How 'One Nation' Didn't Become 'Under God' Until The '50s Religious Revival

[Captain Obvious]

This might interest Chris :

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=396365659


KRUSE: Their problems with the New Deal were that they suddenly found themselves on the defensive. The New Deal had passed a large number of measures that were regulating business, in some ways, for the first time. It had empowered labor unions and given them a voice in the affairs of business. Corporate leaders resented both of these moves, and so they launched a massive campaign of public relations designed to sell the values of free enterprise. The problem was, was that their naked appeals to the merits of capitalism were largely dismissed by the public.

The most famous of these organizations was a group called the American Liberty League, and it was heavily financed by leaders at DuPont, General Motors and other corporations. The problem was, was that it seemed, like, very obvious corporate propaganda. As Jim Farley, the head of the Democratic Party at the time, said, they ought to call it the American Cellophane League because number one, it's a DuPont product and number two, you can see right through it.

So when they realized that making this direct case for free enterprise wasn't effective, they decided to find another way to do it. They decided to outsource the job. And they noted in their private correspondence, ministers were the most trusted men in America at the time, and so who better to make the case to the American people than ministers?

GROSS: And so they felt that ministers could say things in a more credible way than business leaders could about the importance of free enterprise and its connection to Christian ideals?

KRUSE: That's it exactly. They used these ministers to make the case that Christianity and capitalism were soul mates. This case had been made before, but in the context of the New Deal, it takes on a sharp new political meaning. And essentially, they argue that Christianity and capitalism are both systems in which individuals rise and fall according to their own merits. And so in Christianity, if you're good, you go to heaven. If you're bad, you go to hell. In capitalism, if you're good, you make a profit and you succeed. If you're bad, you fail.

[Chris]

Yes, we had to unite against those blasted godless commies!

When'd the coins change?

[Mac-7]

This might interest @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) :

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=396365659

Just another lib attack on Christians.

And paid for by Christian tax dollars.

[Common Sense]

http://www.usmint.gov/images/mint_programs/2005NickelBisonLine.jpg

[zelmo1234]

It is true, that the statement in God we Trust was not on the money until the 50's

However we were endowed by our creator from day one

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


It is amazing how similar the times were.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

[Common Sense]

Some of more endowed than others?

[nic34]

And so in Christianity, if you're good, you go to heaven. If you're bad, you go to hell. In capitalism, if you're good, you make a profit and you succeed. If you're bad, you fail.

Wrong on both accounts.

simplistic and myopic

[zelmo1234]

Some of more endowed than others?

Yes but the ones that came out on the short end of the Stick moved to Canada :)

[nic34]

Not one major political figure summoned the courage to rebut the spurious claims that America's founders wished to make God a part of public life. It's an old shibboleth of those who want to inject religion into public life that they're honoring the spirit of the nation's founders. In fact, the founders opposed the institutionalization of religion. They kept the Constitution free of references to God. The document mentions religion only to guarantee that godly belief would never be used as a qualification for holding office—a departure from many existing state constitutions.


Hand in hand with the Red Scare, to which it was inextricably linked, the new religiosity overran Washington. Politicians outbid one another to prove their piety. President Eisenhower inaugurated that Washington staple: the prayer breakfast. Congress created a prayer room in the Capitol. In 1955, with Ike's support, Congress added the words "In God We Trust" on all paper money. In 1956 it made the same four words the nation's official motto, replacing "E Pluribus Unum." Legislators introduced Constitutional amendments to state that Americans obeyed "the authority and law of Jesus Christ."

The campaign to add "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was part of this movement. It's unclear precisely where the idea originated, but one driving force was the Catholic fraternal society the Knights of Columbus. In the early '50s the Knights themselves adopted the God-infused pledge for use in their own meetings, and members bombarded Congress with calls for the United States to do the same. Other fraternal, religious, and veterans clubs backed the idea. In April 1953, Rep. Louis Rabaut, D-Mich., formally proposed the alteration of the pledge in a bill he introduced to Congress.

The "under God" movement didn't take off, however, until the next year, when it was endorsed by the Rev. George M. Docherty, the pastor of the Presbyterian church in Washington that Eisenhower attended. In February 1954, Docherty gave a sermon—with the president in the pew before him—arguing that apart from "the United States of America," the pledge "could be the pledge of any country." He added, "I could hear little Moscovites [sic] repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag with equal solemnity." Perhaps forgetting that "liberty and justice for all" was not the norm in Moscow, Docherty urged the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge to denote what he felt was special about the United States.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2002/06/the_pledge_of_allegiance.html

[texan]

In God we trustFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/URL] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust#mw-head)
For other uses, see In God We Trust (disambiguation) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust_(disambiguation)).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/1in_god_we_trust.jpg/220px-1in_god_we_trust.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1in_god_we_trust.jpg)

"In God we trust" on the back of a[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_twenty-dollar_bill"]U.S. Twenty Dollar Bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1in_god_we_trust.jpg).


