The American Pledge of Allegiance

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:12 pm

I don't wish to get into a religious debate about this but when I was a school boy the pledge was as follows. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation INDIVISABLE with liberty and justice for all.The INDIVISABLE was dropped in 1954 and ONE NATION UNDER GOD was substituted. In view of my countrys Civil War of the 1860's and current political divisions and upheaval it seems more important to me that one nation indivisable is more important than one nation under god.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 4:06 pm

I would tend to agree.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:16 pm

The country during the Civil War was divided as we all know. There was not a feeling of cohesiveness or unity of spirit. We as a country in WW 2 were united in spirit and purpose and their was no division. Then the Viet Nam era with more division of spirit and lack of unity and here we are today with more separation of interests and agendas. For a country to truly be great it must be in my opinion have a citizenry that is united in thought and purpose, truly indivisible.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:16 pm

I remember something different from

Lon;1457542 wrote: I don't wish to get into a religious debate about this but when I was a school boy the pledge was as follows. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation INDIVISABLE with liberty and justice for all.The INDIVISABLE was dropped in 1954 and ONE NATION UNDER GOD was substituted. In view of my countrys Civil War of the 1860's and current political divisions and upheaval it seems more important to me that one nation indivisable is more important than one nation under god.

What I remember is, and to this day

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

This is a really interesting site, The Pledge of Allegiance

One thing that is missing is that in my parents grew up, as they spoke the pledge, hand over heart, would remove the hand, estend palm upturned as to salute the flag.

Well, come the NAZI's, WW2 and it was just decided to leave the hand over the heart.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 12:05 am

We don't have anything like that in the U.K., which seems a pity in a way, as I have always been a true Patriot & proud of my country. However, you can't instil true pride in anyone by forcing the to recite something, whether they believe in it or not.

What makes things even worse here, though is how "P.C. Gone Mad" has taken it to the point that the Union Flag can't be flown in such establishments for fear of being accused of being 'Racist' (seriously - it sounds like a joke, but it's true).

Post by **jones jones** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 5:04 am

That is part of the problem with Believers/Christians. The just automatically assume that everyone they come in contact with is of a like mind.

My partner is an atheist like me and yet she wears a gold crucifix on a chain around her neck. When she is asked about her belief she goes: "I'm an atheist." This freaks some people out and they go: "If you're an atheist, why do you wear a crucifix?" And she goes: "You wear a wristwatch ... are you a watchmaker?"

I collect rosaries and have several. Why? Because I find them pretty.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 7:34 am

jones jones;1457584 wrote: .... "If you're an atheist, why do you wear a crucifix?" And she goes: "You wear a wristwatch ... are you a watchmaker?"

Oh Jesus! (pardon me) I love it! :wah:

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 7:52 am

Lon;1457542 wrote: I don't wish to get into a religious debate about this but when I was a school boy the pledge was as follows. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation INDIVISABLE with liberty and justice for all.The INDIVISABLE was dropped in 1954 and ONE NATION UNDER GOD was substituted. In view of my countrys Civil War of the 1860's and current political divisions and upheaval it seems more important to me that one nation indivisable is more important than one nation under god.

Well, to be honest saying "G_d bless America" disgusts me but it actually isn't necessarily a religious thing. I sometimes say "If G_d wanted .... he would have ....." It's more of a philosophical thing, as I see it. Nothing wrong in it. But the "indivisible" clause is a corker.

We have a special relationship within the Nordic States that afford us many favours across our borders. Norway is fine with that but felt it was better off out of the EU. So they quit it. The American 'indivisible' thingy would (I suppose) make it illegal for Hawaii (for example) to drop out. I realize it's not quite the same thing as voluntary membership in the EU or NATO, but American indivisable clause reminds me of the USSR.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:37 pm

Lon;1457542 wrote: The INDIVISABLE was dropped in 1954 and ONE NATION UNDER GOD was substituted. You are incorrect. The "UNDER GOD" was added after "ONE NATION" and BEFORE, not in place of, "INDIVISIBLE" as a result of the so-called "RED SCARE" of the early 1950's.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:29 pm

Mark Aspam;1457616 wrote: You are incorrect. The "UNDER GOD" was added after "ONE NATION" and BEFORE, not in place of, "INDIVISIBLE" as a result of the so-called "RED SCARE" of the early 1950's.

