Pledge Issue

[SergeantSafrit]

I know that everyone has probably heard about this and I just wondered your opionin.
An excerpt from a letter at http://www.reporter-news.com/ shows my opinion.
The court ruled last week that the Pledge of Allegiance, as recited by millions of American schoolchildren, is unconstitutional because Congress, in 1954, inserted the words “under God.” According to the court, that phrase violates the First Amendment clause prohibiting the “establishment of religion.” Why did it take them 48 years to reach such a conclusion?
I really don't care b/c I will say it no matter what for the reason that I have pride in my country.

[JohnCrichton]

I think it's stupid and will be looked back on in history as an era of when America was just being really stupid.

:mad:

[meatwad945]

yes it should be. theres a little thing called seperation of church and state

[SergeantSafrit]

I understand, bassically I don't care if they do or not, also why is this issue just coming up now?

[Anubis C. Soundwave]

:p

Look at this: 97% percent of the country is composed of theists. (theist = person that believes in a higher entity/deity) Now, the country may argue on exactly who/what that being is, but 97 out of every 100 US citizens believe in said Higher Power.

Furthermore, the atheist I obliquely referred to in yon title doesn't even represent the wishes of the child. The kid lives with her mother, an avowed Christian. Said atheist, the father, lives a few states away from the school the girl attends; he's merely pushing his own agenda on THE BULK OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

[this is where Pastor John Hagee takes over the conversation, bellows a few hours on a tangent/rant about atheism, has the audience/congregation applaud after he thunders out a great sentence, and then leaves. thankfully, I won't attempt to type that out.]

Now, I know there's a law on the books about separation of church and state. That is why there's an existing law where...

YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY THE PLEDGE AT ALL.

No one can legally force you to say the Pledge. I've seen it done. I've seen Jehovah's Witnesses sit quietly at their desk while I stood for the Pledge. In Charleston, South Carolina. (fundamentalist mecca of the world)[Me, I love God, and my country gets a hug, too. The latter needs a good swat in the rear sometimes, though.]

(the JWs believe that the Pledge is tantamount to idolatry. they're protected by the First Amendment.)

The whole thing about "separation of church and state" was to prevent the conflicts of interest that plagued Europe--and caused the Protestant Reformation. (which indirectly led to the umpteen million denominations and subsects of the Western Catholic Church today. I'm not even adding in the Greek Orthodox yet) Basically, the First Amendment and the subsequent rules following that had the words "separation of church and state", merely stated that the country couldn't have a central national religion.

It never explicitly stated that schools couldn't have prayer groups, or even that teachers can't lead students in prayer. [the latter was drawn out so that schools wouldn't get sued.(teacher is a public employee in a public school)]

However, this is about the Pledge. Simply put, if atheists students wants to say the Pledge minus the "offensive words"(which weren't there until 1954, when Eisenhower decided to add them in), they may. They're within their legal rights.

Now, if some nitwits at the school give those atheists a hard time over it--and sadly, they do--that's a situation every kid different from the norm has to deal with. Bring a Bible to school, for example, and you could be laughed at, beat up, sent to the Office...same rules apply. At any rate, the atheists would go through the chain of command.

Demanding that Congress--who has better things to bicker about--stop in their tracks to change two words in a poem that has been unchanged in 48 years? That's hijacking the system for personal benefit, to the detriment of others.

Essentially, in a classroom of 100, 97 kids can't say the Pledge because 3 kids are offended by two words in the Pledge.

Man, please.

[trust me, this issue has probably already gone the way of the Communications Decency Act.]

[jeffrey 228]

No, I think the people should use the phrease since it was put there in the first place.

[Alaskanbullworm]

N-O!!

If people don't want to say that part, they can skip that part and say the rest. That one athiest shouldn't take something away from people like this. If that person didn't like it, he shouldn't say it.

[BayouLady]

When I was a senior in High school, I stopped saying "Under God" when I did the pledge.

However, It wasn't there before 1954, and it doesn't need to be there now.

Think about it, its not just the atheists that have a problem with it. There are others who believe in a higher/lower, but different power. For instance, the Satanists....they believe in satan, not god. But like me, I am sure they love their country too. I feel that its important to say the pledge..I love this country...but "one nation, under god.." needs to be eliminated.

By saying "under God" that is giving honor (as a nation) to something that not all people believe in.

so, don't start with the "atheists are just whining" B-s..this isn't just about us :mad:

Oh yeah..go meatwad! :)

[panther3751]

Right. Not just atheists have a problem with "Under God"

I mean, what about Hindus? Buddhists? Native Americans who believe in their traditional religion? (I know one) Wiccans? Etc, etc, etc.

I'm really sick and tired of all the relgious oppression that goes on even today, and the fact that the "under God" addition of 1954 is just now being contested shows that we're making steps forward.

If we are to be indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. . . . we better start living up to those words.

[Anubis C. Soundwave]

Originally posted by panther3751
Right. Not just atheists have a problem with "Under God"

I mean, what about Hindus? Buddhists? Native Americans who believe in their traditional religion? (I know one) Wiccans? Etc, etc, etc.

I'm really sick and tired of all the relgious oppression that goes on even today, and the fact that the "under God" addition of 1954 is just now being contested shows that we're making steps forward.

If we are to be indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. . . . we better start living up to those words.

Your arguments make sense. But my point isn't that the country was 97% CHRISTIAN; rather, that the US was 97% THEIST. A notable difference.

Furthermore, who's oppressing anybody?

1. If you want to leave out "under God" from your saying the Pledge, you can.

2. When Eisenhower put the words in there, he used "God" as a general, theist-leaning term. That is, if you believe in Allah or Shiva/Brahma/Kali/Vishnu, et al; than that's who God is to you--according to the laws of the United States. Said laws also protect you from violence when you assert your rights. What no set of laws can do is protect a kid from her peers' mindless teasing if she wears something different from the norm. [example: an Indian girl wearing native garb as opposed to "normal" American clothes. nowadays there is no such thing...I'd hope.] that's where the system comes into play, if the harrassment makes the school too hostile for said child.

== OT ==

The trend I've noticed lately with some avowed atheists--and this is merely an observation--is that this set is anti-Christian. Every other religion, faith, creed, or cult is just that, but Christianity to them is an EEEVILLL and oppressive regime funded by COBRA, determined to Rule the World. :rolleyes:

And I get annoyed when Christianity is blamed for all the social ills in America; in reality, only about 37% of them is our fault. And most of those flub-ups are due to intentional misinterpretations of the Bible to advance ulterior agendas; I am as against that as I am against this ONE atheist foisting his agenda on all Americans.

I don't want it removed for that reason. Also, because in 2052, (on the off chance it is removed) a Christian might appeal to John Hagee to deliver a thundering Sermon of Doom to America, urging the Supreme Court to put the words back. [and don't think Hagee will be dead in 2052, either. that preacher has been bellowing since I was young enough to absorb Superbook at face value.]

I know that if those two words are removed that people will "get used to it"--the same way people adjusted to "under God" in the Pledge in the first place. [I'm also aware of McCarthy and other morons.]

This would be a more complicated issue for me if the kid complained about her rights being violated, thus expressed by the atheist dad...but the kid isn't involved at all.

Just her father, other atheists, and perhaps a few Navajo, a couple of wiccans, and a satanist or two. (satanism actually being a "mock religion" for some atheists. other people...I'll safely state that I don't know.) And I cannot allow a minority to automatically impose their will over the majority on a matter of two fairly benign words.

[afrimericans had to march, die, and appeal for 150 years for basic rights as American citizens. if these smaller minority groups truly believe they're in the right over this minor issue of semantics, they have to do better than that guy. honestly, if "blacks" didn't have Dr. King, Thurgood Marshall, et al; leading the CRM in the 1960s, we'd be in horrible shape.]

Finally, said atheist didn't want the two words removed; he wanted to remove the entire Pledge. That's how I know the whole thing will go the way of the Communications Decency Act and the dodo.

