• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the words "under God" be removed from the pledge?

Should the words "under god" be removed from the pledge?

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 63.2%
  • No

    Votes: 14 36.8%

  • Total voters
    38
I think we should just get rid of the pledge altogether.
 
It should be removed, fundamentally you are and should remain a secular nation, and so pledging allegiance to a god as well as your country doesn't make sense...

Could you imagine if a president tried to remove it though?

Beck: GRRR he's trying to turn us into an Athiest, Socialist Paradise... oh wait he already says that nevermind ;)
 
I've noticed some Christians feel like their freedom of religion is under attack when you speak of removing under god form the pledge..They think somehow it's giving into the all the other religions.

Well, maybe Christians should give into other religions and the rights of others a bit more.
 
1) Everything is under God, if God(s) exist, therefore phrase is unnecessary
2) Why only One God? What's up with that? The Greek Pantheon demands representation!
3) Why God? No proof!
4) No one forces kids to say it, so why not add more crazy stuff?
5) You're looking at God? Seriously, we're pledging our allegiance to FABRIC for crying out loud! God is the least of our problems on that.
 
Historically it is justifiable to remove it. Constitutionally one could make the argument. Realistically speaking, it would be too much fuss. People will take it seriously if it is thought to be removed, because the symbolism involved will be tremendous in the culture war.
 
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the USA and the republic for which it stands” is all that we need. All the crap that comes afterward is needless elaboration specifying which flag/republic you’re pledging to.

As the pledge currently stands, if the USA becomes divided, or is not under god, or fails to provide lizardy injustice for all, then the flag/republic you’re pledging to doesn’t exist and the whole thing is an empty statement.
 
if people don't like it, don't say it.

when i was in Scouts, we had to take an oath "on my honour, i promise that i will do my duty, to god, and to the queen of Australia, to help other people, and to live by the scout law"

and if we weren't religious, we didn't say "to god", simple as that.
 
I see no good reason to remove it. Likewise if it was gone I'd see no good reason to add it.

The Pledge is not mandatory to say
The Line is not mandatory to say
It speaks of no specific god and thus no specific religion

So on that, to me it "forces" no one to voilate their rights as no one is "forced" to state it. So the whole notion of rights being infringed upon, to me, is completely bogus because for that to happen someone would have to be forced to state it and no one is legally. Just the existance of it does not infringe upon your "rights".

So the next issue is the fact its a religious connotation in something relating to the government. In this there's precedence from the "Under God" on our currency to placing ones hand upon a bible at a swearing in ceremony and onwards. To me these thinsg do not establish a "state religion" and as such are not grave violations of the 1st amendment. While I think in general things of the sort should be avoided in current legislation I have no desire nor see a need to change something that to me is not inherently unconstitutional and has historical presence (yes, it wasn't there since the beginning, but it has been there for the vast majority of most people alive's lives). So the religious nature and the constitutionality of it to me is a non-issue as I do not see it as a violation of the federal government establishing a state religion nor infringing upon individuals practice of religion.

So the next issue would be its simply offensive. Over 80% of the country claims to be religious. This is more than a 3/4th's majority to signify a super majority in my mind. While yes, the rights of the minority need to be taken into account the annoyance of the minority is something I view as less important. As I said before, I don't believe any rights are being violated, and as such a minority of people being annoyed is not a reason for me to believe we should be changing something like this. This becomes double when one considers the notion that if you're doing it based on people finding it annoying or offensive the number of people who will find the repeal of it those things is likely even greater, thus nullifying the argument.

Finally all of that would need to be weighed against the cost. Something like that is not going to hapen easily. Meaning its going to take up time and money in regards to drafting it, attempting to push it through congress repeatedly or trying to push it through the court system, and attempting to advertise to gain support. All of which is for something that I see as rather beniegn and unneeding of change, thus making the cost vs gain of it severely unbalanced towards the cost side.

So no, I don't think the words should be removed.
 
Historically it is justifiable to remove it. Constitutionally one could make the argument. Realistically speaking, it would be too much fuss. People will take it seriously if it is thought to be removed, because the symbolism involved will be tremendous in the culture war.

It would be the war on Christmas, all over again.
 
I dislike the pledge for many reasons, myself, but I don't particularly care about the "Under God" part. It's the fact that people say a prayer to the flag that I dislike. Too socialist for my tastes.
 
My guess is that the pledge was to the flag because there was actually one hanging in every classroom, back in the day.
 
It would be the war on Christmas, all over again.

Except way worse. "The War on Christmas" was a legitimate fear of the public (I disagreed with their fear for the most part), but a portion of it was used to fund political commentator's books on "The War on Christmas." Removing "Under God" would do a great deal more.
 
I wonder how much of the US populace knows that "under God" was added so much later.

The pledge was written in 1892. In 1923, the National Flag Conference called for the words "my Flag" to be changed to "the Flag of the United States", for the benefit of new immigrants. The words "of America" were added a year later, and the addition of "under God" was implemented in 1954.
 
Last edited:
My guess is that the pledge was to the flag because there was actually one hanging in every classroom, back in the day.

Doubtful. Bellamy originally wrote it as "my flag" instead of "the flag of the United states of America". He was interested in using smbolism as a tool of nationalism and pushing a socialist agenda.

Personally, I love the fact that the pledge was written by a socialist and is most ardently defended by those who claim to despise socialism. :lol:
 
I wonder how much of the US populace knows that "under God" was added so much later.

The pledge was written in 1892. In 1923, the National Flag Conference called for the words "my Flag" to be changed to "the Flag of the United States", for the benefit of new immigrants. The words "of America" were added a year later, and the addition of "under God" was implemented in 1954.

I was writing my previous post when you posted this one, so that's how the information got reposted. It's nice seeing someojne else who is aware of the histopry of the pledge.
 
Tucker actually is the one that convinced me of which words I dislike more than "under god" in the pledge, and that's indivisible.
 
Tucker actually is the one that convinced me of which words I dislike more than "under god" in the pledge, and that's indivisible.

connecting to the other thread, I have to say the "one nation" part is bothersome for me as well. It leads to groupthink.
 
if people don't like it, don't say it.

when i was in Scouts, we had to take an oath "on my honour, i promise that i will do my duty, to god, and to the queen of Australia, to help other people, and to live by the scout law"

and if we weren't religious, we didn't say "to god", simple as that.

Except we are talking about a pledge of allegiance to a country [U.S] designed to be secular, who added "under god" for purely spiritual / religious reasons [to separate us from the godless communists, as they said].
 
Who here actually cares?

The fact that we are literally pledging our allegiance to fabric bothers me more then any notion of God.
 
''It's the fact that people say a prayer to the flag that I dislike. Too socialist for my tastes.''

Praying to a flag is too nationalist, for my taste.
 
It would be the war on Christmas, all over again.

If Christmas was replaced with 'winter solstace celebrations' or something like that, I would certainly have no problem with it. In fact, id be relieved at yet another sign that religion is been taken out of our main stream culture. People always resist change though, no matter what the logical arguments for it are.
 
Back
Top Bottom