E. Pluribus Unum

If you care about separation of church and state, though the number of people who do appears to be shrinking, please sign this petition to restore our nation’s motto and to remove the McCarthy era addition to the pledge of allegiance.

From the petition text:

Congress undermined American unity in 1954 when it added “Under God” to our Pledge of Allegiance and again in 1956 when it replaced our 175 year old national motto, E Pluribus Unum (“Out Of Many, One”), with “In God We Trust”, thus demoting to an implied outsider status the agnostics, atheists, deists, polytheists and other citizens who do not ascribe to this theology. Ideological contention is a necessary and desired result of the freedoms that are the real source of our unity and strength. These laws, by claiming that our unity rests on disregarding the reality of such sincere individual disagreement, are self-defeating.

E. Pluribus Unum — Out Of Many, One

Thanks to Overcaffeinated for the tip.

For those who wish to go beyond this one petition, consider checking out the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

6 Responses to E. Pluribus Unum

  1. Kerry Ann says:

    I surfed across your blog today and I came to appreciate what you have here. I have added you to my Humor Blog blogroll and was wondering if you might add me to yours? Either way, thanks for the great experience of visiting your site and hope you enjoy mine. Thanks Kerry Ann

  2. Hi Kerry Ann,

    Thanks for stopping by. It looks like you have some good videos on your site. I’ll stop by again when I have time to watch them.

  3. Greg says:

    Thanks for bringing attention to this Scott. I personally believe in God, and also believe that no person in any office be it public or not, can completely disconnect their belief system from influencing how they do their job. On the other hand, I see the general principle of separation of church and state to be a good one.

    We are all forced to be under some government, and as such no government has a right to dictate to an individual what they should believe – they should be neutral. Certainly using such exclusive language in the nation’s Pledge of Allegiance is unacceptable.
    I see an interesting link here: I have a choice as to whether I join any given church (or any organisation, really). Following from that, no church of which I’m _not_ a member, has any right to dictate said belief or practice. I don’t see an obvious link to use of exclusive language, but it’s interesting nonetheless.

  4. Greg,

    It is a surprisingly great pleasure to me to read that there are still believers who recognize the need to keep belief out of government to the best of our ability. I know of a few others who feel this way.

    Unfortunately, there is a large and vocal group (hopefully still a minority) who want to insert religion into our government.

    I find it interesting that Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he describes the first amendment as “building a wall of separation between Church & State” was originally intended to reassure religious individuals that their right to worship in their particular way will be protected.

    Today, it seems that many people do not realize that if they advocate a state religion and the religion chosen as the state religion is not their particular sect, they will be forced to worship differently than they do today. For Catholics, this may mean the abolishment of the rites of communion. For various sects of Protestants, it may mean that they are forced, against their will, to partake in communion and to worship at altars that some sects believe to be graven images.

    For members of any non-Christian faith, establishment of any form of Christianity would be a disaster.

    And, of course, things would be even worse for those of no faith at all. Already, atheists are the single least respected group in the nation. Any establishment of religion will only make matters worse.

    Thank you for sharing your well reasoned viewpoint.

  5. Greg says:

    I think there is a bit of an awakening going on about this stuff – i.e. that Christianity is not an earthly empire in which the ‘yield or be slain (or marginalised or ostracised or…)’ mentality holds any sanity. I’m rather fond of some of the writings of Jim Wallis, of Sojourners et al. Of course, the Christian Right is pounding on him too.

    There are ignorant, loud people on both sides of any contentious issue. It’s the quieter ones that often have more useful things to say. I reckon blogs are an excellent way for people to quietly have their say, without having to grab news headlines.

    I do like that you simply gave a link to the petition and let readers make up their own mind on the issue. Even the FFRF site which seems to stay mostly on topic, has some – hopefully unintentional – misinformation, just as I’m sure do many sites promoting Christendom.

  6. Hi Greg,

    I’m glad you checked out the FFRF site. I’m a bit curious though about the misinformation. I’m sure no site is perfect. I would like an example or two of what in particular you believe to be incorrect though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: