Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

shuamort said:

The problem goes a little deeper than that though.

I'm sure you've heard this example before, but read the twist.

Let's say that there are some changes in the government. They decide to change all major government sponsored holidays from Christian Holidays so that Christmas is no longer an official vacation day but Ramadan is. The pledge changes from "under God" to "under Allah". Coins change from "in Allah we trust". Etc. The USA does this because its population has become Muslim in majority.

So, would these changes be based on the population and its new sense of history, or would these be based on a religious agenda?

The point is, it's not the fact that it's a pledge and one may or may not say it. It's the deeper point that the government should not be endorsing one religious belief over another.

Click to expand...

I understan exactly what you are saying, but I don't feel the word God pushes one religion over another, hell Allah is just another word for God but since we don't speak that language we don't use that word (make any sence?). There are many names for many different gods but most relate to one being, "A rose by any other name", god just refers to god, not christian, not hebrew, not muslim, not any other religion, just god which we have a constitutional right to worship and or speak of.

I believe they could have used a little more tact in trying to change the pledge by saying they wanted to go back to the original instead of making it all about the word God. I know I may be wrong but that is my own feelings on the matter.

I caught some of the news and saw that a federal judge says they cannot say the pledge in schools in east Cali. anymore. Why? Because they have the words under god in it. I watched for a few more minutes and they showed people in Houston fighting in front of a school about what I still don't know. A spokesman for the Nation of Islam was answering questions about it or I should say dodging questions. When asked what they were fighting over all he would do is say one group sees the evacuees getting things and the other group is jealous about it. What he said at least three times is what got me and that is the Nation of Islam is going into the schools and will take care of this problem. Is it just me are is this not a double standard. We have people attacking god everywhere(schools, courthouses, and anywhere public gathers) but the Nation of Islam is going to go into schools and no one is saying jack about it. Where is the ACLU? They attack everything else. I don't want the Nation of Islam in any school where my child is do you? I just don't understand the direction this country is going except that I feel very uncomfortable when I see god attacked constantly and now I see Islam working with impunity. Where are we going asd a country?

Would it have made anymore sense if the allegiance had said 'Under Father Christmas' ... or 'Under the tooth fairy' ?
The pledge is to your country isnt' it... Not a fantasy figure. Maybe the judge you refer to simply isn't as prone to fantasies as you are :lol:
Besides your pledge would only be to the neo cons in your country.
Anyone to the left of attila the hun or who doesn't want to comply with American values, in your book needs to be napalmed yes ?

The fact is no ones made to say it. And no one is going to be punished for not saying it so its not unconstitutional its that simple. When they make people say it and then punish the for not saying it then yes I will label it unconstitutional. But until then its not I am sorry. There snothing you can do.

SKILMATIC said:

The fact is no ones made to say it. And no one is going to be punished for not saying it so its not unconstitutional its that simple. When they make people say it and then punish the for not saying it then yes I will label it unconstitutional. But until then its not I am sorry. There snothing you can do.

Click to expand...

You'll need to prove that it's constitutional. Just saying it is, doesn't support your case after a federal judge has ruled it's not.

We are a nation under God, just not OF God. It should remain because God, morals, 10 commandments, etc. all influence the American lifestyle.

I think it's a shame that the courts' time has to be wasted on such an unimportant matter. It's also a shame that someone felt they had to bring a lawsuit. Where do these people come from?

If you don't like your children saying "under God," then don't say it.

Hoot said:

I think it's a shame that the courts' time has to be wasted on such an unimportant matter. It's also a shame that someone felt they had to bring a lawsuit. Where do these people come from?

If you don't like your children saying "under God," then don't say it.

Click to expand...

It's a shame that congress' time was wasted on including "under God" in the pledge as well. If you want your children to say "under God", say it in your own time.

shuamort said:

It's a shame that congress' time was wasted on including "under God" in the pledge as well. If you want your children to say "under God", say it in your own time.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how old you are, Shuamort, but if you were born in fifties, as I was, we said the Pledge every morning at school, and I didn't turn out too bad. ROTFL

Hoot said:

I'm not sure how old you are, Shuamort, but if you were born in fifties, as I was, we said the Pledge every morning at school, and I didn't turn out too bad. ROTFL

Click to expand...

I was born in the 70s and we did too as well. I cry a little every night. Just kidding. But not only did we say the pledge, but then sang a patriotic song (from the National Anthem to Woody Guthrie's "This Land is Your Land". It didn't make me religious or patriotic either.

We are a nation under God, just not OF God. It should remain because God, morals, 10 commandments, etc. all influence the American lifestyle.

Click to expand...

Bingo

I think it's a shame that the courts' time has to be wasted on such an unimportant matter. It's also a shame that someone felt they had to bring a lawsuit. Where do these people come from?

If you don't like your children saying "under God," then don't say it.

Click to expand...

Yet another bingo

It's a shame that congress' time was wasted on including "under God" in the pledge as well. If you want your children to say "under God", say it in your own time.

Click to expand...

Vice versa buddy. Say it without the phrase on your own time then if it bothers you that much. Another fact is that the overwheling majority of this world is God beleivers. So if the world was in a democracy guess who would win? Hmm.. that opens your eyes now doesnt it? Minorities do have a opinion and a say. But not when you arent made to say it. Its that simple.

I was born in the 70s and we did too as well. I cry a little every night. Just kidding. But not only did we say the pledge, but then sang a patriotic song (from the National Anthem to Woody Guthrie's "This Land is Your Land". It didn't make me religious or patriotic either.

Click to expand...

Well if it didnt change your perceptions anyhow and it didnt offend you then why fuss over it and why make the argument that its infringing on your feelings anfd beliefs? It doesnt make sense and your argument doesnt make sense either. I am sorry but in your own words you just threw your argument down the toilet bowl. If it doesnt bear any conflict with ones beleifs then its no problem. Simple as that.

SKILMATIC said:

Well if it didnt change your perceptions anyhow and it didnt offend you then why fuss over it and why make the argument that its infringing on your feelings anfd beliefs? It doesnt make sense and your argument doesnt make sense either. I am sorry but in your own words you just threw your argument down the toilet bowl. If it doesnt bear any conflict with ones beleifs then its no problem. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

Well, my comments didn't speak the whole of humankind luckily, they just reflected on my own person. What's good for my goose ain't what everyone else's gander wants.

Boy we Conservatives have some strange allies in this forum on this issue.......People can say all they want that God does not belong in Government but he is here whether you like it or not.......He is on our money and the 10 Commandments are in the SCOTUS........

There is a chaplain in both houses of Congress and their sessions are opened with a prayer...........

The last time this subject came up in polls 92% of the American people said they wanted under God in the Pledge.........

This does not really matter though because as usually happens with the activist 9th circuit court in San Francisco this verdict will be overturned by the SCOTUS........

gdalton said:

This is just silly guys, come on, everyone one likes to shout tolerate everything as long as you don't mention God. If it offends you then don't say it, no one has a gun to your head.

Click to expand...

But I have been told why don't I go somewhere else to live. But the question is why do I have to tolereate what shouldn't be anyway. The question is why is a religious phrase codified into the pledge that is for ALL citizens and not just those of the Judeo/Christian faith?

How bout freedom of speech, shouldn't that protect the ones who prefer to say "under God".

Click to expand...

It's about what is by law our pledge and what our public institution teach are receit to children of all faiths and beliefs. The constitution says government shall make no law respecting, or establishing religion.

The question is why would you want government involved in your religion in the first place.

I just don't get it, why are some people so offended by this

Click to expand...

It's not so much offended but aren't those who do not profess the Judeo/Christian faith just as much citizens as those who do? Why does OR pledge have to respect the one religion then when it is not necessary to mention any religion at all.

If you want it in there then YOU justify it being there. Why should it be in the pledge that is for ALL citizens or ALL beliefs and faiths in this country that is suppose to endores freedom for all religious and non-religious belief?

but they are the same people who would stand up for NAMBLA's right to talk about "loving" little boys.

Click to expand...

I certainly don't so where do you get that broad paint brush. I guess I could say then that those who do support it are the ones who would stand up to put all women back in the home subservient to their husbands. Both are absurd statements.

If we have to use separation of church and state then just say "ok little kiddies, some people are offended by the word God in our pledge so when we say the pledge if you are offended leave God out of it."

Click to expand...

Why not say k little kiddies there are many faiths and beliefs in this country and we were founded on the basis that government would niether endorse nor prohibit any of them that it would be neutral so therefore we will not put our beliefs over those of others and we will say a pledge that is inclusive of ALL citizens not just us"?

But honestly I just can't over how silly this all is, the pledge in no way says you must be religious, nor does it promote one religion over another (lots of religions capitalize the word God).

Click to expand...

I most certainly does promote one over others, it doesn't say "under Alla", it doesn't say "under Budda", it doesn't say "under nothing". And the consitutions says government shall make no law respecting religion. That is religion AT ALL. Any religion not just one religion, any religion AT ALL.

The constitution gives us freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion

Click to expand...