However, debate is necessary and good in a constitutional republic. Believe it or not, this is almost the type of world the Founders envisioned. [they didn't expect women and minorities to be in Congress, though. can't think of everything.]

[Joe Wagner]

Personally I don't think that words should be removed. The way that the words appear allows for any faith to use their deity under the name of God. Someone also mentioned the seperation of church and state and I would like to explain this a little bit. All the seperation of church and state says is that the state will not sponsor an official state religion. The use of phrases containing the word God on our currency is a testament to this fact. We have also found that a large majority of Americans would like the phrase to remain and I have to question when the rights of such a small minority have the right to affect such a large majority and violate their rights (at last count - it was roughly a 97 to 3% split).

-Joe!

[Patrick Bateman]

I think there are things going on in this world that need changed a lot more than the "Pledge of Allegiance".

[gtracer72]

Originally posted by Batman Year One
I think there are things going on in this world that need changed a lot more than the "Pledge of Allegiance".

Of course, I don't think anybody is arguing that fact.

A capital G in god refers to the father of Jesus Christ(thats what I was taught in Sunday school when I went). A lowercase g would symbolize all the gods in different religions.

When I was highschool, I just didn't say "Under God...". Its not that hard to do. Should it be removed, I think so.

[BrendaBat]

IMO, the 'under God' line in the pledge is just a grim reminder of the scary McCarthy days of "if you don't act/ believe/ think a certain way then you're a Godless commie and MUST BE PUNISHED!!!"
The line was not added to instill a love for God and country into school-children, it was put in to indoctrinate the little tykes as soon as possible (and those who exercised their "right" to remain silent would no doubt become oppressed outcasts).

McCarthy is dead and the 'under God' line in the pledge should have died with him :)

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by BrendaBat
IMO, the 'under God' line in the pledge is just a grim reminder of the scary McCarthy days of "if you don't act/ believe/ think a certain way then you're a Godless commie and MUST BE PUNISHED!!!"
The line was not added to instill a love for God and country into school-children, it was put in to indoctrinate the little tykes as soon as possible (and those who exercised their "right" to remain silent would no doubt become oppressed outcasts).

McCarthy is dead and the 'under God' line in the pledge should have died with him :)

Bad day, Brenda?

[meatwad945]

ok if you think it should be there tell me how it is seperation of church and state which we are supposed to have in this fake democracy.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by meatwad945
ok if you think it should be there tell me how it is seperation of church and state which we are supposed to have in this fake democracy.

Actually, I don't exactly see that term in the Constitution. Would you please point it out?

[Krayenhoff]

Think about it, its not just the atheists that have a problem with it. There are others who believe in a higher/lower, but different power. For instance, the Satanists....they believe in satan, not god. But like me, I am sure they love their country too. I feel that its important to say the pledge..I love this country...but "one nation, under god.." needs to be eliminated.

A Satanist would object to your portrayal of them. Satanists are more like neo-pagans than devil-worshippers.

By saying "under God" that is giving honor (as a nation) to something that not all people believe in.

Well then what, should we take out "To the Republic for which it stands" because it would offend communists or royalists?

And don't give me that "separation of church and state" stuff. The pledge of allegiance is a saying, not law. If you think the pledge represents American law in some way then you simply have an axe to grind and nowhere better to put it.

[zmanjz]

Hmmm, well, another way to consider it is that God in the platonic sense is a greater good.

Therefore for me, We are a nation under that greater good. Generally every religion believes that there exists a greater good, whether this Good is embodied by a supreme being, or by a power behind those beings... well I'll leave that to you.

But I would like to believe that our country lives for the inherent Goodness that many consider God to be.

So just as we built monuments depicting the Greco-roman goddess of justice in order to state our feelings on how important the ideals she represents are, I have no problem with memorializing the consept of the Christian God.

Do I believe in the Christian God?

Well... I don't know. (at least Im honest.) I'll have to see.

I hope this post makes sense to someone...

[zimbach]

Originally posted by Krayenhoff
Well then what, should we take out "To the Republic for which it stands" because it would offend communists or royalists?
By the laws of the US constitution, the government is structured as a republic. This is a FACT of LAW. It is not an OPINION of a selected FAITH.

And don't give me that "separation of church and state" stuff. The pledge of allegiance is a saying, not law. If you think the pledge represents American law in some way then you simply have an axe to grind and nowhere better to put it. By California law, each school day must begin with a patriotic demonstration in the classroom. Recitation of the Pledge of Alliegence fulfils that requirement.

The contents of the current Plegde of Alliegence were passed by Congress and signed by the President in 1954, by LAW declaring it as the official wording.

[Joker85]

Can I ask you people a question?(and I'm gonna try really hard not to come off rude.)
Why does it matter so much? For athiests and for Christians, why does it matter that much? If you want to say it, say it, if you don't...guess what? You don't have to. If they remove it from the pledge officially, whats gonna stop those who want to say it from saying it? If it stays, those who don't want to say it don't have to. There are a lot more things to worry about right now, thats not one of them. Heck, I worry about my Trig grade more than I worry about that. It's just not one of those things that keeps me awake at night. So, why is everyone soooo concerned? JMO

[zimbach]

Originally posted by Joker85
Can I ask you people a question?(and I'm gonna try really hard not to come off rude.)
Why does it matter so much? For athiests and for Christians, why does it matter that much? If you want to say it, say it, if you don't...guess what? You don't have to. If they remove it from the pledge officially, whats gonna stop those who want to say it from saying it? If it stays, those who don't want to say it don't have to. There are a lot more things to worry about right now, thats not one of them. Heck, I worry about my Trig grade more than I worry about that. It's just not one of those things that keeps me awake at night. So, why is everyone soooo concerned? JMO While no one can be legally compelled to recite the pledge, by having it recited daily in classrooms, children are COERCED by peers and authority figures into saying it.

When I tried to sit out a pledge (which for me has less to do with the "under God" phrase than the insulting implied questioning of my patriotism. Why should I have to prove it daily?), I was sternly admonished by my teacher and threatened with diciplinary action. So don't go saying children AREN'T forced into reciting the pledge, it happens often, even though it is technically illegal.

Of course, as has been said before, the "under God" phrase in a state coerced recitation is inconsistent with the establishment of religion clause in the first ammendment.

If recitation of the pledge were NOT coerced, AND the pledge were not codified into law, THEN nobody would have this particular objection.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by meatwad945
ok if you think it should be there tell me how it is seperation of church and state which we are supposed to have in this fake democracy.

Let me try this again - the seperation of church of state said that the government of any state would not support one church or proclaim one church to be the official church of their state. This was caused by the creation of the Church of England that alienated many people of different religious beliefs and the desire of our forefathers to not do the same thing. Also, while there is the seperation of church and state, it does not say that God can not be written on our currency or be contained within our Pledge of Alliegence. While you may consider this a 'fake democracy' I implore you to look at the voting rights of countries like Iraq, Iran or within the PLO where elections are rigged or non-existent. America is one of the few countries in the world where the peoples votes are counted and affect the ruling government directly - just because the person you vote for doesn't win does not mean that we are a 'fake democracy'.

Also, someone wanted to know why this was such an issue. In my personal opinion I think that I should have the right to say that this country is "Under God" because I believe that the USA is truly blessed - the phrase does not proclaim any God within the context and allows for open interpretation based upon an individuals beliefs. The reason this is so important to me is because as a citizen of the United States I should have the right to say "Under God" within the context of the Pledge without having this right revoked because of the desires of a very small minority of the population - especially when many of the people within this minority do not take offense to the statement in question.

-Joe!

[zimbach]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner
Also, someone wanted to know why this was such an issue. In my personal opinion I think that I should have the right to say that this country is "Under God" because I believe that the USA is truly blessed - the phrase does not proclaim any God within the context and allows for open interpretation based upon an individuals beliefs. The reason this is so important to me is because as a citizen of the United States I should have the right to say "Under God" within the context of the Pledge without having this right revoked because of the desires of a very small minority of the population - especially when many of the people within this minority do not take offense to the statement in question.

-Joe! Nobody wants to take away YOUR right to make whatever statement of patriotism or faith on YOUR own time. In the case of speech and faith, your own time is whenever YOU want it to be.

The conflict has to do with the STATE COERCING CHILDREN to make those statements.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by zimbach
Nobody wants to take away YOUR right to make whatever statement of patriotism or faith on YOUR own time. In the case of speech and faith, your own time is whenever YOU want it to be.

The conflict has to do with the STATE COERCING CHILDREN to make those statements.

I disagree - the resolution did not make the claim that this would only affect school children but that the very wording of the Pledge would be changed to reflect a view that is very much in the minority of the American population. Also, there are a lot of places where the pledge is used - as a long time volunteer with the Boy Scouts if we choose to open with the Pledge the removal of the "Under God" phrase would be a violation of my rights. If I go to a public function and we say the pledge my rights have been violated because I am no longer allowed to express the belief that America is under the watchful eye of a higher deity. To change the Pledge would clearly affect all Americans and their personal freedoms of choice.

-Joe!

[batboy2001]

Originally posted by meatwad945
ok if you think it should be there tell me how it is seperation of church and state which we are supposed to have in this fake democracy. I said it in another thread and I say it again. That was meant so we didn't have a "church of England crisis"... IMO it only means the government cannot require you to join a church. Otherwise the church would become the government. Come on ppl, look at it perspective! Also, no this isn't a democracy, it's a republic. And I agree with bob, no where does it say "sepration of church and state". It just states the federal government cannot have an established religion.

[zimbach]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner
I disagree - the resolution did not make the claim that this would only affect school children but that the very wording of the Pledge would be changed to reflect a view that is very much in the minority of the American population. Also, there are a lot of places where the pledge is used - as a long time volunteer with the Boy Scouts if we choose to open with the Pledge the removal of the "Under God" phrase would be a violation of my rights. If I go to a public function and we say the pledge my rights have been violated because I am no longer allowed to express the belief that America is under the watchful eye of a higher deity. To change the Pledge would clearly affect all Americans and their personal freedoms of choice.

-Joe! Just because the official wording may revert to its original form, that will not prevent you from adding anything you want to to it on your own.

Stop trying to make yourself the victim just because your power to impose your faith on others is stifled.

[Anubis C. Soundwave]

What power?

Sigh.

Do you think that the 80,000 different denominations of Western Catholic Christianity(Roman Catholics, various Protestant denoms combined) constitute the new Church of England?

Again, Christians are ruthless, oppressive monsters determined to squelch human rights in the US and rule the world. [NOT.]

==

Ninety-seven percent of the people of the United States are theists. [Jews, Wiccans, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Scientologists, et al.] The remaining three percent are atheists.

The issue should be far more compelling than the Pledge. As for dealing with disciplinary action messing with your legal rights, you go to the superintendent. If she doesn't work, go to the school board. For in this situation, you--the actual student--have a grievance.

This case here is a whole other beast. The student in question is a young girl, living with her mother--not the father bringing up the lawsuit.

==

Allah is capitalized. Adonai has to be used, for the true name to the Jews is changed to the LORD in the KJV; YHWH in the Torah and other holy writ.

==

If this is a serious problem for the 3%, then they will have to have compelling reasons to remove the WHOLE PLEDGE(which is what the plaintiff wants). Again, I cite the Civil Rights Movement as an example of a minority group fighting what they believe to be an unjust law that the majority supports. The issues then were a lot more intense than the words "under God", which could mean Goku for some people who decide that DBZ is a new religion. :rolleyes:

I say this because as citizens of the US, we all have the right to contest our laws. Atheists, tribal Native Americans, Wiccans, and any other faith/non-faith.

Which, I assert, includes all the denominations of Christianity. Don't assume that Christian rights are automatically taken for granted, because they're not.

[BayouLady]

To confirm:

I have nothing against christianity

and

there is a difference between Chrisitianity and a thiest. I will admit, the line gets blurred.

zimbach makes a very good point. True, that no one can legally force you to say the pledge, there are some states/schools that disipline/get on to children that don't say it. Its a fact. I lived it.