Joe McCarthy? How did they justify the change of wording?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 1:22 am

Godless communists, anyone who had a problem with the words under god were godless, communists and therefore anti-american. Major victory for christian fascism now you can't have a rational conversational debate about it anyone who doesn't like it is anti-american therefore their opinions are wrong. Iran is also a republic founded under god - if you use that comparison be ready to run for cover.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 4:05 am

High Threshold;1457620 wrote: Joe McCarthy? How did they justify the change of wording?Who are "they"? The idea was to contrast the USA with the officially atheistic USSR.

It has been long established that no person, child or adult, can be legally required to recite the pledge, with or without the 1954 interpolation.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:58 am

Mark Aspam;1457616 wrote: You are incorrect. The "UNDER GOD" was added after "ONE NATION" and BEFORE, not in place of, "INDIVISIBLE" as a result of the so-called "RED SCARE" of the early 1950's.

You are correct, sir. Our golfing President, Eisenhower, required the change. They all golf now. Must be part of the change.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:03 am

gmc;1457627 wrote: Godless communists, anyone who had a problem with the words under god were godless, communists and therefore anti-american. Major victory for christian fascism now you can't have a rational conversational debate about it anyone who doesn't like it is anti-american therefore their opinions are wrong. Iran is also a republic founded under god - if you use that comparison be ready to run for cover.

:wah::wah::wah:

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:05 am

Mark Aspam;1457629 wrote: Who are "they"?

The U.S. government.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:57 am

AnneBoleyn;1457638 wrote: You are correct, sir. Our golfing President, Eisenhower, required the change. They all golf now. Must be part of the change.Well, kinda, but not exactly. Ike certainly supported the addition wholeheartedly, though he did not originate it.

The main boosters of the addition were the Knights of Columbus, the Daughters of the American Revolution, and possibly one or two other fraternal organizations. The phrase itself, of course, is from Lincoln's Gettysburg address.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:03 am

gmc;1457627 wrote: Godless communists, anyone who had a problem with the words under god were godless, communists and therefore anti-american. That's not true at all. Many religious Americans, including myself, wholeheartedly support the separation of Church and State to the nth degree. Did then, still do now.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:59 am

Mark Aspam;1457651 wrote: That's not true at all. Many religious Americans, including myself, wholeheartedly support the separation of Church and State to the nth degree. Did then, still do now.

I'm sure you do and I wasn't suggesting you feel that way or talking about seperation of church and state. But at the time I would suggest that was very much part of the motivation, if you objected to the words under god you were a communist.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:08 am

Mark Aspam;1457650 wrote: Well, kinda, but not exactly. Ike certainly supported the addition wholeheartedly, though he did not originate it.

The main boosters of the addition were the Knights of Columbus, the Daughters of the American Revolution, and possibly one or two other fraternal organizations. The phrase itself, of course, is from Lincoln's Gettysburg address.

Ike certainly supported the addition, though he did not originate it.

Thanks for the additional information.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 2:36 pm

gmc;1457653 wrote: I'm sure you do and I wasn't suggesting you feel that way or talking about sep[a]ration of church and state. But at the time I would suggest that was very much part of the motivation, if you objected to the words under god you were a communist.Well, at the risk of splitting hairs, I still disagree, and I suspect that you are younger than I. I was a teenager during the "Red scare" years, "I was there", so to speak, and I have always been a leftist. I recall no persecution of or serious animosity toward atheists at that time simply because of their (non)beliefs. There have always been atheists, they are protected by the USA's tradition of religious freedom just as are believers.

The main targets of the "Red scare" in the USA were those active in the trade union movement, especially the more leftist aspects thereof. The so-called "Hollywood Ten" were perhaps the best known example.

I have no doubt that some union organizers may have been atheists; most of them were more likely practicing Christians and Jews. Many of them were accused of being communists and thereby deprived of their livelihood simply because of their advocacy of a better deal for the worker.

Nor am I aware of any persecution of American atheists today. If such were the case, who would educate our college students?

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:59 am

Lon;1457542 wrote: I don't wish to get into a religious debate about this but when I was a school boy the pledge was as follows. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation INDIVISABLE with liberty and justice for all.The INDIVISABLE was dropped in 1954 and ONE NATION UNDER GOD was substituted. In view of my countrys Civil War of the 1860's and current political divisions and upheaval it seems more important to me that one nation indivisable is more important than one nation under god.

Odd. Here in NM we actually say it, "one nation, under God, indivisable, with liberty and justice for all."

I guess we didn't get the memo.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:39 am

Saint_;1457733 wrote: Odd. Here in NM we actually say it, "one nation, under God, indivisable, with liberty and justice for all."

I guess we didn't get the memo.

