Should God be taken out of The Pledge of Allegence

[K-D-K-D-K]

Should it? For years it has been said "One Nation Under God, Indivisable, With Liberty and Justice For All". I said it every morning when I was in elementary school before class. Some people want it taken out because they find it offensive and I think the ACLU had a case a while back.. If that happens should we then remove "In God We Trust" from our money as well? I think it should stay.

[moses2792796]

These people have naturally negative views and are always focused on what they deem as beingh 'wrong' with society. They see only one small aspect of reality and are unable to view anything holistically. Consequently they become retarded, Christians think death sucks, atheists think christians suck, racists think non-whites suck. They're all the same in the end.

[PatrickHenry]

It's probably better to be truthful and say... "in MONEY we trust"

And as to the pledge, it is immaterial to me since I would NEVER pledge allegiance to the USA. I am a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus Christ-King.

I have no allegiance to the USA which is a bloodthirsty, tyrannical faux-democracy, run by and for a financial elite.

But it would probably be more honest to eliminate the phrase, "under God". The US is not concerned with what God wants. Uncle Sam is worshipped here, not the Almighty.

[Red Dragon]

Yeah all fifty three years, your point? Also the writer of the pledge Francis Bellamy was a Christian Socialist, who claimed that the pledge's purpose of it was to teach obedience to the state as a virtue. And swearing any kind of loyalty oath to the state is completely inconsistent with the ideals of liberty and freedom. Also I just see it as strange to pledge one's allegiance to a flag, as oppossed to say the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Can we say nationalsim? And it was only since Since 1938, that all coins have borne the motto. The use of the motto was permitted, but not required, by an 1873 law. The motto was added to paper money over a period from 1957 to 1966. But you know I've been looking for God all over and now I know it's right in my pocket.

[potter]

It's probably better to be truthful and say... "in MONEY we trust"


Good answer - you get a gold star :clapper:

[underdawg]

Well as far as the Pledge of Allegiance goes, it is a bit silly for non religious people to make such an oath if they don't believe in a deity and have no reason to follow such a diety. It is one thing to make an oath as a citizen that you will support the country, but it is quite another issue to make a promise that you will support a god that you may not believe in. Either it should be removed or the the whole pledge be tossed out. If forse children or other people to make such an oath to a god is contrary to the 1st ammendment to the U.S. constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This means that the government can't require anyone to make any such oaths to a god.

[Tsky]

I think the pledge of allegiance itself should be tossed. If a Christian's true allegiance is to God why on earth are they pledging it to a flag or a country? A better question is - Why aren't Christians against the pledge of allegiance?

[AmericanDreamer]

And as to the pledge, it is immaterial to me since I would NEVER pledge allegiance to the USA. I am a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus Christ-King.

I have no allegiance to the USA which is a bloodthirsty, tyrannical faux-democracy, run by and for a financial elite.

This is in no way meant to disrespect you or your beliefs, nor anyone's beliefs.

Question: Would you rather pledge allegiance to a king that is not merciful to his subjects? A king that is claimed to be so merciful, yet he lets very bad things happen to good people? A king that comes from a different sort of organization run by a different kind of financial elite. A king that if you do not follow, you will burn in eternal hell? Not me.

I pledge my allegiance to the energy that this universe is comprised of, which flows through ME. I am the temple...I am the place of worship...I decide whether I will be good or bad. No one else but me. That's why you should always have faith in yourself. ALWAYS!!

I say let God stay in the pledge. It's really not that important. If you interpret God as "every known possible superior being/creator, than it works for all. This country has always been a bloodthirsty, tyrannical faux-democracy, run by and for a financial elite. Changeing a few words here and there won't change a damn thing.

That's the way of the world.

[Tharagor]

I think the pledge of allegiance itself should be tossed. If a Christian's true allegiance is to God why on earth are they pledging it to a flag or a country? A better question is - Why aren't Christians against the pledge of allegiance?


Matthew 22:21

[David Hume]

There's a case working its way through the system right now. You can view the timeline here: http://www.restorethepledge.com/

I find it odd that anyone would pledge allegiance to a flag.

[Keith Hamburger]

The salute for the pledge before Dec 1942 ...

http://www.undergodprocon.org/images/BigPledge.gif

Means the same thing no matter what country it's performed in.

Keith

[Newscaster]

[quote=PatrickHenry]
I have no allegiance to the USA which is a bloodthirsty, tyrannical faux-democracy, run by and for a financial elite.


I can understand someone saying they have no allegiance to this country but I cannot understand the fact that this country allegedly became so bad when a certain political cabal set up rersidence in the White House slightly less than 8 years ago. I believe you know the people involved. This country has never been considered by other nations as we are today and it is indeed difficult to remain totally loyal.
But the true loyalist says this must not continue. We must change the changes this new group installed, reinstall our traditional civil rights, our constitutional protections and our methods and philosophy for dealing with other n atios. When you are able to re-establistg a nation that is worthy of allegiance, you proclaim that allegiance. But if you remain as you say you are today, without working to improve things, you become someone whose allegiance is of no consequence to the country, to other people or to yourself.
It is easy to moan and groan and piss and complain but its a lot more difficult to get off your duff to help improve things and thats what allegiance is all about......fixing things that need fixing.

[AmericanDreamer]

[quote=PatrickHenry]
I have no allegiance to the USA which is a bloodthirsty, tyrannical faux-democracy, run by and for a financial elite.


I can understand someone saying they have no allegiance to this country but I cannot understand the fact that this country allegedly became so bad when a certain political cabal set up rersidence in the White House slightly less than 8 years ago. I believe you know the people involved. This country has never been considered by other nations as we are today and it is indeed difficult to remain totally loyal.
But the true loyalist says this must not continue. We must change the changes this new group installed, reinstall our traditional civil rights, our constitutional protections and our methods and philosophy for dealing with other n atios. When you are able to re-establistg a nation that is worthy of allegiance, you proclaim that allegiance. But if you remain as you say you are today, without working to improve things, you become someone whose allegiance is of no consequence to the country, to other people or to yourself.
It is easy to moan and groan and piss and complain but its a lot more difficult to get off your duff to help improve things and thats what allegiance is all about......fixing things that need fixing.


Mister Newscaster, you're barking up the wrong tree. It was not me spewing that unpatriotic garbage (free speech)...I was just quoting PatrickHenry.

"Don't hate the quoter of the player, hate the game"

[Newscaster]

[/quote]

Mister Newscaster, you're barking up the wrong tree. It was not me spewing that unpatriotic garbage (free speech)...I was just quoting PatrickHenry.

[/quote]

You are correct. I hit the wrong key in isolating the sentence to be quote. I too was quoting Patrick....

[PatrickHenry]

I would like to see things change, Newscaster.

I don't think that electing other elitists from the same two parties will do the trick, though.

And I still wouldn't pledge allegiance to the United States, (maybe if there was a wholesale return to constitutional government)

But what do you bet that the next President will continue the State of Emergency proclaimed September 14, 2001 that gives the Executive "extraordinary powers?"

[VictorLy]

To start, let me state that I am agnostic, but consider myself very reasonable regarding religions. Although I personally believe that any mentions of God should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance, there are bigger issues regarding the separation of church and state that I am more concerned about at this time. If I remember correctly, "God" was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance approximately half a century for several reasons, and one was that "God" is on our side during wars and such. The way religion is used in this setting bothers me quite a bit.

Victor Ly

[potter]

[quote=PatrickHenry]
I have no allegiance to the USA which is a bloodthirsty, tyrannical faux-democracy, run by and for a financial elite.


I can understand someone saying they have no allegiance to this country but I cannot understand the fact that this country allegedly became so bad when a certain political cabal set up rersidence in the White House slightly less than 8 years ago. I believe you know the people involved. This country has never been considered by other nations as we are today and it is indeed difficult to remain totally loyal.
But the true loyalist says this must not continue. We must change the changes this new group installed, reinstall our traditional civil rights, our constitutional protections and our methods and philosophy for dealing with other n atios. When you are able to re-establistg a nation that is worthy of allegiance, you proclaim that allegiance. But if you remain as you say you are today, without working to improve things, you become someone whose allegiance is of no consequence to the country, to other people or to yourself.
It is easy to moan and groan and piss and complain but its a lot more difficult to get off your duff to help improve things and thats what allegiance is all about......fixing things that need fixing.


Well stated. :thumbsup:[hr]
I would like to see things change, Newscaster.

I don't think that electing other elitists from the same two parties will do the trick, though.



I aboslutely agree, and this is part of the "change" we need which everyone is ignoring.

[Kamehameha34]

It theoretically has no place on our money or in our pledge, but my position on the subject is apathetic. Who really cares?

[PostmodernProphet]

yes, having half-asleep children mumbling his name by rote daily is a violation of the commandment not to take his name in vain.......

[Newscaster]

So, its time to complain again and I do my share too. Right now, we have a group in Washington, that in the passed 7 years, has screwed up things worse than any other group in recent history. And then you complain that this country is run by a pack of elitists. Thats all true. But what are you doing about it?
You complain that this is not a democracy and you are right. The USA is NOT a democracy, its a republic. And so being, it gives you the opportunity to change things when they get out of hand as they are now.
You can vote the bad guys out of office.
You an impeach them.
Or you can make sure there is a majority in congress with the guts to counter any actions the bad guys take.
But we dont have that right now.
Now, if all your complaining reflected real sentiments, hen can we expect you to get off your duffs, begin electioneering and maybe even run for office so that you can put your complaints into action. Don't say you are too young. I did door to door campaigning when I was in Junior High.
As far as the main thread here......the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance...tell me.....has any one you have ever heard of been physically harmed by saying those words? If you don't like to say those words.....don't say them. There is no one hanging over your shoulder listening in to see if you speak every word. I addition, allow me to ask you this......how many of you can sing the National Anthem without having the words in front of you and I bet none of you know the second verse.
I would'nt worry about the words "under God". I would be more concerned about what you claim to do in this world, "under God."

[Pookie]

No, leave it in. Sometimes change just for the sake of change itself isn't a good thing. Parents could teach their kids to understand this is a tradition in America and if they don't want to say it, they don't have to. Kind of like changing the national anthem! Gaahhh, leave some things alone.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Elrathin]

IMO it shouldn't have been put in anyway. I would support it being taken out, but I am not troubled by it in there either. It's not an issue of great importance to me.

[Torrid]

No, leave it in. Sometimes change just for the sake of change itself isn't a good thing. Parents could teach their kids to understand this is a tradition in America and if they don't want to say it, they don't have to. Kind of like changing the national anthem! Gaahhh, leave some things alone.
Purrs,
Pookie


Absolutely, why would we change something for the sake of changing it? We have bigger fish to fry and small trival stuff like this shouldn't be occupying our time.

[David Hume]

No, leave it in. Sometimes change just for the sake of change itself isn't a good thing. Parents could teach their kids to understand this is a tradition in America and if they don't want to say it, they don't have to. Kind of like changing the national anthem! Gaahhh, leave some things alone.
Purrs,
Pookie


So, you're saying they should have never put god into the pledge back in 1954. From 1892 until 1954, it was an American tradition to say the pledge sans god.

Gaahhh, leave some things alone.
Purrs,
Bobby

[underdawg]

Perhaps it should be left up to the individual. If someone is giving a verbal oath, you shouldn't have to pledge yourself to something you don't believe in. In a free country, you shouldn't have to prove your allegence or patriotism to anyone or any god. In a school setting it is a bit different. You have a captive audience and it would alienate certain children by refusing to go along with a school induced pledge. If for some reason children were asked to pledge an allegence to Satan, Allah, Buddah, Baal, or any number of other gods, I am sure that Christian parents would be up in arms to ban it from the pledge of allegence.

[cronic]

No, leave it in. Sometimes change just for the sake of change itself isn't a good thing. Parents could teach their kids to understand this is a tradition in America and if they don't want to say it, they don't have to. Kind of like changing the national anthem! Gaahhh, leave some things alone.
Purrs,
Pookie


That sounds pretty reasonable to me Pookie.. I pledged it all thru school.. from first grade till jr high school..everyday we pledged Allegence to the flag.. of the United States of America. it was the first thing we did in the morning of our first period class and everyone stood and pledged.. In the late 60's and 70's It was a common thing to do. there was I believe alot more pride in our country then. not that that should matter!! People wasn't so worried or opinionated about the pledge itself like today..other things were important in the world..like the moon walk and rock and roll .. drugs and war and peace and free speech. Im sorry.. I guess what im trying to say is that fact that it is an issue itself is sad and stupid.. If you want to pledge.. pledge.. if you dont want to pledge then dont.. In this country.. you have the right to do either. but the fact that we teach our kids they have a choice to pledge is a far better thing then changing what has been in place for so many of us.. there is one more choice for those out there just having a problem with the words.. In God we trust... you can always just not say that part... or if you want you can say what PatrickHenry said.. change God to money..its your right and your voice and your opinion.. Do what you want and dont expect the rest of the world to conform to what just you want as they may also have an opinion!!!

[Tharagor]

Should it? For years it has been said "One Nation Under God, Indivisable, With Liberty and Justice For All". I said it every morning when I was in elementary school before class. Some people want it taken out because they find it offensive and I think the ACLU had a case a while back.. If that happens should we then remove "In God We Trust" from our money as well? I think it should stay.


The capital 'G' has always bothered me. Of course, that's the conceit of mono-theism.

If the United States ever wants to truly tout itself as a melting pot it should remove all references to any single deity from it's official documents and oaths.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

{from the peanut gallery... a.k.a. my wife}

If they want to use the lower case form and pluralize it, then fine. That would even include the Christian god.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, as if they'd all ever accept that they are a single religion.

[firefox]

Lets get the pledge out of God! Who needs glorified loyalty oaths when you can have true freedom?

[Easy90]

Personally, I think if you were born before 1954, you should be grandfathered in and able to say it the way it was then...Since it was added in 1954...

Those born after that date MUST say it with the word "God." It should be a law, and those not saying the words as they were changed, should be placed into special camps for re-education and morality indoctrination. Since people who don't know it was changed from a secular "oath" to a religious one in 1954...don't want things "changed," they should have their way.

The change to include "Under God" was brought about by the Catholic organization "Knights of Columbus"...

The Pledge was originally written in 1892-AUG by Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931). He was an American, a Baptist minister, and an active Socialist. He included some of the concepts of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, who wrote a number of socialist utopian novels, such as Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). In its original form, it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."


http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm

[Nostalgic Euphoria]

Sine most points of view have already been covered, I will be short in saying that no, it has no reason for being in the pledge, especially in this modern era.

[Athena]

No, God is essential to democracy. However, religion, including Christianity is a problem in understanding both God and democracy.

[piratemonkey]

No, God is essential to democracy.


Reeealy? I'd like to see you give a rational argument for that assertion.

[Deadshot]

How is God "essential" to a Democracy?

[hyena]

No, leave it in. Sometimes change just for the sake of change itself isn't a good thing. Parents could teach their kids to understand this is a tradition in America and if they don't want to say it, they don't have to. Kind of like changing the national anthem! Gaahhh, leave some things alone.
Purrs,
Pookie



But the mention of God isn't even part of the original pledge. It was tacked on in the 1950s, to make it 'seem' different from national pledges then being instituted throughout the Eastern Block. And for that matter, the Pledge itself isn't really part of our tradition, it only came along last century. So to be honest , the entire thing should go.

And the national anthem? I suppose the words are fine, but the music? It's based on an old English drinking song! Then again, 'My Country 'tis of Thee' is based on 'God Save the King'. Wonder why we're dependent on the Brits for all of our patriotic music? Are we really independent? It kind of makes July the 4th celebrations look silly, doesn't it?:lmao:

[Shintao]

Should it? For years it has been said "One Nation Under God, Indivisable, With Liberty and Justice For All". I said it every morning when I was in elementary school before class. Some people want it taken out because they find it offensive and I think the ACLU had a case a while back.. If that happens should we then remove "In God We Trust" from our money as well? I think it should stay.


God should be taken out of every corner of government and put far away from corrruption, lies, military, politicians, and everything else that is dirty and vile and creepy and crawly, etc.

Christains act like they are insecure in their faith and must have these idols all over the place as constant reminders of their weak faith. Put their god in their house or in their shrine, church, temple. Protect him from the scummy places they put him. :clapper:

[davo]

No, God is essential to democracy. However, religion, including Christianity is a problem in understanding both God and democracy.


The founders usually referred to "the creator" rather than talking about God. Many of founders were deists or Freemasons, and left the concept of the 'creator' open to interpretation from any theistic point of view.

The concept of the creator is important to the US republic because this is apparently where individual rights were granted. In this concept, individuals were given rights by the creator, and the government was prohibited from violating these. This is vastly different from other systems such as the United Nations, where a Universal declaration of Human Rights is granted to people at the discretion of the rulers of the United Nations itself and not by a deity.

[SouthernLadyGA]

Who cares? No one is forced to recite the Pledge today.

[David Hume]

Who cares? No one is forced to recite the Pledge today.


My 4-year-old son is forced to say it in his preschool every day. I had a private conversation about it with his teacher & asked how my son might be excused from participating, as I don't like the idea of indoctrinating such young children. I mean, if you're an adult & you are capable of making a conscious decsion about such matters, by all means, recite the plede til your heart is content. But little kids are simply being indocrinated.

Anyway, the teacher explained that the recitation of the Pledge is district policy. To have my son excused from the exercise could lead to bullying down the line, so I find it easier to allow the district to have its way & hope Michael Newdow wins his case, which is slated to be heard by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, I've talked with my son about the Pledge, and will continue to do so until I'm sure he's old enough to comprehend fully what I am saying.

It's a crap situation, though, to have religion & patriotism crammed down your throats in a supposed free society. Why not just leave us alone with these silly anachronistic exercises?[hr]
No, God is essential to democracy. However, religion, including Christianity is a problem in understanding both God and democracy.


Really? Then why doesn't the Constitution mention such a thing? It is, after all, our nation's founding document. One would think that if God were an essential ingredient, the Founders might have made mention of Him.