Do think that it is reasonable for the words "under God" in the United States Pledge of Allegiance is suitable for the way our nation stands today?



please respond!!!!

Of course! Dont you know that the one and only GOD of the Universe is always on the side of The United States of America?

"God" is not a specific term to a Christian God. God is just a term for a creator, a spiritual guide. I think the VAST majority of Americans feel that there is some force above us all, and that is what the pledge refers to.

God is not on the "side" of the US. But He IS on the side of the just and righteous (which is not always where the US is, but I tend to think that we are mostly there).

And, as we all know, America has always and only been about mob rule and submitting to the tyranny of the majority, right? Minority beliefs be damned. Literally, I guess, in this case.

No, moweper, "under God" has no place in the pledge. The pledge expresses allegiance to the republic, not any particular belief system. To have tacked on "under God" because a bunch of Knights of Columbus applied pressure on a bunch of politicians (in order to show their opposition to "godless communism", not to demonstrate their faith), to have added a clause which is clearly and unquestionably divisive, is against the most fundamental ideals of that "one nation, indivisible".

I just got back from an editorial writers conference and among our assignments was to write a editorial about the Pledge of Allegiance.

The phrase "under God" was not originally in the Pledge. It was added in 1954 by a Congress prodded by religious conservatives as a retort to the atheistic Communists we were battling against in The Cold War.

The federal appeals court in a 2-to-1 decision said Congress's "sole purpose was to advance religion" when itg inserted the phrase and that violated the First Amendment requirement separating government and religion.

The Pledge of Allegiance didn't need to be tweaked in 1954, but since it was and many Americans have grown up believing "one nation under God" sounded pretty good, I'm not discomforted by leaving the phrase it. Indeed, there are days when I take issue with the line with liberty and justice for all.

But the Pledge of Allegiance is not something to be treated like an item in a cafeteria where you choose the lines you like and forget about the ones that bug you.

Let it be.

Some of us who have been around for awhile posted our thoughts on this subject here "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, You Betcha or No Way, Jose?

However, that other thread is SO old it was closed even before you started this one, moweper. It was a great debate then and I anticipate great posts from all of you on this one.

Well, maybe we should take the "with liberty and justice for all" out of it too, it might affend the prisoners we have, because they aren't free. C'mon folks, are we really gonna nit pick and pluck apart our National Anthem?

CP

I don't really care that much what a pledge or a song says either but wasn't it just as meanlingless to add under god as to take it away. Does saying EVERY AMERICAN MUST believe that there is an invisible man living in the sky that controls the universe make it any more or less true in my mind? Of course not.

Agreed. And in the case of the U.S., the God mentioned in "under God" could mean Allah, Jesus, Budha, etc because the United States has a large number of religions & the word "God" can have a different meaning to whoever says the Pledge. Sometimes in his audio tapings or in letters, Osama Bin Laden would refer to Allah as "God" meaning he means to say "Allah" but he says it as "God" because that is what Allah is to him (which is God) & those of the Islamic faith. But in major "gung-ho" religious countries like Iran, Allah would be used & therefore, the pledge would be deemed offensive.

So techinically, it's hurting no one of any faith unless your a picky atheist or whatever

Note: I am typing this at night when my brain is basically shut down so if the above makes utterly no sense, that is why

Picky athiests? Do you really think that poorly of athiests that you can merely dismiss them as having some sort of personality problem as opposed to a belief system?

but it doesn't mean any god you wish. when people say "god" they almost always think "christian/catholic" muslims call god allah, and I have never heard them refer to allah as "god" (though "allah" means "god" in arabic) I would be interested to see some sources of muslims ever refering to god (they may well have in the past for all I know)

buddha has never been called "god" as he wasn't one (he was a teacher, which what buddha means I think) and even most westerners that think he is a god refer to him as "god" but still as "buddha".

the phrase "under god" was stuck in by congress after being prodded by a group called the knights of columbus, a catholic organization. the meaning of the word god becomes clear when that is factored in, meaning the judeo-christians god. (the god of the bible)

but I digress,
now, should the phrase remain? who cares. I think we have much more important things to worry about, such as how to fix our economy, learning to exsist with each other and mother earth. don't like it? don't say it. don't believe in god? leave it out, or you can even change it. it is easy: instead of one nation, under god, indivisible..... say: one nation, indivisible, or even, one nation, under bob (what I call "god") .....