Farmington, did you say?

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:36 am

High Threshold;1457737 wrote: Farmington, did you say?

I didn't say. Or did I? I can't remember.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:50 am

Saint_;1457742 wrote: I didn't say.

â€¦ and youâ€™re not telling either! :wah:

I lived in NM during the late 60â€™s early 70â€™s. I was a student at UNM and had a summer job delivering NAPA parts to the tri-State area: NM. CO. AZ. including Grants, Gallup, Farmington, Los Alamos, Las Vegas, Santa Fe, and several other smaller communities in all 3 States.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:55 am

Saint_;1457733 wrote: Odd. Here in NM we actually say it, "one nation, under God, indivisable, with liberty and justice for all."

I guess we didn't get the memo.

There is no memo. It is what you said, just listen before any sports event. You are correct. It is: "one nation, under God, indivisable, with liberty and justice for all."

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:03 am

High Threshold;1457744 wrote: â€¦ and youâ€™re not telling either! :wah:

I lived in NM during the late 60â€™s early 70â€™s. I was a student at UNM and had a summer job delivering NAPA parts to the tri-State area: NM. CO. AZ. including Grants, Gallup, Farmington, Los Alamos, Las Vegas, Santa Fe, and several other smaller communities in all 3 States.

Cool. Let's just say that I live in the Four Corners. That's close enough. And, for those who don't know, HT just named a pretty huge loop of desolate, lonely real estate to be driving...Beautiful, but uninhabited mostly.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:15 am

Saint_;1457749 wrote: Let's just say that I live in the Four Corners.

OK. You live in the Four Corners.

Saint_;1457749 wrote: And, for those who don't know, HT just named a pretty huge loop of desolate, lonely real estate to be driving...Beautiful, but uninhabited mostly.

Window Rock was a beaut and also a Navajo reservation in that area but I forgot the name of it. There was a watering hole at the turn off called "Ya Ta Hey". The big danger there was avoding hitting the aged cattle that the ... ah .... um ..... people living there put out on the road intentionally so they'd get smashed by trafic and the gov. would buy them another, young one.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:36 am

High Threshold;1457752 wrote:

Window Rock was a beaut and also a Navajo reservation in that area but I forgot the name of it.

It's called "The Navajo Reservation." or "Da Rez" for short.

There was a watering hole at the turn off called "Ya Ta Hey".

"Ya Ta Hey" is similar to "Aloha" in that it can mean many things depending on the inflection, but it basically means, "Hello," "Hey, what's up, dude?" or "How are you?"

The big danger there was avoiding hitting the aged cattle that the ... ah .... um ..... people living there put out on the road intentionally so they'd get smashed by trafic and the gov. would buy them another, young one.

It is of common agreement around here that the government did not really do the Navajos a favor by being their nannies all these centuries. A good example is hundreds of government houses that were built in Shiprock, then fell to ruin thanks to shoddy construction and corrupt practices, and now are being rebuilt again, all at the expense of the government. The Navajos were once a strong, proud culture that linked together the Utes, Apaches, Pueblos, and many other tribes (even the Anasazi I think) in a vast trading empire.

They still run the world's largest single entity-farm in the world, NAPI (Navajo Agricultural Projects Industry) You can easily see it from google Earth and space as the dozens of green crop circles to the south of the four corners.

... ah .... um ..... people

They are called "Navajos" or politically correct "Native Americans." Just don't call them "glonnies." It means "drunk person" and they don't like that.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 1:17 am

I find those circles fascinating & can't help but wonder why? It looks less efficient, wasting a lot of land, as well as being more complicated to harvest - or do they just fasten a rope to a big pole in the middle & set the tractors / harvesters to do what they do, drawing inward as the rope coils around the pole?

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 1:48 am

Saint_;1457753 wrote: It is of common agreement around here that the government did not really do the Navajos a favor by being their nannies all these centuries. A good example is hundreds of government houses that were built in Shiprock, then fell to ruin thanks to shoddy construction and corrupt practices, and now are being rebuilt again, all at the expense of the government. The Navajos were once a strong, proud culture that linked together the Utes, Apaches, Pueblos, and many other tribes (even the Anasazi I think) in a vast trading empire.

They still run the world's largest single entity-farm in the world, NAPI (Navajo Agricultural Projects Industry) You can easily see it from google Earth and space as the dozens of green crop circles to the south of the four corners.

They are called "Navajos" or politically correct "Native Americans." Just don't call them "glonnies." It means "drunk person" and they don't like that.

