christian nation. I didn't bring it up but replied to that. There are no Christian nations