"In God We Trust" was adopted as the official motto of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_motto) in 1956 as an alternative or replacement to the unofficial motto of E pluribus unum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pluribus_unum), which was adopted when the Great Seal of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_States) was created and adopted in 1782.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust#cite_note-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust#cite_note-2) Secularists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularist) have expressed objections to its use, and have sought to have the religious reference removed from the currency.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust#cite_note-3)
"In God we trust" first appeared on U.S. coins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coins_of_the_United_States_dollar) in 1864[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust#cite_note-USTreasury-4) and has appeared on paper currency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Note) since 1957. A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957 [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust#cite_note-autogenerated1-5)
It is also the motto of the U.S. state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state) of Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida). Its Spanish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language) equivalent, En Dios Confiamos, is the motto of the Republic of Nicaragua (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust#cite_note-6)

[zelmo1234]

Not one major political figure summoned the courage to rebut the spurious claims that America's founders wished to make God a part of public life. It's an old shibboleth of those who want to inject religion into public life that they're honoring the spirit of the nation's founders. In fact, the founders opposed the institutionalization of religion. They kept the Constitution free of references to God. The document mentions religion only to guarantee that godly belief would never be used as a qualification for holding office—a departure from many existing state constitutions.


Hand in hand with the Red Scare, to which it was inextricably linked, the new religiosity overran Washington. Politicians outbid one another to prove their piety. President Eisenhower inaugurated that Washington staple: the prayer breakfast. Congress created a prayer room in the Capitol. In 1955, with Ike's support, Congress added the words "In God We Trust" on all paper money. In 1956 it made the same four words the nation's official motto, replacing "E Pluribus Unum." Legislators introduced Constitutional amendments to state that Americans obeyed "the authority and law of Jesus Christ."

The campaign to add "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was part of this movement. It's unclear precisely where the idea originated, but one driving force was the Catholic fraternal society the Knights of Columbus. In the early '50s the Knights themselves adopted the God-infused pledge for use in their own meetings, and members bombarded Congress with calls for the United States to do the same. Other fraternal, religious, and veterans clubs backed the idea. In April 1953, Rep. Louis Rabaut, D-Mich., formally proposed the alteration of the pledge in a bill he introduced to Congress.

The "under God" movement didn't take off, however, until the next year, when it was endorsed by the Rev. George M. Docherty, the pastor of the Presbyterian church in Washington that Eisenhower attended. In February 1954, Docherty gave a sermon—with the president in the pew before him—arguing that apart from "the United States of America," the pledge "could be the pledge of any country." He added, "I could hear little Moscovites [sic] repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag with equal solemnity." Perhaps forgetting that "liberty and justice for all" was not the norm in Moscow, Docherty urged the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge to denote what he felt was special about the United States.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2002/06/the_pledge_of_allegiance.html

Actually the Congress did now want a State Supported Religion Like the Church of England.

They never planed or intended for God to be removed form the public sector. This is confirmed over and over, in the writings of the founders. Including Jefferson and Franklin.

Both of whom advocated the bible and god being part of government and education

[nic34]

Actually the Congress did now want a State Supported Religion Like the Church of England.

They never planed or intended for God to be removed form the public sector. This is confirmed over and over, in the writings of the founders. Including Jefferson and Franklin.

Both of whom advocated the bible and god being part of government and education

No one is saying god shouldn't be a part of the "public sector". I'm only saying it is not included in the founding documents.

[nic34]

Both of whom advocated the bible and god being part of government and education

You're going to have to link that one, I'm not buyin it....

[del]

You're going to have to link that one, I'm not buyin it....

i'm pretty sure it's a load

[Chris]

Jefferson put together his own Bible, based on things Jesus actually said. He thought highly of Jesus. Here: http://americanhistory.si.edu/JeffersonBible/the-book/

Franklin, Letter to Ezra Stiles, 9 March 1790, from http://www2.latech.edu/~bmagee/212/franklin/stiles/EStiles.htm:


...You desire to know something of my Religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your Curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few Words to gratify it. Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe.That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to beworshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal,and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever Sect I meet with them.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that Belief has the good Consequence, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the World with any peculiar Marks of his Displeasure....

He was a Deist.