top | item 47095656

(no title)

rcdemski | 9 days ago

The “under god” part always rubbed me wrong. I was surprised to learn it was added relatively recently in 1954. I wish we could go back to the prior one.

discuss

order

iAMkenough|9 days ago

I think the Christian Nationalists have overplayed their hand and revealed that their belief is politics takes priority over religion. Going back to the pre-1954 pledge is feasible within our lifetime.

Hopefully as part of the upcoming rebuke of sacrificing our nation's values for a megalomaniac coopting religion for political gain (with very public examples of hypocrisy). Jesus preached feeding the hungry, healing the sick, caring for the poor, loving thy neighbor. Any politics that goes against those basic principles is anti-Christian. Any attack or hindrance on a neighbor with a different faith is anti-Christian.

butterbomb|6 days ago

> I think the Christian Nationalists have overplayed their hand and revealed that their belief is politics takes priority over religion. Going back to the pre-1954 pledge is feasible within our lifetime.

Overplayed their hand? They’re reaching mainstream appeal now. There’s a whole religious revival around young zoomers but it’s a bit strange. A few months back I noticed the rage bait algorithms had my feeds looking like the 30 years war.

scrubs|9 days ago

I agree. Culture wars have distorted, then corrupted a lot to the point where Christains think the state is their personal PR guy, bouncer, and front man ... with an undertone of entitlement to pursue while state is obligated to comply.

To me it smacks of desperation.

Wanna get more adherents? Live your life right, and keep stronger boundaries between personal and private. People will see and respect that.

When things cross, stop already with seeing public comments as an opportunity to evangelize, and blabber on about holiness.

Good example: there's a guy rusty (US state secratary) I believe got caught in the middle of Trump's 2020 election nonsense on the issue of alternative electors. He testified Jan 6 saying cooperation was against his faith and morals whatever the outcome.

Man, I had big respect for his actions and explanation. Short, factual, backed up by action.

MrSkelter|7 days ago

It’s deeper than that. You shouldn’t have to pledge allegiance to any system or set of beliefs in a country that claims to enshrine free thought.

There’s nothing more American, in principal, than seeking to change America for the better.

How ridiculous would it have been for civil rights leaders to have pledged to preserve the America that existed till the mid 60s.

The pledge, or similar, is almost unique to the US and other authoritarian states.

sillywalk|9 days ago

There was a good book[0] about where that came from. Big business and religious leaders joined forced to fight the New Deal.

[0] One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America Kevin M. Kruse https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22928900-one-nation-unde...

throw0101c|9 days ago

See also perhaps Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation by Kristin Kobes Du Mez:

> The book examines white evangelical affinity for Donald Trump. Du Mez explains that white evangelical support for Donald Trump during the 2016 United States presidential election was a continuing trend rather than an exception. The book focuses on the militant masculinity that white evangelicals idealize and how it has manifested in a pattern of abuse among evangelical leaders. Du Mez criticizes mainstream evangelicals such as John Eldredge, John Piper, and James Dobson for advancing the evangelical ideal of militant masculinity.[4]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_John_Wayne

The Christianity that is often in the news in the US is of a particular variety.

scrubs|9 days ago

You can thank Billy Grahm, a major US preacher, for that under God [1] in which the GOP and religious right started to get more aligned around 1950.Indeed, Graham could often be seen later with Regaen (US president 1980-88).

I think it's decently accurate to write US founders were religious except:

(1) church private and state public was more of a thing even though the majority shared similar private values

(2) God was away/apart more so in a static background way

[1] https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/pledge-alleg...

JohnTHaller|7 days ago

It should rub everyone the wrong way.

tombert|9 days ago

Honestly I think even without the "under God" part I've always thought it was kind of weird and culty.

netsharc|9 days ago

Your comment reminds me of what one American college student said in public in Italy. It was 2018, Trump was president, I was on a shuttle bus that takes tourists up and down a viewpoint. It was just leaving the viewpoint when it stops, a man hops in and asks in English "Did anyone see an Apple Watch?". "Yeah, right here!". The first person had forgotten it in the bus, and the second person had found it, and returned it to him. The bus drives on, and the second person (American college student in a tour group) says loudly "Boy, he's lucky this bus is full of Americans!".

I wish I was clever enough to come up with something witty, something like "Oh yeah, because everyone else is a thieving bastard, is that what you're saying?".

krapp|9 days ago

It was added to indoctrinate children into viewing the US as a Christian nation in contrast to the "Godless" communists.

So yes, weird an culty by design and intent.