The Declaration of Independence allowed us to separate from the British empire at the time. It was through the Constitution that we built our government and the principles the country was founded upon appear to be more of a philosophical and secular origin than necessarily religious -- particularly relating to those with a masculine deity.

I'm not discouraging teaching the Declaration of Independence or the different roles religion played in the history of this nation. Teaching history, however, is far different from requiring a daily ritual affirming a belief in a masculine deity that not all children will have.

Edited to add:
Who do you think is taking the issue before the Supreme Court, Billy Jean? Not every minority group in the Untied States has to rally a million man march to take their cause to the government, there are other means. And do you have any more support for your claim that "God fearing people of this nation ARE the backbone of this nation" anymore than if I were to say "heterosexual people ARE... They're the soldiers and farmhands." If most of middle America want to slight heterosexuals or latinos or African Americans, should they be allowed to?

No.

Differences in religious ideology are no more open to discrimination by a religious majority than any other minority, Billy Jean.

That's enough of a percentage to elect a president.

I would want another sourse, Harvard is too rich for my taste...

So? This excersise can go on forever. The laws of God came from earlier religions as well as established secular codes of laws and conduct.

None of that has anything to do with a child pledging his or her alleigance to "one Nation Under God". You want to aknowledge the origins of this country, then tech it in history class. You want kids to pledge their alleigance to a nation which has separated church and state? Then leave God out of it.

Oh, and fyi: The United States was not founded on the principles of a God, they were founded on the principles of religious freedom, a group of believers fleeing persecution and rejection in the old country because they were a minority there too.

Seems the wheel has turned.

Apparently 48% is enough to elect a president.

(Sorry)

Anyways, I do find it amusing how people who are a part of the majority always take justification from the majority.

There are a lot of causes in the US that have representation of a LOT less then 38%. Religious groups, sexual orientation groups,: are they to now be ignored; is insult to them to be allowed with a deprecating pat on the head just because they do not form enough of a majority to form a government?

Yeah, but they were STILL believers. I very much doubt that the founding fathers would like the state in which God and the discussion or mention of whether or not his/her name should be allowed or!



Even though we're opposite on the discussion at hand, that was a good jab! I kinda knew after I typed it, that I was opening myself up for that!



No. There is a difference between hindering the rights of minorities and acknowledging the past and the principles our ancestors established this nation under.

The Pledge is a daily ritual stating that the United States is presently a "nation under God." Daily rituals seeking to affirm the present state of a situation are not historical acknowledgements. There are other ways in which the school system can acknowledge the past and principles of ancestors without requiring that students of various faiths set aside their principles to affirm belief in a masculine deity.

They don't REQUIRE you to say under God. No one is standing next to them with a riding crop or a ruler waiting to whack them if they omit those two words!

Nobody is opposing the right of religion to exist, or to take and maintain its rightful place in the history of the US. But honestly? That is not what is at stake here. What is at stake is a nation now which, like it or not, has embraced the principle of separation of church and state, making children (a large percentage of which are athiest, agnostic or non Christian) pledge their alleigance, not to the United States, but to the United States under God.

That is wrong, it insults a lot of people, and it will end up making a lot of people laugh at, deride or simply ignore the pledge. ESPECIALLY if they know why that little 'under God' phrase got in there in the first place.

If the founding fathers were so for the power of religion being displayed in this manner, why was 'under God' not a part of the original pledge of alleigance?

Apparently the funding fathers whose religious sensibilities you are so concerned to protect had no problem with a pledge which adresses a secular state, and it took a paranoid red-scare a hundred years later to have it put in.


EDIT Don't oppose the Democrats on my account, hell I'm not even American!

Firstly, are you sure of that? Some places take the reciting of the pledge of alleigance, in its modifiedform, quite seriously.

Secondly, so thats your answer? That they can, if sneaky and covert enough, get away with not saying it? Yes you are correct, but the fact that you can if sneaky enough, circumvent a law does not legitimise it.

In Texas why were all those people opposed to the anti-sodomy laws? Its not like homosexuals were being charged with it, it was easy to circumvent the law with a little care. Perhaps however they were opposed to something wrong on principle, regardless of its enforceability.

Jes-Luis! You guys take the cake! It wasn't too long ago that we had moments of silence and school prayer. You took that away because it offended you, then the 10 Commandments and now this has to go! Well I don't care if you don't like my position and if you think I'm bass ackwards.

I know gay history THANKYOUVERYMUCH.

People aren't going to care whether or not you say those two words. And if they do, SO WHAT!? IF if offends you so much that this is a predominantly Judeo Christian influenced nation, why don't you leave?

Firstly: I am sure you know Gay history, but I have to ask how well all of your arguments (Well, we are the majority, well if you dont like it leave, so what if we insult them, they are the minority) would be received if they were referring to an insult against homosexuals.

Or do you only support the domination of the majority in areas where you form part of said majority?

Secondly: People in your country do care wheither those two words are said. People do wonder why the original pledge is not still being used. As for your 'if you don't like it then leave' argument (The absolute worst argument for the tyranny of the majority)... I dont even live there. I live in a country where the separation of church and state is real, where minority rights are respected. I live in a secular state, yet a state where any religion can be worshipped at your preference. And am quite happy about it, may I say

Now thats not nice. What if we asked all homosexuals to leave? Are you really not understanding all the parallels we've drawn between religious minorities and the homosexual minority?

Surely you would be insulted if someone said to you

IF if offends you so much that this is a predominantly heterosexual influenced nation, why don't you leave?

Come on, be objective.

Vermillion, please refrain from the double posting. As you may or not be aware, you can simply edit your previous post within 12 hours of the original posting. If you were the last person to post to a topic and have something to add, merely click the edit button at the top of your last post and add the material you wish.

Billy Jean:
This debate is about whether or not the Pledge should be requried. I would assume that means we are debating the Pledge in its entirity. As long as we are debating the Pledge being required, we are debating the issue of children being required to say "under God" within a required recital.


We aren't saying that the religious majority is offensive, Billy Jean. You are mischaracterizing the argument. The point is that nobody, regardless of whether their position is a majority or a minority, should be allowed to slight or be slighted by another. Masculine monotheistic deity worship should no more be impressed upon our children by the government because it is a majority than Satanism or Wicca should were either to ever become the majority.

http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1...bfc_pledge.html



Sorry to offend, but to me there's a difference. A gay person seeking equality and standing up for their rights is BEING AMERICAN. "Life, liberty and the PERSUIT of happiness" , "That all men are CREATED equally".

I'm sorry, but to me your analogy of homosexuals is weak. A homosexual, like me, can acknowledge God.

Sorry, now you have lost me.

How is an agnostic person seeking equality and standing up for their rights NOT Being American?

How is rights for one minority any difference for rights from another minority? The analogy is apt, you seem to champion the minority when convenient, and the majority when convenient.

Please keep in mind, this is not an attack by athiests on religion in the US. This is simply people trying to respect a principle of separation which already exists. Religion is incredibly important in the history of the US and in the hearts of a percentage of the population. Nobody is rying to change that. However when those sensibilities insult others, then they need to be addressed, and simply saying "You are not the majority" as an argument has no weight.

Ok, I understand. I have to get someone of my own beliefs elected before I can change the pledge, our money, the statues in our courthouses. So once I get an atheist president elected, we'll be allowed to change our money to say "In science we trust" and change the pledge to say "one nation, under common sense", and put up the golden rule on plaques in our courthouses. Apparently all these things go along with being elected - being part of the majority.


Since it is your right to have your god recognized on our money, why can't i have my beliefs recognized on our money too? It's only fair. THAT would be equal rights. And while we're at it, let's add some more lines to the pledge too, so that everyone can have their equal rights to have their beliefs recognized in a national way.

So my analogy to the homosexual minority is weak. Tell me how this is different from religious equal rights?

I'm sorry if they insult others. The gay community insults others, but you don't see them stopping being gay do you? You have no idea how hard it is to be a Gay Christian....

Indeed I cannot even begin to guess. Yet I cannot understand how you can be BOTH an opressed minority fighting for well-deserved rights, AND a member of a majority posting things like "If you don't like it, leave" and "They dont matter, they are not the majority".

Agnostics and Athiests for a huge segment of US society, 38%. So why is it ok to insult them (not to mention non-catholics) because they are a minority?

Nobody is asking religious people not to be religious. What is being asked is that for something as significant as the pledge of alleigance, it be inclusive to all, not exclusive of 38% of the population, as well as an uncountable number of non-catholics.

NO, please try to explain - I want to understand how religious rights are different from homosexual rights.

Just because you christians insult me, that doesnt' make me stop being atheist. What is your point here?

And don't pull "Woe is me" because you have no idea how hard it is being an atheist scientist. It requires just as much faith in people as you have in your god.

I concede one point. The words were added during a time in our history when paranoia and hystaria were running rampant. BUT, if we were to remove those words, we should go ahead and remove IN GOD WE TRUST and any religious ritual from our government. But again... it's TRADITION and I'm sure you'll get around to those too some day...

First off, being bombarded with this analogy of gay rights\ religious freedom, I was trying to make a point in the irony of being BOTH. But obviously you DIDN'T get it.

Several points:

• Americans United for Separation of Church and State has on its board of trustees: The Rev. Robert McConnell, The Rev. Meg Riley, and Rabbi Merrill Shapiro. The Executive Director of the organization is the Rev. Barry W. Lynn. It is a mistake to think that this is an issue which divides Americans into clearly defined camps - believers and non-believers. In my old town of Charlottesville, Virginia, two ministers and a rabbi sued the county of Albemarle for allowing a creche on the lawn of the county courthouse. They rightly said that either the lawn had to be a designated public forum (in which case any group could use it as an area for free expression), or disallow the creche.

• When making an argument based on principles and traditions, perhaps it should be recalled that our nation was also founded in a climate in which slavery of non-whites was accepted, and women were considered the property of their husbands.

• There's a big difference between speaking about the principles of something in a debate, and marching in front of the White House. When a question is posed for debate, people debate based upon their beliefs and principles. It is disingenious in the extreme to dismiss someone's argument here, based on whether or not they are throwing their life's effort behind their position. You may be inclined to debate about Israel and Palestine - but whatever side you are on, it would be bad form for me to dismiss your line of reasoning based on the fact that you are not marching in front of the White House about it.

• As others here have said, declaring the (capital G) God in the pledge to be "generic" is nothing more than an excuse. It doesn't take much to understand that, though in principle, Moslems, Jews, and Christians all worship the God of the Israelites, they differ in their practices appreciably - and they don't use the names interchangeably.

Many people are getting off topic ... I asked If students should be foreced to say "under god" in the pledge.

Oh and Billy Jean, children notice when other students do not say "under god." I remember in middle school when students would make fun of classmates for being athiest.

This was my original post on this topic...The Pledge of Allegiance, Should "Under God" be left in or removed:



After reading almost all of the posts since my original post early this morning (plus I searched and read other forums on this very issue-believe me this forum is CIVIL compared to some comments on other forums ) , I can now fully understand the emotions on both sides of the "under God" issue...and I respect both sides.

Throughout my early (I am 62 years old) school days-as I stated above-after the tardy bell rang and our homeroom class began, we bowed our heads in silence for one minute and then either recited or listened to the Pledge of Allegiance over the PA system. There were no questions asked and no objections expressed-it was a given! In fact, now that I think about it, in those days I don't remember hearing anyone declaring they didn't believe in God. That was the time of my generation (not to say my generation didn't have non-believers, dissenters, etc.) and time does move on and with it comes change in almost all respects.

I believe in most of the grand old traditions and symbolisms including the American Flag-The Pledge of Allegiance which I recited without and then with the inclusion of "under God." Guess what? I didn't swoop up in the air like the Flying Nun or Peter Pan reciting for the first time the Pledge with "under God included!" Amazing!

After reading so many comments on this and other forums, I believe those of us who believe so strongly in our country's tradition/symbolism...and in God, it is rather alarming when we think about excluding "under God" because we wonder if this happens, what will be next? From the word "God", do we eliminate our tradition of singing God Bless America or The Star Spangled Banner at special events because some people are offended? What about "In God we trust" on our currency? Do we eliminate the traditional outside Christmas decorations in our neighborhoods and downtowns because some people are offended? And, as many of you can guess, if you let your mind wander, it can get to be quite awesome of all the traditions that can be eliminated in the fear of offending someone or just trying to be politically correct.

I believe in God of which I will never be ashamed about nor feel that I have to apologize for or explain to anyone. And those of you who do not believe in God or you believe in a different God, I respect your beliefs as well. It doesn't make my belief any less if the words "under God" are removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. I am going to let the powers that be fight this one out!

Below for those of you who may be interested (Billy Jean) are some links I discovered that are very interesting and informative about the Flag, Betty Ross, forums and data bases on the World Flags, ect....

http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagaffs.html#aff1

Link to sworn affidavits dated 1870 by Betsy Ross' granddaughter, daughter, and sister as to their knowledge of Betsy Ross making the first American Flag

http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagpics.html

Link to Flag Picture Gallery displaying flags/explanations from 1775 through 1960

http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flaglink.html

Link to World Flag Database and Flag links on the Internet

http://www.esquilax.com/flag/

Link to the Flag Burning Page

=================================================================
http://www.esquilax.com/flag/chal4.html

Link to an assay, "The Flag Deserves Protection" by Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein
=============================================================

Thomas Jefferson's quote in The Declaration of Independence. He said," 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."

The Declaration of Independence however does mention God numerous times.

QUOTE

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

This means there can be no law that either confirms or denys the existence of a supreme being. Nor can there be a law prohibiting a person or group to establish a religion and worship a supreme being or beings.

It is the government's job to be politically correct.

That is the definition of the term - politically correct.

People singing "God Bless America" or decorating their houses with christmas decorations - that does not fall under the same notion as politically correct.

Laws should be PC. National mottos should be PC. National currency should be PC. The decorations of our courtrooms of national and state justice should be PC. All practices and policies of our government should be politically correct. Our public schools should be politically correct.

My christian neighbors putting out their figures of the manger in their yard - THAT is a right that every American has - on his or her own private property and the private property of their churches and clubs.

It can get to be quite awesome all the traditions that can be eliminated in the fear of offending someone or just trying to be politically correct? PC is the whole point. If the government isn't expected to be politically correct - the term should be eliminated from our vocabulary. I depend on our government to be politically correct. They set the standard of political correctness. And yes, all references to supernatural beings should be eliminated from our government - even if that means changing traditions. If references to god are not eliminated, then equal opportunity needs to be given to others to put their creeds on our money, in our mottos, and in our pledge. That's only fair. (Print real small.)

I have two responses to this, and as to why the "slippery slope" argument doesn't work here. But first, I want to say that I respect your opinion, and I understand the internal logic which drives it.

1. Since the Pledge was written without the "under God" phrase, there is no logical reason to assume that returning to the original state necessarily heralds further censoring beyond that point.

2. When you take the same logic and apply it elsewhere, the logical structure falls apart. For example, automobiles. A decade ago (or so), no one had air bags in their cars. Now, they are required in new models. If I were to construct an argument as to why air bags should not be required in all cars, or indeed even that NO cars should have airbags, that doesn't mean that, were my campaign to be successful, that soon, seatbelts and all other safety devices would be sure to be removed. Likewise, there's no reason to think that a campaign to remove "under God" from the pledge would necessitate further action.

But for the sake of argument, let's say you are right. Let's say "In God We Trust" gets removed, followed by the songs being edited. How does that hurt anything? I can understand confronting and opposing political correctness when it gets to the point where my rights are being infringed in order to merely appease, or not offend, someone else, but eliminating the word "God" from those areas does not infringe on your rights, nor does it affect your faith. I guess I don't see why a Christian feels they need any public confirmation of their faith - at least, public in the sense of government.

Many religious people believe strongly in the secular state, precisely because they understand what it is to be persecuted - even if their sect is in the mainstream. "There but for the grace of God go I." A secular state with strong first amendment rights is an empowering agent for religious practitioners, not an "attack" on any particular cult.

Oh and fyi: I never said this country was founded on the principals of God. Please don’t put words in my mouth or draw false conclusions if you intend to carry on a healthy debate.

And if you’re going to use history to make your point please make a point of understanding your history.

This country was founded by a group of mostly 2nd generation colonials, they weren’t fleeing any persecution. And the reason for the revolution wasn’t religious freedom. We broke from England because we were being ruled by a government that refused to recognize formal representation. Religious freedom was just a belief held by those who formed our democracy.

I don’t buy the ‘separation of church and state’ argument against the pledge.

The intent of ‘separation of church and state’ by our founders was to keep our government from sponsoring a particular religion. It was a critical concept if our government was going to support religious freedom. Like most of our constitutional concepts this has taken on more meaning and definition through legal interpretations.