Correct me if I am wrong but the Navajos are not considered the â€œcream of the cropâ€, as far as Indian nations (in general) go. Is that about right? I seem to remember that the Navajos being found all the way from north-west Canada to Mexico (even further?) is due to the Navajos having raided (or sponged off) the other Indians along the way, similar to the gypsies (Oh! Sorry! I mean â€œRomasâ€) have done on their route towards Europe.

Iâ€™ve met a few. Hmmmmm. Sitting beneath the shade of a tree in the early morning â€¦ still there towards evening staring still in the same direction. A fellow UNM classmate was a Pueblo Indian, from the reservation. What a fine fellow he (and his wife) was! We hiked up to Lake Katherine together one week-end where we ate nothing but freshly caught fish and potatoes we brought along with us.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 7:15 am

FourPart;1457899 wrote: I find those circles fascinating & can't help but wonder why? It looks less efficient, wasting a lot of land, as well as being more complicated to harvest - or do they just fasten a rope to a big pole in the middle & set the tractors / harvesters to do what they do, drawing inward as the rope coils around the pole?

It is actually the most efficient way to water! There is a stand pipe in the middle of the circle and the sparkler systems attaches to it traveling around in a circle, pivoting on the center. The water pressure drives the sprinkler motors. No water is wasted at all. Land.....we got plenty of, believe me. It's 300 miles in any direction to civilization from here. All wilderness.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 8:33 am

Actually, the Navajo were a fairly sophisticated tribe before the Europeans tried to civilize them.

As for the Pledge, I beg an school right about the time the "under God" was added. The first year I was in school I learned it without "Under God". The second year, in a different school, I had to learn it over again. I got in trouble for saying it wrong. Being my passive-aggressive self, I managed to "forget" that phrase whenever I could get away with it.

Now days, though, I do pledge myself to the ideals expressed in that phrase. One Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, With, or without God, would be a fine ideal.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:11 am

LarsMac;1458018 wrote: Actually, the Navajo were a fairly sophisticated tribe before the Europeans tried to civilize them..

I wrote a detailed post that was deleted when FG went down the other day. The Navajo were originally a vast empire that held together many other more violent tribes like the Utes and the Apaches by being a trading hub. They had an excellent agriculture system and they were basically pacifists, although they were not above war if it called for it.

When the Europeans came, they pacified the Navajos by burning all the orchards and destroying the crops (Yeah... Kit Carson was NOT the "good guy" they portray on the Disney channel) The Navajos were given a large reservation that was mostly wasteland. (More on that later.) The settlers took over the good agricultural land, and dominated trading. With nothing left to do, the Navajo culture stagnated. (There was also the Trail of Tears Death March in there that went a long way to breaking their spirit.) After that, the U.S. government tried to basically assimilate the Navajo culture by forcing Navajo children to go to European schools and speak only English.

Now, add to that the incredible amount of regulations that the government, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Navajos themselves have put on new business (Navajo-preference hiring) and things have stagnated even more.

Then comes the worst of all...corruption in the Tribal Government. Fraud, cronyism, theft, embezzlement, kickbacks, the Navajos could give lesson to the Chinese on corruption. Right now there's a huge scandal about the delegates giving away millions from a slush fund that was designed to help struggling Navajo families. It's the old "I'll give your family $60,000 and you give my family $60,000 and neither of us gave any money to our own families" scam. A total mess. Meanwhile, much of the reservation doesn't have phone service, power, fresh water, or the internet. Gangs and alcoholism run rampant on the reservation and, since alcohol is not sold on the reservation, many of the alcoholics hang out in the border towns giving a bad impression to the locals and creating even more animosity.

Their school system is equally dysfunctional. There is terrific turnover, no housing for teachers, a split demographic, and an attempt to maintain their culture through a "cultural curriculum that, while a nice idea, does not seem to translate into success in state testing.

There doesn't seem to be much hope right now.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 7:49 pm

Weren't the Navajo a matriarchal society before they were forced onto the reservation? Are they still?

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 8:48 pm

Wandrin;1458050 wrote: Weren't the Navajo a matriarchal society before they were forced onto the reservation? Are they still?

Very perceptive and informed, Wandrin! Yes, They are still. In P/T conferences, I direct my comments to the woman. It is her job to raise the children. Hispanic-Americans are the opposite. Which highlights the delicate balance teachers walk.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:47 pm

The Cherokee also went through the program where the government would take the kids out of their environment and send them off to English-only schools. For the Cherokee in Oklahoma, the majority of the kids were sent to the inner city of Oakland, California with its high crime rate. Thankfully, that program has ended.

