Debate Should "Under God" Be Taken out of the Pledge Of Allegiance?

I know this issue has been raised in many different places (i havent seen it here but if it was already posted i am sorry for the re-post) and was decided a while ago, but i want everyones opinion on taking "Under God" out of the Pledge Of Allegiance.
Personally i would leave it in, and that's not b/c I am super religous but it is the symbol of what our founding fathers built; all the morals, and the justice is based around the morals of "God". I know all about Antidisestablishmentarianism, but Under God was added b/c it was what our founding fathers used and what we still use to define good ethics and morals. I also know that "Under God" was added during the mid 1900's and people seem to think that we put it there as a religious symbol, but it is just the symbol of what the founders of this nation stood for. So this is my opinion and i would like to see the opinions of others out there.

 

Just something interesting I found.

Anyway, I think it's silly that in the same wording of someone pledging their allegiance to a country are they made to pledge allegiance to something that could just be the delusional fantasy of people who were dubed countless years ago by someone, or several people, and it escalated into the point in which it was today.

No matter how anyone may wish it so, not everyone in this country believes in and worships God. Considering that for half a century, or even if you want to take the year it was finally accepted by the government, for twelve years, these words were of no raised concern, I just think it's stupid. But then again it's stupid that some people are still forced to say these collections of words just to make people feel secure that everyone swears unfeigned loyalty to a hunk of land and a couple of "leading, key people".

I, myself, don't know if there is a God and furthermore I'm not going to worry myself over whether there is or not, inspite of the fact that I find it amusing and entertaining to debate the fact, but I'm not concerned with what the outcome of my beliefs will bring me in the end of my life for I am at peace, at this point in my life, with the decisions I have made about it at this point in my life and although I may change my mind later on, this is what I believe now and I'm not going to be forced to utter words to what can very possibly be some fictional character of deranged individuals just to show praise to this country that's slowly, year by year, dwelling deeper and deeper into darkness.

If that is the case, you can keep your pledge. I'm going to Canada.

 

I don't think so. All God really is is something for people to worship. Everybody in this world worships something, be it a mysterious "higher" being, power, money, or intelligence. These are just my thoughts, though.

 

Of course it should. Would you mind if it said "One Nation, under Thor" or "One Nation, under Satan"? Considering that for some people the biblical God is WORSE than Satan...

"One Nation Under God" implies religious solidarity and affiliation with that particular god, which America is NOT.

Edit: And Hiro, its blatently obvious to anyone who actually reads what the founding fathers had to say on religion that they were no big fans of Christianity at all. To put it politely and lightly. And they did not base their morals or laws on Christian concepts.

 

I think it should be taken out.
If not noticed it says in the bill of rights there is a SEPERATION OF CHURCH IN STATE.
Genghis: have you heard of people called athiests, buddists, survivalists? clearly not.

 

You have a point. Sorry for not taking those into consideration. In truth, I believe that it should be completely up to individuals weither or not they should say the Pledge. I also think that elementary schools shouldn't require kids to say it. I just don't think it should be taken out entirely, if only because our nation is already quite divided enough. If they tried to take it out, there would be riots, little kids giving speeches on stuff they really haven't formed opinions about yet, blah, blah. I probably should have put that in earlier. :sweat: Sorry, again.

 

When i spoke of God i wasnt speaking of christiianity but of what we think of as right or wrong...our conscience.

Edit: that is what i believe the "under god" part symbolizes;the way we use our own conscience.

 

Definitely. There are probably some very strong Buddhists in America who probably don't appreciate being forced to honor God everyday at school. After all, the first amendment gives us all freedom of religion, right? If we truly have freedom of religion, why are we forced to acknowledge the presence of God?

 

Being one of another religion doesn't mean that you can't acknowledge the existance of Christianity. Christianity, is, after all, the current majority religion in the U.S., and though we don't have solidarity in the concept of god, much of our society do - after all, there is a reason that Under God is still there. If you used freedom of religion to argue for your own religion's beliefs, why can't they use their freedom of religion, declaring that the attempts to remove it is an oppression against their religion? Just a thought.

 

That's like saying a majority of people like ham sandwiches so all sandwiches are called ham sandwiches even though they don't all have ham in them. And... yes... I do love my sandwich analogies. >: ... Did I spell "sandwich" wrong? I can never tell... anyways...

Yes, Christians can argue that point, and I wouldn't put it past them, which is the only reason the words remain.

 

No, with the point in that situation, the result would be the ousting of anything but ham sandwiches, and the ousting of anyone who doesn't like ham sandwiches by the majority society (Vegan: Nooooooo!)

Anyway, yeah.

 

Uh, you don't need religious beliefs to have a conscience. Religion does not equal morality.

Acknowledging its existence and pledging allegience to its god are very different things.

