Under God

Great debate. I almost stopped reading it because of axeman and his childish ways. I'm glad I kept reading. I really enjoy a good debate where both sides are presented so well.

 

I feel same way. Axe has got to go. I do think LS has run him off

 

The mainstream of society is not the American community at large. Society whether mainstream or not, is a sub set of the American community at large. There was no mention of society. Your contradiction remains.

The atheists have made a choice that places them outside of the mainstream thought, the mainstream has not forced them to do so.

The phrase under contention is "Atheists are outside of the American community at large, that is a fact ". Mainstream thought (whatever that might be) is not the American Community at large. They are two separate and distinct definitions of things. Any mainstream thoughts could not be a replacement of the American community at large. Your contradiction remains

I am not aware of discrimination or violation of rights by atheists to practice atheism. The majority who practice Theism don't care what the atheists do, as long as what they do doesn't deny them their own rights to their beliefs.

Atheists do not discriminate or violate rights when expressing atheism - correct. It is however unconstitutional for the government to endorse any religious belief - period. Therefore to enter the words “under God” into an official public Pledge by a passage into law, is expression of religious belief and unconstitutional.

Coercive? Who is forcing atheists to conform? They are free not to say the pledge, not to handle money, not to read what is printed on the money. Where is the coercion?

Yes coercive. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ….Government may not endorse any religious belief by its actions. Entering the words “under God “ into the Pledge by law is unconstitutional. Printing such words in seals and on documents and requiring schools to adopt a government revised Pledge is coercive. That’s what coercion is

If I turn on the TV, and nothing but Bush is on the TV making a speech, and I being coerced into watching Bush?

There is no law passed which requires all TV screens to have the words “in God we Trust” permanently displayed on the picture. If there were, it would be unconstitutional. There are laws which endorse the inclusion of those words on banknotes and entered similarly onto the Pledge. That is unconstitutional.

You are free to exercise your freedom of religion or non religion as you see fit. If you don't like what's on, change the channel, or don't watch. Hardly coercion.

Can’t change what’s printed on banknotes as I can change a channel. Can’t ignore unconstitutional government interference in an already perfectly adequate Pledge of Allegiance. Whatever next will they try!

They are in fact outside of the mainstream of the American community as far as their thought process goes concerning atheism.
However, this being outside does not exclude them from anything at all.

"Mainstream thought process (whatever that might be) is not the American Community at large. As I say above, it is contained within it
But anyway, I wouldn’t think atheists give one jot about being outside a theistic mindset. There are theists and atheists alike who see the problem - not being the practice or non practice of religion - but rather an unconstitutional action and interference undertaken by government.

I have not seen any hiring practices where religion or atheism was an issue in general, atheists are not asked to sit at the back of the bus, atheists don't have separate bathrooms, and I don't see signs that say "Theists only."

There well may be many theists who would have it that way. But if they were to, it would be illegal as well as unconstitutional. Like entering words which endorse religious belief into a public Pledge. The Pledge was written purposely without any reference to things of religion by a religious man. It was a minority of people who, acting unconstitutionally supposedly on behalf of the people , entered words which communicate endorsement of religious belief.

People are free to hold racist thoughts in this country, they are not free to practice racism where there is harm to the people they are racist toward.

Practicing racism includes the speaking racist words . Practicing religion includes speaking religious words. According to the Constitution, government must not endorse any religion. Passing law which includes religious wording within government or onto the public domain, is unconstitutional.

Being theist or non theist is not an issue, except for the atheists who don't like the word God.

Your opinion. But I don’t see what that has to do with what is and is not unconstitutional government interference or your contradiction which I referred you to.

I see no damages because some Theists think atheists are bad or evil.

Some theists think lots of weird things. I believe they have to in order to be a theist. But this has nothing to do with an unconstitutional law.

You are talking about an event that happened 50 years ago.
The status quo of today is the issue.

Yes exactly. The status quo is still being breached 50 years later.

50 years ago, minority groups did not have the rights they have today....that was the status quo back then too. Shall we return to all values and practices pre-1954?

The Pledge was originally written in 1892. The status quo held well enough, presumably supported by your” mainstream”, for 64 years. Then under times of the McArthy witch hunts, and in a fear and panic of communism, it was altered, unconstitutionally. Time scale suggests it’s getting time to return it back to the uncontroversial original status quo

Under God affirms the belief that the majority of Americans hold. The majority believe that.

The affirmation of one group, whether large or small, majority or minority, over another, to be then endorsed by public official statement and documents, is a slippery slope. An affirmation by the American people for the American people and their Flag, is not.

The majority doesn't share your opinions nor conclusions, which makes you a minority outside of mainstream thought.
It doesn't make you right nor wrong, nor does it deny you rights they have, nor does it persecute you for having different ideas.
However, that you cannot tolerate the word God, that you have an issue with the word God, does reflect you are the one who is having a problem, not the majority.

The majority didn’t have a problem with the word slavery once either. A minority group did. The majority don’t seem to have problems with unconstitutional law , minority groups did and do . The majority are often found to be wrong. Law gets changed or put back to what it was before becoming unconstitutional . Suddenly the majority shares that opinion. Obviously!