I don't think that I have the patience and calm required to be a teacher.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 7:24 pm

I don't think that I have the patience and calm required to be a teacher.

Yeah. That would be the defining characteristics needed. I got my job from a teacher that decked a kid for calling him a loser. I've known at least four excellent teachers who lost their jobs for choking a kid. A great administrator I once had told me, "if there's anything a kid can say to you that will get under your skin...don't be a teacher. They'll say it sooner or later."

I took that to heart. Now, if a kid says,"Your earring makes you look gay." I tell them, "Well I am happy....you silly goose!" (Add gay hand gesture here.) That shuts them up. : )

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sat Jun 21, 2014 9:54 pm

Lon;1457542 wrote: I don't wish to get into a religious debate about this but when I was a school boy the pledge was as follows. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation INDIVISABLE with liberty and justice for all.The INDIVISABLE was dropped in 1954 and ONE NATION UNDER GOD was substituted. In view of my countrys Civil War of the 1860's and current political divisions and upheaval it seems more important to me that one nation indivisable is more important than one nation under god.

I have a thread on another site, asking what the world would be like if it were entirely atheist? Its speculation of course, later I asked what things would be like if we removed certain things from our reality? The responses have been of interest, most atheist think the world would be the same without religion; which surprised me some what. Some things different, but basically the same; humans would be humans. The few theist there think other wise; common theist reaction.

If we remove the one nation under God, what would really have changed? If you married sally, instead of Isabell, how would you have changed? If you got a dog, instead of a cat, would the world have grieved?

What difference would it make if we removed all religion, all thoughts would still be consciousness as we know it, but with one less flavor? Look at what religion has done, I would not want a world with no atheism, no opposing thought; and just all religious; PLEASE NO! Oh and all atheist world; PLEASE no again!

If you are going to look back and think in terms of removing things from our history, our reality;

...you better think real deep about that?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 6:46 pm

Nearly all wars throughout history have been religious based. That is a fact.

However, nearly all religions are run by those who have striven to gain their places of power in those religions & are rarely actually anything to do with the true belief of that religion at all. The religions are just a means to an end.

I know quite a few lowly Muslims, and all of them are greatly saddened by the way that the very word 'Muslim' has become synonymous with 'Terrorist', because they insist that such actions are totally forbidden under Qu'ran law - of which I have no doubt. However, the Imams that preach the Jihads of violence have usually aspired to such positions as a means to attain the own ulterior motives.

This is in no way limited to Islam. The same can be said of Christianity - another religion which preaches love, peace & understanding, yet throughout history has taught hate, war & dominance over supposed interpretations of the Scriptures. Once again, it is the leaders of these sects who strive to achieve their positions of power, controlling the masses of those who have been brainwashed from birth to blindly follow their individual superstitions, like sheep, to unquestioningly yield to the will of their individual self ordained dictator leaders.

Religion is the cloak - it always has been, and probably always will be. The danger is that of the puppeteers who hide within those cloaks of convenience.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:53 pm

FourPart;1458164 wrote: Nearly all wars throughout history have been religious based. That is a fact.I'm not too sure about that. Certainly MANY have been so based. But "nearly all"? I dunno.

Let's take a few RECENT ones at random: The American Revolutionary War; The War of 1812; The Spanish-American War; The American Civil War; The First World War; The Second World War; The Korean War; The Vietnamese War; and let's not forget the War of Jenkins' Ear.

I'm not convinced of the religious basis of any of those.

But maybe you can enlighten me.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 9:12 pm

I find it really amusing that the American pledge is generally seen as a right-wing indoctrination tool, yet it was originally written by a socialist.

The Pledge of Allegiance

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sun Jun 22, 2014 9:28 pm

FourPart;1458164 wrote: Nearly all wars throughout history have been religious based. That is a fact.

However, nearly all religions are run by those who have striven to gain their places of power in those religions & are rarely actually anything to do with the true belief of that religion at all. The religions are just a means to an end.

.

Your knowledge is years behind; what you said is true, if we go back at any time beyond the past 200 years, religion does not dominate the worlds governing powers; in fact, of the 20 most civilized nations on earth, how many of those are dominated by religion? Religion is loosing its influence to dominate governments , and its leaders are not looking to do so any more. Only radical religions are doing that, and the world is against them.

You can't use " Old Atheist Theology", to confront this new age we live in; old atheist gripes are no longer relevant in new world movements and changes in religion.

As the world changes, our gripes and criticism must change with it.