Nope, it gives us both. It protects you from others religious beliefs just as it protest us from yours.

, although you are free not to believe in a god you are also free to believe in which ever god you prefer, this is what I believe is meant by freedom of religion.

Click to expand...

Yep and government should have nothing to do with either because we SHARE government and mixing government and religion has historically been a disaster to individual freedoms.

gdalton said:

Alright I did my research and see that if we want to keep history straight we shouldn't have added "under God" so I will have to say that if they want to remove it then they should.

Click to expand...

And my respect for you has gone up for your doing so.

Anyways here is a little snippet about when the pledge was changed,

"In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Click to expand...

Yep and Ensinhower wanted it done to show the Soviets that we were a religious nation. But that was silly, everyone knew the United States was a very religious nation, intwining that into government (against the constitution) was NOT the way to do that.

I say if we change it we should go back to the original,
'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

Click to expand...

I agree.

gdalton said:

I believe they could have used a little more tact in trying to change the pledge by saying they wanted to go back to the original instead of making it all about the word God. I know I may be wrong but that is my own feelings on the matter.

Click to expand...

That IS what those who want to go back indeed say. It's they hysterical pro-religious side that screams they want to "take away the pledge" and "they want to kill god" and "they want to take god out of EVERYTHING". None of which is true.

The Pledge of Alliegence to the United States should be something we ALL can stand up and receit IN UNISON, together as one people as one nation. It should apply to all.

SKILMATIC said:

Separation from chruch and state never occured. That is a fact.

Click to expand...

Yes, when the puritans came over they formed their own sort of government. A theocracy.

I just joined forums and this is my first post :smile:

SKILMATIC said:

This country interprets the laws and the founding of it by what the fathers would have wanted. The fathers would have wanted this country to be founded on godly principles and its evident of that in the wat they created our laws and the constitution.

Click to expand...

Really?

What "godly principle" is the three branches of government based on?
What "godly principle" is our Republican form of government based on?
What "godly principle" is freedom of speech based on?
What "godly principle" is freedom of religion based on (I really want to hear that explaination)?
What "godly principle" is the right to keep and bear arms based on?
What "godly principle" is the writ of habeous corpus based on?
What "godly principle" is property rights based on?
What "godly principle" is the right to trial by jury based on?

Those are founding principles of our country, what are the "godly principles"?

Now to say that our founding fathers didnt want god to be the foundation and the fore front of this country is rediculous.

Click to expand...

Then why did they pass the establishment clause and explictly prevent government from dictating religion.

But please tell us what are the godly foundations. What in the Bible is this country based on that is unique to the Bible and not civilizations in general?

Yes some didnt have a fnd belief like other fathers did but they understood that it was an important issue to like 99% of americans at that time casue religion was rampent. Remember thats why this country was founded and created becasue of freedom of religion.

Click to expand...

Yes they were scared to death of government and religion being mingled as they had run from in Europe.

If the pledge has anything to do with ones freedom of religion which is the real talking pint here then I am sorry but no it doesnt. If it hurts you to hear it then close your ears. Simple as that. You do have the freedom to cover your ears no one it twisting your arms to listen to it. So give me a break..

Click to expand...

It does as long as you insist on it being about your god. Why do you object to a pledge that includes ALL of us citizens that we can ALL receit together as one nation?

gdalton said:

This is just silly guys, come on, everyone one likes to shout tolerate everything as long as you don't mention God. If it offends you then don't say it, no one has a gun to your head. When I was a anarchist teen I never said the pledge so why can't anyone who is offended just omit that particular phrase and let the others say it if they want. How bout freedom of speech, shouldn't that protect the ones who prefer to say "under God". I just don't get it, why are some people so offended by this but they are the same people who would stand up for NAMBLA's right to talk about "loving" little boys. If we have to use separation of church and state then just say "ok little kiddies, some people are offended by the word God in our pledge so when we say the pledge if you are offended leave God out of it."
But honestly I just can't over how silly this all is, the pledge in no way says you must be religious, nor does it promote one religion over another (lots of religions capitalize the word God). The constitution gives us freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion, although you are free not to believe in a god you are also free to believe in which ever god you prefer, this is what I believe is meant by freedom of religion.

Click to expand...