The pledge has nothing to do with religion, which involves creed and dogma. There is no dogma, no definition of God given to favor, no practice given to do, no religion to follow, no religious leader to follow, no punishment for not saying the word God.

You are free to not say the word God. You are not being forced to say the word God, you are not even forced to say the pledge.

But not free enough to avoid government endorsing religious belief against the constitution it seems.

The pledge is about nationalism, not about a flag, nor God. The flag and God are words, and are symbols of what people think they are.

I think this is a good point you raise here, but hasten to add, I think you are wrong headed about it.
The Pledge is about nationalism. The patriotic expression of nationalism is love of country, and is represented everywhere by the Flag for ALL Americans. It is not represented by a contrived metaphysical supernatural non entity named God, which you state represents no particular meaningi, expressed mainly due to the leftovers of an outdated medieval superstition.

Again, people are free not to say the word God, and the are free not to affirm the word God. They are free to say nothing, or think anything they wish.

And free to be free from unconstitutional law.

The pledge is about nationalism and country. The majority of people believe in God, and the pledge reflects that.
There is nothing prejudicial about the word God necessarily, until meaning is given to the word God by people.

There was prejudicial endorsement of religion when government formerly interfered with the Pledge.
If by common practice, the majority of people freely added the words “under God”, in the way British soccer fans’ chants spread from fan to fan until they are sang out en-masse, then your reference to the majority would carry more weight. But to have words of religious intent inserted by government against the Constitution, is just plain wrong.

Imagine a group who didn't like the flag, that they have a problem with flags for whatever reason, should the word flag be removed?

Was the word Flag inserted by government so that it endorsed a belief in a nationalism over another groups nationalism?. No. Of course not. There is no meaning to that .So why should there be a problem with the word flag?

 

You have to ask Americans what they are affirming. That is the beauty of the pledge and America, no one is telling them what the word God means, or should mean for them. The mainstream, if measured, is done so in public opinion polls. You and the atheists who wish to alter the pledge are standing outside of the mainstream according to public opinion polls.

Repeating the same argument in answer to my responses doesn’t make your answer any more reasonable.

We have a pledge that allows anyone to attribute whatever they want in meaning of the words of the pledge, which is American in nature, to allow people to think for themselves.

You don’t think for yourself when you unquestioningly conform with majorities who have been wrong , and government which legislates outside the Constitution

The pledge itself is not mandatory, nor is there punishment for non involvement, just like there is no governmental punishment for not standing and singing the National Anthem.

Repeating the same argument in answer to my responses doesn’t make your answer any more reasonable.

Opinion polls are fact too, and they reflect the majority opinion at present.

Repeating the same argument in answer to my responses doesn’t make your answer any more reasonable.

Words themselves are without meaning unless you know the language, and context of usage.
The word Vishwamitra has little meaning for Americans, but the word has meaning for Hindus.
The word God is like saying the word love. It has no specific meaning unless attributed to it, unless it is defined further.
People are free to place whatever meaning they wish into the word God, however the majority have a meaning that is different from yours.

So the majority have a meaning for the word God and its is 'like saying the word love'. Then why not simplysay the word love?

The word God has meaning to the religious, and also has meaning to the atheists...however the meaning is different for both. The word itself is secular in nature, and it belongs to no one single sect, nor religion, nor particular religious goup.

Words only have meaning when we place meaning on them. The word God by itself is secular, until it is used in a religious sense.
The pledge doesn't tell anyone that they should be using the word God in a religious sense, nor hold a religious meaning.

How do the words "under God" even suggest anything but the manifestation of a religious meaning? If you mean "under love" or "under nothing" them why not include that?

Secular are things not to do with clergy. If the word God has nothing to do with the clergy then it is secular. I think you’ll find it does. Therefore it is not secular.

People can think of the word God as love, power, military strength, or whatever they want. No predefined idea is in the pledge of the word God.

I find that just silly. To say that God means military strength is becoming absurd and I am sure “the majority” would not agree with such an idea.
The pledge has whatever meaning we ascribe to it, as the intent is to pledge to the spirit of what people think America is, to show a sense of nationalism.

Nationalism is love of country. It is not a definition for what makes the people of this country love it. Raising feelings of patriotism for all Americans, is not done by including within the Pledge, what defines each one’s reasons for being patriotic. There is no need for the word God. That is why it was purposely omitted by the author of the Pledge because it is a religious word which many (your “majority” in this case) will use to define what others should accept as being patriotic definition. It does exactly the opposite to what you say above.

It the congress passes legislation, that says "One Nation under Clapton" I would be surprised. However, if that reflects the majority of opinion, the will of the people, I wouldn't mind.
I would be free to say the word God instead of Clapton, who would know anyway?
Who is monitoring how people say the pledge, or what words they use, etc.?

If the word Clapton was inserted unconstitutionally then it does matter.

There is no difference. I have no problem if people think of Satan when they hear the word God. Freedom of thought.

You don’t mind and neither do I. I do mind when words are added against the Constitution whether they be God, Clapton or Satan

I argue not to let a minority force change on the minority, when the minority is not suffering any harm or known damages by the actions of the minority.

Many said the same about slavery. However, I argue not to have any law enacted unconstitutionally.