And I see nothing in the pledge where a particular religion gets an unfair plug.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag....one nation UNDER GOD"

How is this not biased towards religions that believe in an absolute power?

When someone says the pledge they are basically saying that they "pledge allegiance" to the United States of America, which they believe is a "nation under god"

Well, what about atheists? They believe there is no god. Each time they say the pledge they would just be telling a lie. Christians don't have to do that.. So why should atheists?

"One nation under god" should never have been added to the pledge. When references to a higher power are made in our government it contradicts our "Freedom of religion."

How would christians like it if "one nation under god" was changed to one nation under NO god? Sounds unfair and biased right? But why do so many people think saying "under god" is fair?

Well i know....IGNORANCE

If it was fair, saying under No god would be fair as well.

I am much older than most all of you, I was in the 10th Grade when the Pledge was changed to include Under God. It did not cause even a ripple of dissent at the time. We did not recite the Pledge every morning, but rather at special events and assemblies.

It was Eisenhower who wanted the words included, and he was influenced by his wife Mamie, who was influenced by her Church.

I am not a religious person, perhaps you could best describe me as a Deist, and Deist is what most of our founding fathers were, not Christians but Deist, which means in effect, you believe in a Supreme being or some sort, but not neccessarily God and the Church of any kind.

Because I believe their is a God or Supreme being or beings, that life and the earth and the universe is simply not accidental I accept things without protest such as reciting Under God, it does not mean I believe in the Bible or the Koran or the Jewish bible or any other teaching about God. But I do believe there is a God.

In so far as the Pledge of Allegiance goes, I find nothing wrong with a Country wanting to instill Patriotism in its people. It makes no difference if you believe in God or not, it only means that if their is a god this nation lives under that god.

I'm with Billy Jean on this issue. I think the point missed mostly is the connection between children and respect. Today's children have many different challenges that most of the children in the 50s and 60s did not have. Single parent families, less quality time with parents, less supervision and too much media influence. Many failed programs by "enlightened" individuals as well. I know this may spin this into a teacher versus parent debate which isn't my intent but would be a good debate on it's own merit. The self same secularists are part of the problem there as well. What most fail to see is there is a direct correlation between instilling moral value in children and the disrespect and societal decay that has been occurring. Secularist tend to not give up an inch even when it's obvious that inch has caused much greater problems than it solved. Today's children have much less time with a parent than ever before. Instead of a parent being the major influence in their world as in the past, there is now a battle between daycares and television. After WWII there came an opportunity to rise in the class warfare by becoming a two income family and, as many wives had worked during wartime, it easily took hold and became the norm in a very short time. Wasn't long before it became a necessity rather than an opportunity and today our children suffer because of it. Also, it wasn't long before divorce became common in the US. Single parent, teen pregnancy, kids abusing acohol and drugs all quickly followed. "Enlightened" secularists would cry "bad parent" or "mental instability caused by chemical imbalance". Usually these secularists had no children of their own so you know how expert they are on the subject. Dr. Spock, the grandfather on todays child behavior and psychology, in his waning years even said he couldn't have been more wrong, yet we still follow what he said today at the expense of our youth. Children NEED a sense of morality. And they need a support program for it. Teachers and schools worked with parents until the 80's and they formed good citizens. Today teachers have little problem with inflicting their ideologies to their captive audiences regardless of how a parent feels about it. Most children come out of schools looking for what is the most they can get for the least effort and how little they will settle for. They have little respect for anyone or anything. I know of "men" in their 30's that still live off of their mothers. Massive amounts of children in depression, some forever hooked to prescription drugs. A counselor at their hip from kindergarten to graduation worried all about their feelings. All but begging them to dwell on every negative in their life. Counselors an teachers, just like Gestapo, patting kids down and interrogating them daily for any hint a parent may have popped their butt . But I digress. the point still has to do with children and the connection with a moral base and re-enforcement. I cannot understand why it doesn't offend me to hear someone say they are agnostic or atheist but it offends them to hear someone say" under God". It's like we are suppose to be sensitive to their needs but not vice versa. If you have any doubt about the religious founding of this country just read the original Articles of Confederation. Trying to make the argument that the government will not establish a national religion means something other than that just does not fly. Too many founding documents have "Creator" or "God" mentioned in them and it was obviously not their intent to have a godless society. Nor can much be said in favor of such a society. I cannot think of any detriment to society that a manger scene has caused. However, contrary to what one poster said, I have seen where a town had banned manger scenes on private property. Today's children are getting physically mature at a younger age and they have less and less supervision. Without moral direction they will become a danger in today's society. Today's high school grad is no where near the citizen that the school systems used to create.