"I pledge allegiance to my flag, and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". - Francis Bellamy's original pledge, written in August 1892 (He was a christian socialist BTW)

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands... One Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

While I don't agree with the pledge, with or without the reference to any god, I don't see that it ever needed it or needs it today. Maybe I'm just being a "picky atheist" but I don't remember that the purpose of this nation was to stand "under God," no matter which god it may be. Did the Founding Fathers have ties to spirituality? Yes, they were either Christians of varying denominations or, more frequently, ambiguous Deists. But as I recall they sought to found a nation with religious pluralism -- a nation under any one or many or no gods.

Do Christians really think the "God" in the Pledge could mean some other god? I don't think so. Afterall, if they thought this were true, their own faith would prevent them from engaging in it. I believe some infamous stone tablets strictly forbid the worship or recognition of any other gods. While the Jewish faith differs from Christianity, it seems these 10 simple rules apply to them as well.

Whether people want it to refer to the Jewish, Christian or Muslim god is kind of beside the point. Contrary to belief (and unabomber already touched on this) Buddha is not perceived as a god. Taoists have no god of worship either. Hindus certainly don't have a single god, nor do most Pagans. The term "God" does refer to but a single entity does it not?

I suppose those with numerous gods are no less picky that we atheists. How could we not be more thoughtful? Clearly those of us who supported the removal of the phrase did not adequately appreciate the generous brushing aside of those unlike them.

Saying that "God" can mean whatever you want it to mean is a total cop out. It remains that the notion of "God," as it is referred to in the pledge, IS an endorsement of religious ideology. There is nothing wrong with having a religious ideology, if you need it, but I kind of thought that the state is the state, just that. Not a church. I don't recall the Bible even saying that you render unto caesar what is due to God.

Why do we even need a pledge of allegiance? The idea is silly, really. If our nation isn't good enough for its benefits to be self evident, reciting a little line from rote isn't going to make it so. Anyone whose allegiance to the US has been formed even in part by constant recitation of the pledge has got bigger issues.

quark, interpretting religion in your own way is what the Constitution gives you. It gives you freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. It allows YOU to interpret the meaning, it doesn't dictate the meaning to you.


Why do we need a pledge? This coming from someone who thinks they the majority of American are mindless zombies who are lead along by their noses, showing no interest in what is really best for them?

The pledge, like the flag, is simply a symbol. It reminds us of the principles under which this country was founded.

We need symbols. We need to be reminded why this country was founded and what our "core" beliefs are.

I want to recall all our Republicans in the state legislature and replace them with godless intellectuals.

After failing to force all public schools to post the Ten Commandments (the Moses version), now they want to make the Pledge mandatory for all public school students.

Mandatory? Oh, man, that is so not First Amendment. You can't force even nationalism onto someone whose religion forbids nationalism, so the Pledge's rewrite to include God doesn't matter.

Anyway, I want to recall all these people because they are wasting time, and we have real problems to deal with.

BTW, I am free from religion. I don't care if it's a right or not

I am a Christian, but I've gotta tell you, I agree with you who feel that "under God," should not be an issue when there are so many more important things that need the attention of Congress, like jobs and repair of infrastructure, public education and health insurance.
A couple of points:
1) Jesus said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." Take a look at those individual proponents of the pledge circa 1954. Are they living as though God's commandments really matter--especially "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God...and thy neighbor as thyself?" If they aren't, they really have no right to expect it of others, either.
2) Nobody can force anybody to believe in ANYTHING. Case in point: the "rice Christians" in China. You can get anybody to say anything to you if you hold the key to their survival. But it doesn't mean they believe it! Nobody is going to "save anybody" by having them recite the Pledge.
Paladin Elspeth

But it's the principal involved

The reason it's being drug around is because we have a religious president who believes in God. But also it's because some people don't like the status quo changed

But what i have to say is while we were under the threat of terrrorism & economy was bad (as bad as it was then) some guy was worried about his catholic daughter saying the pledge with "Under God" in it

I think the words "Under God" are still no big deal & should be kept in the pledge

Id say "under god" is poorly worded at best, blatant preferential treatment at worst.