Let's say I hate Super Bowl Sunday, nearly a national holiday in this country.
Let's say I hate it. Should it be changed because I hate it?
It is what people want, so we have it. As long as my minority status toward the value of the Superbowl causes no harm, I just have to accept it.

Repeating the same argument in answer to my responses doesn’t make your answer any more reasonable

It would seem to me that only those who agree with you are deemed worthy of intelligence, and that is your opinion, and you are free to hold it. I disagree.

Then in like manner, that is your opinion. I disagree.

It is where one person assails another for their opinion, and attempts to judge their intelligence where I have a problem in general, and the process loses the debate status, where one person claims victory, where there is none, nor is there a body or moderator who can declare victory. Flame wars of the axeman type are not debates, nor discussions.

As long as things are civil, I don't mind. That is what I was giving your intelligence credit for, civil debate.

Well I hope you may be able to understand my not expecting it, as your previous offensive assails, name calling, flame wars and insults on me and others are very numerous Optional 777.
But I do give you some credit for some intelligence too. So maybe that’s a start for civil debate. Who knows.

 

ZZZzzz/fofumfee/ART/Optional -whatever this imbecile calls himself these days to escape his sordid past- he still argues like a retarded ninth grader on crack cocaine..

ART you spiritualistic monkey! You insult any and all intelligent life in the galaxyHA!!!!!!!!!!!

 

ART, you are an idiot and an imbecile and have the IQ of a snail.

JB

PS: It eventually gets even better.

 

This all boils down to constitutionality, if I read you correctly.

Assuming you are an American (are you?) then your beliefs are part of the collective sum of all beliefs (group) by choice, not be nature. Given the society is upwards of 90% in favor of keeping the word God on money and the pledge, this puts you and others who share your opinion on the outside of that majority of thought, yet within the collective.

Yes, you are part of the collective, but you are outside of the majority and mainstream by choice. You have the freedom to join with the majority and their thought, or not, so there is no exclusion in play. You are not forced to handle money...you could use credit cards and checks, and you are not required nor coerced into saying the pledge nor the word God. You are not forced to think of the word God in a religious sense, that is strictly your choice. No where is there a pledge to what the word God should mean, nor a specific definition of the word God.

Getting back to the idea of unconstitutionality, please, show me the mathematical formula for the constitution, the precise and unequivocal meaning of every single word, the meaning of every precise and unequivocal word in context that it is used, the proper and absolutely accurate explanation of the words used 200 years ago that had meaning relative to society and culture of 200 years ago, and the writings of the authors of the Constitution that explain in today's language exactly what their intentions were. Show me a single document from the framers that said the generic word "God" should be excluded from money or a pledge.

You can claim what was done to be unconstitutional, but that does not make it so.

You can make an argument that it is unconstitutional, but that does not make it so.

Initially, the court will decide when a properly and technically founded argument reach them, and even then, that decision can be amended through the legislative process in our democracy.

The constitution is a living, breathing, changing document, not a mathematic formula that remains constant no matter what social changes occur, or values of a society are.

You are currently on the outside, looking in and complaining that you don't like what you see, and I understand that.

However, you have nothing but opinion as to what it is that we should see looking out or in. You are not the final authority on what is "constitutional" nor am I.

I can go point by point, and counter and disagree with each of your arguments, because it all rests on the claim that the phrase "under God" and "In God We Trust" is coercive integration of religion by the Government, when that is not the majority opinion, nor the opinion of the court so far.

As I have pointed out the word God can have many meanings, so it can have no one particular meaning unless it is defined in context. There is no precise definition that the word God as used on money and in the pledge is the God of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Druids, or worshipers of Eric Clapton. The meaning only comes into play by the mind of the person who says God.

Here is another example.

Take the word Mother. I say the word Mother. Is that my Mother? Your Mother? Your friend's Mother?

We can't know, because the word Mother is generic. We would have to look to the context for determination of the meaning of the word Mother, the word itself is not self defining.

I could be speaking in a generic sense, and be thinking of Mother Nature. There are so many possibilities.

You are the one who is claiming the word to be religious, which apparently it is for you, but in fact, there is no evidence that someone has to think in religious terms when they say the word God in the pledge, or the word God when it comes to money.

The word God is not like the word uranium, which belongs to a very specific class of minerals. The word God belongs to no one religion, sect, class, society, nor belief system. The pledge and money are not declaring what the word God should mean for anyone.

We will see what happens, but I suspect if your minority opinion does prevail in the courts, we will see amendments to the constitution passed that will allow the generic, spiritual, and secular word "God" to be used on money and the pledge.

Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so the word God is religious only in the mind of the believer....or non believer as the case may be. You see the word God and have one experience, I have quite a different one...obviously.

When the religious nature exists only in the mind, and not in the pledge itself, nor in the money, there is nothing but freedom for anyone to take it or not take it as they wish.