Patriotism is not learned solely by repeating a mantra every morning at school any more than instilling a belief in God is. Both are internal processes that need reinforcement from parents and the places parents and children go outside of school. So I guess I'm not too upset at the prospect of excluding "under God" from the pledge or excluding the pledge itself.

After so many years of repeating the pledge from about 1959 to 1964 (I don't remember if we did it in junior high or not), the whole thing became "yada, yada, yada" standing still in front of the flag. What was to miss?

I still get a lump in my throat and a tear in my eye listening to a stirring rendition of The Star-Spangled Banner. The flag is beautiful and I respect what it stands for, but it is a symbol and the human life of one citizen outweighs the value of one single scrap of cloth. I am not a "flagolator."

I believe in a personal and loving Deity, but I believe that this Deity has unlimited power as well and is not dependent upon one clause of the pledge in order to be acknowledged.

On the other hand, I don't really believe that the clause "under God" is proselytizing. It was probably a litmus test used to root out atheistic Communists who were thought to be behind every bush, under every bed, and in every school. Except that a person does not have to be a Communist to not believe in God or not feel sure about his/her beliefs.

I was forced to memorize the above, and recite it every day in grade school, but I often felt that I had no idea at all what some of the words meant. According to a software (Microsoft Word) scan, it has twenty nine words, with a readability level of 12.0. In other words, six years after I stopped reciting it daily, I could expect to understand what it meant. Yes, there are those of us out here who learned it before Congress rewrote it.

I do recall a couple of teachers at the time who felt it was their responsibility to teach us that this had been added to remind us that we are a "Christian Nation." (Not Judeo-Christian!) So... Let's look at those founders... The Unitarians have long maintained that their religion originated with the pilgrims on the Mayflower, who fled religious persecution by the Trinitarians; those who believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were three separate entities. While, at the time, they claimed a belief in Christ, they were not considered Christians by the Catholic church, and heresy was a capital offense.

The addition of "under God" was an act, not of faith, but of Congress.

Some examples? Define what you mean by secularist and explain what you mean about giving up inches causing greater problems than 'it' solved - what is 'it'?


As a female child, I prospered and benefited from having career-oriented female role models.


Some of these secularists came from broken homes and they certainly have expertise in living in a family that knows no peace. For some people, divorce is the better option, versus growing up in a warzone. There are teen pregnancies and drug abuse in families that are not divorced. And more often then ever, teens are getting pregnant for the sole purpose of getting married (wed-lock). Seems like women who feel like they have no choice to take care of themselves on their own figure their only way to support themselves is to get married. Kudos to women who have careers and show their daughters that you don't need a man to support yourself.


This is quite a broad statement. You presume to know what "children" (IMO young adults) are searching for in their lives. Blanket statements like "They have little respect for anyone or anything" tends to be a bit dramatic, don't you think? (Can you tell I'm a law student?)


Anyone is allowed to declare their faith personally. Everyone has that right. And if one group has a right to add their creed to our national motto, our national pledge, our national anthem, then all creeds have a place in those things:

One nation, under god, under buddha, under einstein, under allah, under jehovah, indivisible
with liberty and justice for all....

You wouldn't object to that, right?


It's not obvious to me. Please show me how it's obvious that the forefathers intended this nation to worship the Judeo-Christian god?


Where?


Children are maturing faster physically - the biological clock of humanity is speeding up - because children are less supervised? How is today's high school grad nowhere near the citizen that the school systems used to create? Who is over there in IRAQ dying for the older generations' poor planning and warmongering? America's Army with an average age of 19, even today.
Yeah, today's high school kids are terrible citizens. <sarcasm>

Well Curmudgeon, that was wrong of that teacher. This nation was founded by some that were Christians, but at the very least agnostic. This isn't a "Christian nation", but a nation under God. And too me, it's up to the individual to determine what that means. To me, it's a nod to the past and a reminder that under a such diversity and extrodenary circumstances that this nation was founded, forged through wars, ideological differences, depressions and pain: that through all of that, the Divine had it's hand over our nation, ensuring it's survival. Some take pride in the greatness of this nation, in what it's accomplished and overcome in the last 227 years and some, a large percentage actually, feel the presence of a higher power that has played a part in Americas coming of age and wish to acknowledge that.

edited to add: I dispute and disagree with ANY denomination or religion that wishes to make "Under God" about any particular version or interpretation of God. That to me is unconstitutional.