Because we aren't saying they can't worship as they please. We're just saying they can't force their beliefs on others. Should be fairly obvious...

 

But you aren't pledging your allegiance to the god. Just because you see a book that pledges allegiance to a god doesn't mean you have to, even if you read it.

They aren't forcing their beliefs on others. Just because the phrase of gods are on a paper that you use to buy things and on the coins that you nonchalantly use for a similar reason doesn't mean that they are forcing it on you. Remember, trying to change it is similar to barging into a company after working in it for 2 weeks and demanding the CEO to change things.

 

The pledge did not even have the 'under God' line until about 50-ish years ago to seperate ourselves from communist countries and the like to show that we had hearts full of love, while their's were made of cold stone and they only enjoyed hurting people

 

*sigh*

"One nation under God" indicates affiliation with that God. Pledging allegience to that nation indicates, therefore, affiliation with/support for that God.

Yes they are if that part is included, because we all know what it's referring to. Why not have "One nation under Thor"? Honestly, if recite that pledge with Thor in place of God. But you don't believe in Thor. Is it still peachy-keen?

Ok, first things first, it is NOT on my money. I'm a Canadian. Stop assuming.

Now, moving along, if it was I would resent it. You know why its there, right? As a little piece of subtle propaganda against the Evil Godless Communists. Thank you McCarthy Era!

...What?! The Pledge originally didn't have that part in it, and the majority of its lifespan was free of that part. Just because it's been that way all your life doesn't mean it always was like that. Asking to change it is more like asking a company to stop cutting costs well after a recession has ended.

 

The nation may be under the God, but that only dictates that the majority of the nation is under god. A minority of dissenters doesn't usually break a decision of the society - actually, it rarely does.

Because Christianity is the majority religion in the USA, and not Norse Mythology.

So you are a Canadian. That's fine. But you still have seen it.

Of course, it is propaganda against communists, but that also makes it weakening to take it off - it basically means that America is taking a step back in the fight against communism, which is one of the last things that they want to express.

Yes, I know that Under God was devised in a modern era, but that analogy can still be used. After all, most of those that protest ARE immigrants who protest the entry of such these days. And in that company, perhaps they do not want to cut costs because it gives them an economical advantage, or perhaps they do not want to do so because cutting the costs gave them a name or advantage that they didn't want to lose. You never know.

 

Wasn't the country of the U.S. a minority when it started? It all came to start when people thought wow, maybe we should have freedom of religion. Are you saying that the U.S. where you live I presume and consider yourself a citizen was a waste of time?

But Isn't this the land of the free? 13% are still athiest, so you think you might just exucute those people's thoughts as well? isn't that just destroying opposition? isnt that what facist dictators do?

What is wrong with communism? equality wrong with you?

You know what, EVERYONE IN THE U.S. is an immigrant. the theory of evolution states that we all came from africa. and if you are considering newer time, i bet you are not native american either

 

I don't know, how's Communist Russia doing these days?

That's what everyone does. That's the point of sports, some find it to be the point of debates. Hell, people might think YOU'RE just trying to destroy the opposition. Thank you, Ms. Facist Dictator.

Perhaps compared to other countries, yes, but I don't think when he means majority and minority he's comparing them to what other countries are doing.

As much as I hate to say (considering I'm for getting rid of the 'Under God'), as VR can point out that argument could also be used on behalf of those that want to keep it, thus giving them the equal right to keep it as we have to get rid of it.

Technically, no, not really. Our ancestors were immigrants, yes, though the immigration title is nulled upon birth in said country and considering that, I'm assuming, most if not all of the people that AREN'T "immigrants" in this country were born in this country, it nullifies that point. Nice try though, not that it really would have accomplished anything.

It's getting damn-near-close to that point.

 

Majority constitutes policy, not truth. The pledge is not the unifying thing it used to be. The "Under God" bit was merely to attack comunism and has aliented non Christians for a little while now. You know about the history of forced education of native americans? Know about their history of forced converssion to Christianity? The pledge is simply yet another reminder of what the government did to them. They have historical reasons to be irritated with the government.

Of course, since they are a minority, I suppose that doesn't matter to you.

So? The dominant race is caucasian, should we mention "and to the white man" in the pledge?

Alright, hold on. When the 50's came around, and Congress decided to add it...in their OWN words...."To show that the US is a Christian nation".....so, in essence, they put it there for a reason violating the Constitution, have kept it there for half a century, violating the constitution.

So would you prefer that the very principles your nation was founded on be violated, than somehow appear weak? (Oh yeah, the Chinese are going to be absolutely jubilant if Under God is removed. I mean, that means that America likes Communism.)

So? If you really want to get technical, EVERYONE here is an immigrant, and even if you try to use the "we were here first" argument, then it should say "under the Great Spirit".

Ah, sacrifice morals for money.

 

Then heres an utterly amazing idea: make it optional.