 

god (___). Also 3_4 godd.
[Com. Teut.: OE. god (masc. in sing.; pl. godu, godo neut., godas masc.) corresponds to OFris., OS., Du. god masc., OHG. got, cot (MHG. got, mod.Ger. gott) masc., ON. goð, guð neut. and masc., pl. goð, guð neut. (later Icel. pl. guðir masc.; Sw., Da. gud), Goth. guÞ (masc. in sing.; pl. guÞa, guda neut.). The Goth. and ON. words always follow the neuter declension, though when used in the Christian sense they are syntactically masc. The OTeut. type is therefore *gu_om neut., the adoption of the masculine concord being presumably due to the Christian use of the word. The neuter n., in its original heathen use, would answer rather to L. numen than to L. deus. Another approximate equivalent of deus in OTeut. was *ansu-z (Goth. in latinized pl. form anses, ON. oss, OE. Ós- in personal names, ésa genit. pl.); but this seems to have been applied only to the higher deities of the native pantheon, never to foreign gods; and it never came into Christian use.
The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from some foreign tongue, the OTeut. *guðom implies as its pre-Teut. type either *ghudho-m or *ghutó-m. The former does not appear to admit of explanation; but the latter would represent the neut. of the passive pple. of a root *gheu-. There are two Aryan roots of the required form (both *g__heu, with palatal aspirate): one meaning _to invoke' (Skr. hu), the other _to pour, to offer sacrifice' (Skr. hu, Gr. _____, OE. _éotan yete v.). Hence *g__hutó-m has been variously interpreted as _what is invoked' (cf. Skr. puru-huta _much-invoked', an epithet of Indra) and as _what is worshipped by sacrifice' (cf. Skr. hutá, which occurs in the sense _sacrificed to' as well as in that of _offered in sacrifice'). Either of these conjectures is fairly plausible, as they both yield a sense practically coincident with the most obvious definition deducible from the actual use of the word, _an object of worship'. Some scholars, accepting the derivation from the root *g__heu- to pour, have supposed the etymological sense to be _molten image' (= Gr. _____), but the assumed development of meaning seems very unlikely. From a desire to utter the name of God more deliberately than the short vowel naturally allows, the pronunciation is often (____) or even (____), and an affected form (___) is not uncommon: see gud. (For the variations in oaths see 10 and 11.) In Sc. the usual pron. is (___), but Gude (___), i.e. good a., is frequently substituted in such expressions as Gudesake, Gude keep's, etc.]
I. In the original pre-Christian sense, and uses thence derived.
1. A superhuman person (regarded as masculine: see goddess) who is worshipped as having power over nature and the fortunes of mankind; a deity. (Chiefly of heathen divinities; when applied to the One Supreme Being, this sense becomes more or less modified: see 6 b).
Even when applied to the objects of polytheistic worship, the word has often a colouring derived from Christian associations. As the use of God as a proper name has throughout the literary period of English been the predominant one, it is natural that the original heathen sense should be sometimes apprehended as a transferred use of this; _a god', in this view, is a supposed being put in the place of God, or an imperfect conception of God in some of His attributes or relations. Besides having been thus modified by the influence of the Christian use, this sense as expressed in the definition has been affected by the pagan uses of L. deus and Gr. ____, of which god is the accepted rendering. Thus, in speaking of Greek mythology, we distinguish the gods from the dæmons or supernatural powers of inferior rank, and from the heroes or demigods, who, though objects of worship, and considered as immortal, were not regarded as having ceased to be men; and the analogy of this nomenclature is often followed in speaking of modern polytheistic religions.When the word is applied to heathen deities disparagingly, it is now written with a small initial; when the point of view of the worshipper is to any extent adopted, a capital may be used.
_825 Vesp. Psalter xcv. 5 Alle godas ðioda [sind] ðioful.
_1000 Juliana 121 _if_Þu fremdu godu forð bigongest.
_1175 Cott. Hom. 227 And com se deofel to har anlicnesse and Þer an wnede and to mannen sprece swice hi godes were.
_1205 Lay. 5405 Æðes we sulleð Þe swerien_uppen ure godd_Þe is icliped Dagon.
_1300 Cursor M. 780 Als godds suld _ee seluen be.
1387 Trevisa Higden (Rolls) II. 299 Fogous_ordeyned temples to worschip Þe false goddes ynne; Þerfore he was acounted a god amonge hem Þat worschipped suche goddes.
_1400 Destr. Troy 8145 Our hegh goddes, Wold be wrothe at our werkes.
1577 J. Northbrooke Dicing (1843) 99 They conteyne the wicked actes and whoredomes of the goddes.
1610 Shakes. Temp. ii. ii. 122 That's a braue God, and beares Celestiall liquor.
1671 Milton Samson 1176 By combat to decide whose God is God, Thine or whom I with Israel's Sons adore.
1697 Dryden Virg. Georg. iv. 643 Audacious Youth, what Madness cou'd provoke A Mortal Man t' invade a sleeping God?
1752 Young Brothers i. i. Wks. 1757 II. 212, I do not think at all; The gods impose, the gods inflict, my thoughts.
1841 Elphinstone Hist. Ind. I. 205 Some changes are made by the Jáins in the rank and circumstances of the Hindú gods.
1842 Macaulay Lays, Horatius i, Lars Porsena of Clusium By the Nine Gods he swore That [etc.].
1870 Morris Earthly Par. I. i. 300 Surely no man this is, But some god weary of the heavenly bliss.
_ b. occas. prefixed (without article) to the name of a deity (or of a person likened to one). Obs.
1508 Kennedie Flyting w. Dunbar 490 A monstir maid be god Mercurius.
1599 Shakes. Much Ado iii. iii. 143 Like god Bels priests in the old Church window.
1606 ---- Tr. & Cr. i. iii. 169 Yet god Achilles still cries excellent.
c. Used with defining addition, chiefly referring to the department of nature or human activity or passion, over which a particular god was supposed to rule. In this use the reference, unless there is indication to the contrary, is usually to Græco-Roman mythology, the deities of which are often mentioned rhetorically or humorously as mere personifications of qualities or influences. the god of day: the Sun. the god of war: Mars (Ares). the god of love, the blind god: Amor (Eros), or Cupid. the god of wine: Bacchus.
1483 Cath. Angl. 161/1 A God of batylle, mars.
1545 R. Ascham Toxoph. i. (Arb.) 39 Apollo god of learninge.
1808 J. Barlow Columb. ii. 616 Hail us children of the God of day.
1816 J. Wilson in J. Hamilton Mem. ii. (1859) 53 The last beams of the God of day.
d. the god of this world: the Devil, Satan.
1382 Wyclif 2 Cor. iv. 4 In whiche the God of this world hath blyndid the soules of men out of the bileue.
e. Phrases. ye gods (and little fishes)! used to express mock-heroic indignation. a feast, sight, etc. (fit) for the gods: said of something delightful or amazing.
1601 Shakes. Jul. C. ii. i. 173 Let's carue him, as a Dish fit for the Gods.
1761 Boswell Let. (1857) 17 Dec. 383 It is Captain Andrew! it is! it is! Ye gods, he seizes! he opens! he reads!
1807 C. Wilmot Let. 15 May Russ. Jrnls. (1934) ii. 243 Oh! ye Gods! How you are to be envied & every Mortal alive.
1871 L. M. Alcott Little Men ii. 27 But out of school,---Ye gods and little fishes! how Tommy did carouse!
_1900 Mod. The fierce scrimmage that ensued was a sight for the gods.
1909 H. G. Wells Ann Veronica i. 9 _Ye gods!' she said at last. _What a place!'
1927 W. E. Collinson Contemp. Eng. 26 We used harmless expletives like_Ye Gods and little fishes.
1964 W. Markfield To Early Grave (1965) xi. 187 He cried to himself _Ye Gods!' and _Whoosh!'
f. god from (or out of) the (or a) machine = deus ex machina.
1868 Trollope Phineas Finn (1869) I. xxxi. 257 A gallant young member of that House_had appeared upon the spot at the nick of time;---_As a god out of a machine,' said Mr. Daubeny, interrupting him.
1888 Kipling Soldiers Three 1 (title of story) The god from the machine.
1910 Chesterton G. B. Shaw 116 Shaw_disliked the god from the machine---because he was from a machine.
1959 Listener 26 Nov. 911/2 The heads of government of the Great Powers are not gods from the machine.
1970 N. Fisher Walk at Steady Pace iii. 157 If the God from the Machine was to solve my troubles he was by far the most convincing candidate.