It assumes a singular male diety when there are both polytheistic and goddess worshipping US citizens (not to mention the atheists and agnostics). Something like "under divine authority" would at least make it religously neutral.

No it wouldn't. Athiests DON'T believe in a divine authority.

Can someone explain to me how "not a big deal" could possibly be a justification for leaving it the way it is? If it's not a big deal then it is just as easy to change it.

And I would think that any time that someone feels their rights are being violated it should be taken seriously. Token dismissals hardly seem appropriate.

To clarify:
It was in the courts, and similar cases have been before the courts since before Bush was nominated, much less elected. Also according to this timeline, it was an issue prior before war and sagging economy. The legal system isn't as expediant as we might like.

My point assumes that atheists and agnostics will get no consideration anyway, thats just standard american injustice. Its unlikely to change soon. But for those who insist that "god" covers all aspects of religion, im just pointing out they are excluding polytheists and goddess worshippers (singular or feminine gods).

Its obvious youll never get anywhere arguing on behalf of consideration for atheists and agnostics. Daddy Bush even questioned whether atheists were american citizens a few years ago. After 9/11 president Bush wouldnt mention the sorrow of 'people of no faith' as well as believers yet Tony Blair did mention them. America is simply religion-crazy, that wont change soon.

But if you point out the pledge is discriminating against other people of faith, it might be a catalyst for some change.

Granted:
1) "Under God" is poorly worded
2) It is not representative of the totality of the populace
3) It's more fuel for those infected with religiosity

So--What're you gonna do? Is it worth dragging it through the courts?
Someone will always feel excluded; consensus will never be achieved here.

I don't like the fact that it was used as a litmus test during the Red Scare. My high school Econ teacher said they had to sign a "loyalty oath" (this was in the 60's). He did not divulge his opinion on it, but I suspect he felt it was a bunch of b.s. If so, he could either have his integrity or have his job--a common dilemma nowadays.

I think that people in this country are practicing a form of idolatry with the flag and the Pledge. And the solution might be to quietly but firmly refuse to participate in these litmus test rituals, on an individual basis, until others grow backbones and join the dissenters, like they did at lunch counters during Jim Crow. What do you think?

I believe we should keep it in. It's apart of our culture. Our history, some of the signers of the Constitution were athiest but we still included god in our government in some form or fashion. And as posted before, the term GOD is meant generically. Most people think there is a higher power other than us in the universe and they describe it as a deity...god. If they were going to take it out of the pledge of allegence, you might as well throw away all of our currency, because it has the word god on it too. I'm happy I live in a country that still holds religion or spirituality in somewhat high regards. There is more to us than this crude flesh...

I don't like under god in the pledge> I don't like how it got in there. But I don't want to be part of any law suit to get it out either. I can easily live with it and I don't think it opens the door to state sponsored religion.

I think the pledge should not be a daily ritual in schools, as excessive use leads to mindless repetition, which diminishes the importance of it, not that is has to be important to everybody.
There is a misquoted expression, "My country right or wrong!" That is acutally only the first part. The rest is, "If it is right, keep it right. If it is wrong, make it right." Can't remember the source for that so it could be a bit off. But in its complete form, it adds a certain responsibility to our citizenship that the pledge doesn't quite say.

I don't think kids should be forced to say it though, this is a free country. They can leave that line out, but people with faith shouldn't be punished by having it removed permanently.

Having "under God" in the pledge AND requiring students to attend a school where the pledge is led is illegal. It is the establisment of a religion. One that minors are required by full force of the law to attend.

People who don't know or want to ignore history can pretend "God" is meant "generally," but anyone who has actually looked at the history sees when and why it was added.

-Robert