I have a better idea. How about removing it from the official pledge and allowing people to insert what ever they wish? Reread out First Amendment. "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The bold section does provide freedom FROM religion. The government must remain completely nuetral with respect to religious belief. Religion and the principles of this country are opposites. Our Constitution provides restrictions on the government and freedoms to its citizens. Religion goes in the other direction and imposes restrictions and rules for the people who choose to adhere to it. These are ideals that are in direct conflict with each other. There is no place for religion in a free government.

gdalton said:

I understan exactly what you are saying, but I don't feel the word God pushes one religion over another, hell Allah is just another word for God but since we don't speak that language we don't use that word (make any sence?). There are many names for many different gods but most relate to one being, "A rose by any other name", god just refers to god, not christian, not hebrew, not muslim, not any other religion, just god which we have a constitutional right to worship and or speak of.

I believe they could have used a little more tact in trying to change the pledge by saying they wanted to go back to the original instead of making it all about the word God. I know I may be wrong but that is my own feelings on the matter.

Click to expand...

What about people who do not believe in any gods? Shouldn't the minority in this country be allowed to feel patriotic when reciting the pledge? Can you imagine the reaction to a pledge that stated one nation under Caucasians? What about heterosexuality? These are a few of the majority sects of this country. Think of a name to any majority group you do not belong to, then insert it appropriately. Now imagine the government making that pledge official. Would this make you feel welcome in the Land of the Free? You are now standing in the shoes of an atheist.

fyrefighter said:

I caught some of the news and saw that a federal judge says they cannot say the pledge in schools in east Cali. anymore. Why? Because they have the words under god in it. I watched for a few more minutes and they showed people in Houston fighting in front of a school about what I still don't know. A spokesman for the Nation of Islam was answering questions about it or I should say dodging questions. When asked what they were fighting over all he would do is say one group sees the evacuees getting things and the other group is jealous about it. What he said at least three times is what got me and that is the Nation of Islam is going into the schools and will take care of this problem. Is it just me are is this not a double standard. We have people attacking god everywhere(schools, courthouses, and anywhere public gathers) but the Nation of Islam is going to go into schools and no one is saying jack about it. Where is the ACLU? They attack everything else. I don't want the Nation of Islam in any school where my child is do you? I just don't understand the direction this country is going except that I feel very uncomfortable when I see god attacked constantly and now I see Islam working with impunity. Where are we going asd a country?

Click to expand...

This is very interesting. I am not quite clear as to how Islam is going to get our schools. Could you elaborate please?

SKILMATIC said:

Bingo



Yet another bingo



Vice versa buddy. Say it without the phrase on your own time then if it bothers you that much. Another fact is that the overwheling majority of this world is God beleivers. So if the world was in a democracy guess who would win? Hmm.. that opens your eyes now doesnt it? Minorities do have a opinion and a say. But not when you arent made to say it. Its that simple.

Click to expand...

And what about when this country becomes majority non-religious? It is happening as we speak. The number of non-religious people has doubled between 1990 and 2001 from 14.3 million to 29.5 million. Will you be alright if the Pledge is changed to "one nation, under no god"? You pointed out that the majority rules, so I guess you'll have no choice but to be alright with it.

Source:
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm

And what about when this country becomes majority non-religious? It is happening as we speak. The number of non-religious people has doubled between 1990 and 2001 from 14.3 million to 29.5 million.

Click to expand...

I would kindly as you to post a non aeithistic link to this claim please otherwise I will just disregard how I disregard other liberal posts. I wil not be suprised if you tried to give me some atheistic link. Good luck.

Now next issue at hand

Really?

What "godly principle" is the three branches of government based on?
What "godly principle" is our Republican form of government based on?
What "godly principle" is freedom of speech based on?
What "godly principle" is freedom of religion based on (I really want to hear that explaination)?
What "godly principle" is the right to keep and bear arms based on?
What "godly principle" is the writ of habeous corpus based on?
What "godly principle" is property rights based on?
What "godly principle" is the right to trial by jury based on?

Those are founding principles of our country, what are the "godly principles"?

Click to expand...

If I really have to explain this to you then I am sorry you are in the wrong thread to speak upon these matters.

Source:
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/resea...y_findings.htm

Click to expand...

Again this source is highly inaccurate. The statistic you just quoted was interpreting this by how many people subscribed to a religion. Well what the hell does that mean SUBSCRIBE? You mean church congreagations as to apposed the american population? The fact is the reason why the number is going up between 1990-2000 is becasue the more illegals we get the more non church goers becasue they dont have very many spanish speaking churches to harvest this large quatity of illegals which we do notice as population in america. However, the question isnt about who attends church the question is who beleives in God and thats not what the stat said. Majority of people beleive in God but dont attend or subscribe to a church. So that stat is entirely inacurate. And your talking 30million people in the span of 300million americans. I thnk you have along way to go buddy. Good luck