 

2. An image or other artificial or natural object (as a pillar, a tree, a brute animal) which is worshipped, either as the symbol of an unseen divinity, as supposed to be animated by his indwelling presence, or as itself possessing some kind of divine consciousness and supernatural powers; an idol.
_1000 Laws of Ælfred c. 10 in Schmid Gesetze 58 Ne wyrc Þu Þe gyldne godas oððe seolfrene.
_1000 Ælfric Exod. xx. 4 Ne wirc Þu Þe agrafene godas.
_1250 Gen. & Ex. 3541 He seiden to aaraon _Mac vs godes foren us to gon'.
1382 Wyclif Gen. xxxi. 30 Why hast thow stoln my goddis?
1535 Coverdale Exod. xxxiv. 17 Thou shalt make ye no goddes of metall.
1697 Potter Antiq. Greece i. xix. (1715) 105 The Consecration of new Gods.
1731 Pope Ep. Burlington 8, Statues, dirty Gods, and Coins.
1838 Arnold Hist. Rome I. i. 1 They remembered to carry their gods with them, who were to receive their worship in a happier land.
3. transf.
a. of persons, as objects of adoration, or as possessed of absolute power.
_1000 Ælfric Exod. vii. 1 And drihten cwæð to Moise, Nu ic _esette Þe Pharaone to gode.
1577 B. Googe Heresbach's Husb. i. (1586) 1 Yf these goddes of the Earth would suffer me to enjoy suche happinesse.
1579 Gosson Sch. Abuse (Arb.) 49 Some there are that make gods of soldiers in open warrs.
1592 Shakes. Rom. & Jul. ii. ii. 114 Sweare by thy gratious selfe, Which is the God of my Idolatry.
1692 S. Johnson Abrog. Jas. I 29 Such an Usurper is a God upon Earth, which it is easie for some sort of Men to make.
1864 Tennyson Aylmer's F. 14 Sir Aylmer Aylmer, that almighty man, The county god.
1883 Sir F. Pollock in Fortn. Rev. 1 Oct. 537 The ruling gods of the circulating libraries.
b. of things.
_1586 Sidney Arcadia iii. (1633) 282 Like a man whose will was his God, and his hand his law.
1625 Fletcher Nt. Walker i. i, The old mans god, his gold, has wonne upon her.
1852 Robertson Lect. Ep. Cor. xlvii. (1859) 430 A man's god is that which has his whole soul and worship, that which he obeys and reverences as his highest.
1896 in Daily News 30 Dec. 6/2 [He] is convinced there is no God so omnipotent as that of the full purse.
4. Theat.
[So called because seated on high.] pl. The occupants of the gallery. Also gallery-gods. Also rarely in sing.
1752 Adventurer No. 3 The servant whose business it is, as Homer says, _To shake the regions of the gods with laughter'.
1806 T. S. Surr Winter in Lond. (ed. 3) II. 108 The high regions assigned to that part of the audience called the _gods', namely, the galleries.
1812 H. & J. Smith Rej. Addr., Drury Lane Hustings v, Each one shilling God within reach of a nod is, And plain are the charms of each Gallery Goddess.
1843 Thackeray Irish Sk.-bk. xxvii, One young god between the acts favoured the public with a song.
1851 ---- Eng. Hum. vi. 301 Does he_appeal to the gallery gods with claptraps and vulgar baits to catch applause.
1885 Manch. Exam. 4 May 5/3 The wrath of the pittites and the gods was appeased.
II. In the specific Christian and monotheistic sense. The One object of supreme adoration; the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. (Now always with initial capital.)
5. As a proper name.
_825 Vesp. Psalter xlvi. 3 God [is]_cyning micel ofer alle godas.
_1175 Lamb. Hom. 15 þis beoð godes word Þe god seolf idihte.
_1200 Ormin 623 Godess enngell Gabriæl Comm dun o Godess hallfe I Godess hus wiÞÞ Godess word.
_1300 Cursor M. 1061 Rightwis he was, and godds freind.
1523 Ld. Berners Froiss. I. clxii. 199 The lorde Chandos sayd to the prince_this iourney is yours: God is this day in your handes.
1616 R. C. Times' Whistle i. 129 God is an Essence intellectuall, A perfect Substance incorporeall.
1651 Hobbes Leviath. ii. xxxi. 191 God; in which is contained Father, King, and Lord.
1741 Richardson Pamela (1824) I. 227 God, the all-gracious, the all-good, the all-bountiful, the all-mighty, the all-merciful God.
1877 E. R. Conder Bas. Faith iii. 95 For by this name God we understand an Infinite Mind, everywhere present, the source and foundation of all other existence, possessed of all possible power, wisdom, and excellence.
b. Proverbs. (See also dispose v. 7.)
_1450 Merlin 524 Ther-fore is seide a proverbe, that god will haue saued, no man may distroye.
_1533 Ld. Berners Huon cxxx. 480 It is a comune prouerbe sayde, _whome that god wyll ayde, no man can hurt'.
1545 R. Ascham Toxoph. ii. (Arb.) 132 He maye_haue cause to saye so of his fletcher, as_is communelye spoken of Cookes:_that God sendeth vs good fethers, but the deuyll noughtie Fletchers.
1546 J. Heywood Prov. (1867) 54 Spend, and god shall send saith tholde ballet.
1562 ---- Prov. & Epigr. 165 God is where he was.
1599 Shakes. Much Ado ii. i. 25 It is said, God sends a curst Cow short hornes.
1721 Bailey s.v., As sure as God's in Gloucestershire.
1768 Sterne Sent. Journ. II. 175 God tempers the wind, said Maria, to the shorn lamb.
1822 Scott Nigel xxvii, That homely proverb that men taunt my calling with,---_God sends good meat, but the devil sends cooks'.
c. Phrases. to depart to God, to die and go to heaven. with God, in heaven. out of God's blessing into the warm sun, from a better to a worse situation. Also in legal use, act of God (see act n. 4); _ to go to God, of a cause, to be adjourned sine die.
1548 Hall Chron., Hen. VI, 104 Thomas duke of Excester, late departed to God.
1562 [see blessing vbl. n. 3].
_1612 Sir J. Harington Epigr. ii. lvi, Pray God they bring vs not, when all is done, Out of Gods blessing into this warme sunne.
1612 in Crt. & Times Jas. I (1848) I. 186 That which you have done about my transplantation doth very well agree with my desire; and I account it to be out of the warm sun into God's blessing.
1617 Ibid. II. 51 As due to his memory, who is with God.
1651 Fuller Abel Rediv. Ep. A 3 b, Doctor Featly, now at rest with God.
d. With additional title or epithet: The Lord God, Almighty God, God-almighty. Also prefixed to the designations of the persons of the Trinity, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. (For further examples, see the accompanying words.)
_900 tr. Bæda's Hist. iv. xvii. (1891) 312 Wuldriende God Fæder butan fruman.
_1000 Ælfric Saints' Lives (1890) II. 40 Sy Þu _ebletsod drihten god.
Ibid. 78 Se ælmihti_a god.
1340 Ayenb. 99 Godes sone hit made. To god Þe uader ine worde. God Þe holy gost Þet is Þet me acseÞ.
_1420 Prymer (E.E.T.S.) 47 God, fadir of heuene_God Þe sone_God Þe holi gost, haue merci of us!
_ e. In ME. often used without addition for Christ. Similarly, in 16th c., in the year of God = Anno Domini. Obs. (Cf. Mother of God: see mother.)
_1380 Wyclif Sel. Wks. III. 500 And Þan he receyves God gostly.
_1386 Chaucer Clerk's T. 1006 By god that for us deyde.
_1565 Lindesay (Pitscottie) Chron. (1728) 43 This Battle was stricken upon the Ascension-Day, in the Year of God, One thousand four hundred and fifty three Years.
f. The possessive is sometimes rhetorically introduced before certain ns. God's poor, _ God's poverty: the poor regarded as entrusted by God to the care of the devout. God's truth: the absolute truth. on God's earth: now often used as a mere emphatic synonym for _on earth'.
_1400 Plowman's T. 531 Of goddes pore they haten gestes.
_1440 Jacob's Well (E.E.T.S.) 124 A gouelere is a turmentour of goddys pore peple.
1563 Homilies, Keeping Clean Ch. ii. 86 Not forgettyng to bestowe our almes vppon Goddes pouertie [1623 poore].
1583 T. Stocker Ciuile Warres Lowe C. i. 138 b, There were but 200 Spaniardes laid on Gods deare earth.
1847_78 Halliwell, God's-truth, an absolute truth. [So 1886 in Elworthy W. Somerset Word-bk.]
1898 Daily News 31 May 6/6 We talked of work-houses_and then for the first time I heard colloquially the phrase, _God's poor.'