Since it seems to be the argument of the "pro-under god" side that the term "under god" includes everyone except atheists, let's pretend that I'm not an atheist and that I'm buddhist (actually, they are pretty much the same thing).

Now, Buddha is not god. Generally, Buddhists don't believe that Buddha has supernatural powers. Buddha is a teacher, a philosopher. As a Buddhist, it would not be proper to idolize the teacher, just like in Christianity it would not be proper to idolize the writers and interpreters of the bible, or the priests who teach it. Buddha teaches how to find the Truth - which the the intangible aspect of Buddhism - the quest, the aspect of worship. Just like god is the intangible aspect of christianity. To claim that "under god" includes Buddhists is not feasible. I find this site to be a very accurate description of the faith (the 4th largest faith in the world).

"under god" does not include Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, wiccans

I guess we're just in the minority, so we should shut up or leave.

Our forefathers owned slaves, so that means that we are violating the rights of white Americans today by giving african american's equal rights. (This is the crux of your argument) - if you disagree, tell me how slavery analogy is different from the argument you are making.

First of all, I apologize for my comment yesterday. It was uncalled for, rude and not in the spirit of this site: I'm sorry.





Slavery was an abhorrent, evil and degrading time in American history. There is NO defense for it. Your argument doesn't hold weight, because white America was wrong to have slavery because it inherently violated their own laws and proclamations as a nation: "that ALL MEN are created equally and are endowed with certain inalienable rights". There is no excuse for that time in our history. PLEASE STOP trying to make me look like an ogre.

And that is the reason that some of us oppose this. There are many religious people who believe that their religion is the one true religion, the one true God, the one single path to Heaven, or nirvana, or Paradise...

I used to work with a man who felt that he would be justified in murdering his brother-in-law because he was homosexual, which was "against the laws of God," which superseded in his mind, the laws of mankind.

"God" is a term which is interpreted differently by people of different religions, by atheists, and by agnostics. The British and the members of the IRA, the Jews and the Palestinians, all believe in a God who commanded "Thou shalt not kill." If we are truly a nation "under God," which of God's commandments or laws justifies our presence in Iraq, or even Afghanistan?

And adding creeds to the national motto, our national money, the national pledge, adornments in our federal courthouses - these things don't violate the first amendment? Congress isn't endorsing religion by requiring these plugs?

If you want to say that slavery was wrong because it violated our national documents, you have to agree that theological terms mandated by congress are wrong because they violate our national documents too.

Should one be forced to say "under god"

As no one can be forced to say the pledge, no one should be forced to say "under God" in the pledge. However, it should not be removed....unless we amend also the Bill of Rights which grants inalienable rights as they are bestowed on us by "the Creator".

People who want to worship the Sun and Moon copulating as joint Gods need not recite it anyway.

I don't have those answers Curmudgeon. Life and the World is too complicated to give a simplistic answer, or a quick quote from a religious text. God is a revelation that the unknown and uncertain aren't unattainable and unanswerable. God is hope... God is what each individual has to determine for themselves. God is that voice in all of us, speaking to us, tugging at us. God is our conscience.




No, because our national documents MENTION God and acknowledge him as Creator.

It would not be necessary to change the Declaration of Independance - it is not a governing document of the people. Those who wrote the Declaration of Independence could have justified the break with Britian in any way they deemed fit. That has no bearing on how our laws are written. There are plenty of documents in our history that refer to the personal beliefs of their writers.

The only ones that should not mention religion are the ones that are used to govern we the people.

Great! The pledge, too, is not a governing document. Therefore, it should not be changed.

Sounds good to me. By the way, is saying God mentioning religion per say? No. Like I've said before, it's a generic name, used by numerous denomenations and religions. The word God is more of a concept.