 

6. As an appellative.
a. A Being such as is understood by the proper name God; a sole Divine Creator and Ruler of the Universe; that which God is represented to be according to some particular conception (as the God of philosophy, of pantheism, of Judaism), or is manifested to be in some special department of His action (as the God of nature, of revelation, of providence); God as contemplated in some special attribute or relation (as the God of love, of mercy, of vengeance, etc., the God who made us, etc., my or our God, etc.).
[1382 Wyclif 2 Cor. xiii. 11 Haue _e pees, and God of pees and loue schal be with _ou.]
1535 Coverdale Rom. xv. 5 The God of pacience and consolacion.
1563 B. Googe Eglogs viii. (Arb.) 63 A God there is, that guyds the Globe, and framde the fyckle Spheare.
1678 Cudworth Intell. Syst. i. v. 889 To Believe a God, is to Believe the Existence of all Possible Good and Perfection in the Universe.
1784 Cowper Task ii. 161 Happy the man, who sees a God employ'd In all the good and ill that checker life!
1813 Hurn Ps. & Hymns 283 The God of truth his church has bless'd.
1817 Coleridge Sibyll. Leaves (1862) 187 The God who framed Mankind to be one mighty family.
1827 Keble Chr. Y., Communion, O God of Mercy, God of Might.
1877 E. R. Conder Bas. Faith Pref. 12 Is there a God? Is there an Infinite, All-wise, All-powerful Spirit?
Mod. An unjust God would be no God at all.
b. With partial reversion to the general sense (see 1), in contexts where the One True God is contrasted with the false gods of heathenism.
_1000 Ags. Ps. (Th.) cxxxv. 2 þam Þe ece is ealra godena god.
_1000 Ælfric Deut. x. 17 Drihten sylf ys goda god, mære god and mihti_.
_1400 Mandeville (1839) xii. 142 There is no God but on & Machomete his Messager.
c. God of the gaps, God adduced as an explanation for phenomena not yet explained by science; God thought of as acting only in those spheres not otherwise accounted for.
[1894 H. Drummond Ascent of Man x. 426 There are reverent minds who ceaselessly scan the fields of Nature and the books of Science in search of gaps---gaps which they will fill up with God. As if God lived in gaps?
1927 C. E. Raven Creator Spirit iv. 113 Only disaster awaits the religion which_tries to fit God into the gaps left by scientific study.]
1955 C. A. Coulson Science & Christian Belief i. 20 There is no _God of the gaps' to take over at those strategic places where science fails.
1966 I. G. Barbour Issues in Sci. & Relig. ii. 43 God the Cosmic Plumber, mending the leaks in his system._ This was _the God of the gaps', introduced to explain areas of scientific ignorance.
1970 J. A. Baker Foolishness of God x. 250 There is a phrase which has had some currency as a taunt against Christians on the run in a scientific age. They are said to believe in a _God of the gaps', the gaps in question being the ever-closing gaps in our scientific knowledge.
1979 A. R. Peacocke Creation & World of Sci. i. i. 24 The two-realm ontologies lead to a God-of-the-gaps concept of God's relation to the world.
III. Phraseological uses of sense 5.
* Exclamatory and parenthetic phrases expressing feeling or desire.
7. The vocative, as ah God, oh God, my God, good God, etc., is used to express strong feeling or excitement.
1340 Ayenb. 92 A god hou hi byeÞ foles [etc.].
1573 New Custom ii. iii, Preciouse God, it frettes mee to the very gall.
_1586 C'tess Pembroke Ps. lxxviii. xvi, And yet (good God) how ofte this crooked kind, Incenst him in the desert every where?
1593 Shakes. 3 Hen. VI, ii. v. 61 Who's this? Oh God! It is my Father's face.
_1603 Heywood Woman killed w. Kindn. (1617) B 3, Sus. O God: a Surgeon there.
1812 T. Amyot Speeches Windham I. 134 In which the words, _My God!' had been made use of on a light occasion.
1855 Tennyson Maud i. 60 Ah God, as he used to rave.
_ b. Followed by a wish. Chiefly Sc. in the phrases God gif, God nor = would to God that_.
A verb may have been dropped in these expressions.
_1475 Rauf Coil_ear 734 Greit God gif I war now_Vpon the mure.
1500_20 Dunbar Poems lxii. 4 God gif _e war Johne Thomsounis man.
1535 Lyndsay Satyre 1325 God nor my trewker mence ane ledder.
1570 Satir. Poems Reform. xxii. 50 O monstrous bird! God nor ye gleddis _e [= thee] get.
1599 Shakes. Much Ado iv. i. 308 O God that I were a man.
8. In phrases expressive of a strong wish, chiefly for the benefit or injury of some person, as God bless, damn, help, preserve, save, _ shield, _ speed, _ yield (you, him, etc.); also God forbid, grant (that); God give (something): for these see the various verbs. Hence occasionally used in participial expressions.
Some of these phrases assumed abbreviated or corrupted forms through frequent use, as God eyld (ild, dild) you, goddilge yee = God yield you (see yield); God b'wy (buy) ye = God be with you (see good-bye); God (Godge) you good even = God give you, etc. (also God dig-you-den, God(g)igoden: see good-even). In such phrases as have remained current, God is often omitted, as bless you, damn you, preserve us.
1579 G. Harvey Let. to Spenser Wks. (Grosart) I. 24 Youre Latine Farewell is a goodly braue yonkerly peece of work, and goddilge yee, I am alwayes maruellously beholding vnto you, for your bountifull Titles.
1599 Marston Sco. Villanie iii. xi. 226 This bumbast foile-button_after the God-sauing ceremony, For want of talke-stuffe, fals to foinery.
1600 Nashe Summers Last Will Wks. (Grosart) VI. 89 God giue you good night in Watling Street.
1604 Shakes. Oth. i. iii. 189 God be with you [Qq. God bu'y]: I haue done.
1612 in Crt. & Times Jas. I (1848) I. 194 God keep them from base courses!
1809 Malkin Gil Blas iv. viii. _8 A profusion of farewells and God-be-with-you's.
1814 Wellington in Gurw. Desp. (1838) XII. 6 God send that I may be in time to prevent mischief!
1840 Dickens Barn. Rudge xl, To be_God-blessed_by one who carried _Sir' before his name_was something for a porter.
1894 H. H. Gardener Unoff. Patriot 236 I'll burn every God-damned house I come to.
God bless is also used ellipt. for _God bless you' as a wish for God's blessing on a person or as an expression of goodwill, esp. at parting.
1964 P. M. Hubbard Picture of Millie iv. 42 She took the drink._ _I don't know what to say,' she said. _Would __God bless'' do?'
1964 _J. Roffman' Likely to Die vi. 69 _That would mean that I'd arrive here soon after half-past five.' She smiled. _That will be fine. God bless, Albert.'
1966 _E. Peters' Piper on Mountain i. 20 Now good night, and God bless! Don't stay up too late!
1967 _M. Hunter' Cambridgeshire Disaster xvi. 109 Try and forget me, David, God bless.
b. Many of these combinations, as God bless me (my soul, etc.), God save me, etc. are used (profanely) as mere exclamations of surprise (see the vbs.). _So in the shortened form Gods (= God save) me, my life, my soul, etc.
1590 Shakes. Mids. N. iv. i. 209 Gods my life! Stolne hence and left me asleepe.
1598 B. Jonson Ev. Man in Hum. iii. iv, Gods my life; did you euer hear the like?
_1603 Heywood Woman killed w. Kindn. (1617) F 4, Gods me no such dispatch.
1605 Chapman All Fooles iii. i. E 3 b, Gods my deare soule, what sudden change is here!
1640 tr. Verdere's Rom. Rom. ii. 191 Gods me, said Trasiclea.
_ c. God's forbot (see forbode) = God forbid. Hence corruptly God sware-bot, Godsworbet. Obs.
_1460 Towneley Myst. ii. 38, I fend, godis forbot, that euer thou thrife.
_1530 Int. Beauty & Properties Women A v b, Ells godds forbod She hath equall power of my lyff vnder god.
1611 Cotgr. s.v. Dieu, A dieu ne plaise, God forbid, God shield, God sware-bot.
1641 Witts Recreat. Epigr. 526 One tels strange newes, tother Godsworbet cries, The third shakes head, alack replies.
d. God forbid, Rhyming slang (see quots.). Cf. Gawd-forbid.
1909 J. R. Ware Passing Eng. 144/2 God-forbids, kids---a cynical mode of describing children by poor men who dread a long family.
1960 J. Franklyn Dict. Rhyming Slang 70/1 God forbid(s), (1) Kids (child or children), (2) Yids (Jews), (3) lid (hat).