You are right, it is not a governing so long as folks aren't required to say it.

Money, though laws aren't made from it - IS a governing document.

And god definately mentions religion because atheists don't believe in gods.

Why are so many religious people attaching such critical importance to this word, so much that they are willing to risk insulting 40%+ of the population? Does your faith depend so much on a daily reaffirmation of words pledging your fealty to a nation under God?

many arguments have been presented about the terrible moral decay of society, which true or not is a total red herring. You cannot possibly believe that this has anything to do with pledging "one nation under god" in the morning. Logically in fact, since there did not used to be "Under God" in the pledge, and there is now, clearly the addition of "Under God" made no difference to the moral fabric of society, since it is apparently sliding so much at the moment.

It is not an insult to the religion of the founders or their beliefs, the founder were the ones who created the pledge without the phrase "Under God" in it, so I rather suspect if anything they would be unhappy about the propagandistic alteration of their work.

As cited earlier, 38% of the United States is agnostic or Atheist, while another significant percentage is non-Christian. People here maintain that the word God (capitalised, in this context) is non religion specific, but that is naive. As I said earlier, Allah is just Arabic for God, yet clearly is has a connotation beyond just the unspecific word for a divine entity. If the word God is so 'unspecific', then I assume you Christians on the board would have no problem praising Allah in your prayers and services from now on? After all, I am sure God speaks Arabic...

Saying the pledge to "one nation" without reference to a divine entity does not attack religion, certainly not a specific religion. (Note you cant have it both ways: saying "Under God is not specific to the Christian religion", then also saying we should "leave it in because it acknowledges the Judeo Christian heritage of the US") It is not an attempt to diminish religion, or the role of religion in the history of the US, it is rather a way to make the pledge inclusive to all, secular and religious, without insulting either those who do not believe in 'one nation under God' or those who believe in a different God.

Actually, money is a statement of account, not a governing document...but not really on-topic here.



The pledge will never be "inclusive to all". By definition, it is a PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE to the country....an inherent violation, for many, of their fundamental beliefs.

One should not be forced to say "Under god"
Most places I know of do not require you to have to do the Pledge. My high school didn't.
The only time this becomes an issue is when the religious conservatives get angry at people being allowed to think for themselves and want to force the indoctrination process on others.


This secularist can see clear enough that many of our problems are directly related to the perversion of religion and the hypocrisy and bigotry of some of its followers.

Allah, God, Jesus, Jehovah, Yahweh... He's all of those and more. I'd use any of them and be happy. It's not the name that's important, it's what you do with it.

In your opinion.

Sadly, a lot of people do not believe this at all, but more importantly, almost nobody can agree on what this 'voice' is saying or how to interpret it. Even ignoring the excesses of history, the Church has hardly shown itself to be an apt moral guardian or compas even in the last few years. I hardly think one can blame and supposed moral decline of society on lack of adherence to the church when according to the news, elements of the church seem to be leading that charge down the moral slope.



Then I praise your enlightened attitude, but even you must recognise that your opinion as listed here is certainly not shared by the majority, who DO attach importance to the name and features of their God. Otherwise, why are all monotheistic religions not one and the same?

Sadly, I have to agree. That's why I don't adhere to a denomination or attend a church on a regular basis, because of the hypocracy and intollerance.



Thankyou.

Because of man not God.

There is an old joke that goes "You are considered crazy if you don't speak to God, and you are considered insane if you claim that God speaks to you."

"Spare the rod and spoil the child." were not comforting "words of God" to me, as a child who was abused. At work, I would hear the argument that "Disobedient children should be thrown off the cliffs and smashed onto the rocks below." Hearing such teachings from co-workers on a daily basis, I came to believe that religious proselytizing did not belong in the workplace. When "God" or "The Devil made me do it." was used to justify nearly every statement or action, no matter how far out of sync it was with modern beliefs; I came to believe that "God" was often being used in lieu of a conscience.

Someone who has been trained to teach arithmetic, reading, geometry, creative writing, or biology has not necessarily learned how to help someone determine for themselves the meaning of God. A teacher is an authority figure; and in my experience, one that is often cited by young children to correct their parent's ignorance. A minister, priest, rabbi, or imam has been taught how to read and interpret the word of God. In my opinion, the appropriate place to learn about religion is in the church, synagogue, or temple of your choice.