Hell, I dont want the entire pledge removed, just 2 words that don't need to be in there. (see brenda's post)

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by zimbach
Just because the official wording may revert to its original form, that will not prevent you from adding anything you want to to it on your own.

Stop trying to make yourself the victim just because your power to impose your faith on others is stifled.

The words "under God" is not an imposition of my faith upon anyone else. At the time of its passing it was placed there to recognize a higher deity and provide people with the ability to use their deity within the Pledge. This has nothing to do with my "power to impose (my) faith on others" but it does have everything to do with allowing me to state that I believe that the US is united under the gaze of a higher power. If anything the movement to remove these two words is showing that the minority aethiest population has the right to affect the way Jews, Christians, Wiccans, Muslims and countless other religions say the pledge. Just because I happen to belong to a faith that has a lot of support within the US does not mean that it is acceptable for my right to speak the pledge the way it is currently written should be stomped on for if this is allowed to happen I truly am the victim.

-Joe!

[BrendaBat]

Bad day, Brenda?
Yeah, bad week actually :(

Anyway, even if I did believe in God, I wouldn't want his name in the pledge because it violates the church&state laws and, like I said before, its a reminder of that freak McCarthy.

zimbach makes a very good point. True, that no one can legally force you to say the pledge, there are some states/schools that disipline/get on to children that don't say it. Its a fact. I lived it.
I lived it, too :( It really sucks to be punished for exercising our supposed "right to stay silent".
In fact, the "under God" line wouldn't bug me so much if it hadn't been forced on me in elementary and middle school :rolleyes:

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by BrendaBat
Yeah, bad week actually :(

Anyway, even if I did believe in God, I wouldn't want his name in the pledge because it violates the church&state laws and, like I said before, its a reminder of that freak McCarthy.


Just to repeat what has already been said regarding the "church and state" law. The only rule that was created regarding this was that no governmental authority would be allowed to decree that one church is the official church of any state and/or country. Seeing as how the statement "under God" does not make the statement that the official religion of the United States is Jewish, Christian, Islamic, etc means that this, in fact, is not in violation of any law within the United States. Through out our history there have been many times that the interpretation of not establishing a state run church has been used to say that people can not express religious freedoms within the context of our society - ie the principal that can't post the Ten Commandments in his school, the religious organizations within many schools that are not allowed to have early morning prayers on campus grounds, etc. This type of behavior was not what the forefathers envisioned and is a distortion of what was actually written regarding the relationship between the church and state.

-Joe!

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner
Just to repeat what has already been said regarding the "church and state" law. The only rule that was created regarding this was that no governmental authority would be allowed to decree that one church is the official church of any state and/or country. Seeing as how the statement "under God" does not make the statement that the official religion of the United States is Jewish, Christian, Islamic, etc means that this, in fact, is not in violation of any law within the United States. Through out our history there have been many times that the interpretation of not establishing a state run church has been used to say that people can not express religious freedoms within the context of our society - ie the principal that can't post the Ten Commandments in his school, the religious organizations within many schools that are not allowed to have early morning prayers on campus grounds, etc. This type of behavior was not what the forefathers envisioned and is a distortion of what was actually written regarding the relationship between the church and state.

-Joe!


Just wanna add to that. Just because the founding fathers provided us protection from having a single, official religion, that doesn't mean that they provided us "freedom" from all religion. In fact, they encouraged the growth of religion elsewhere in the First Amendment by the "free excercise" clause.

[Sue_Jackson]

I voted no.

We need God's help to keep this country (USA) strong and safe.

I'm proud to say that I believe God will get us through if we ask for His help. The reason why this country (USA) is going through rough times is because not enough of us are asking for God's help.

I may be the only one who has the guts to defend God in this forum, but my faith in God is very strong. The devil's evil thoughts aren't going to trick me.

C'mon.....anyone else in here gonna help me defend God's precious name?

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of Me (God). Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven.
---- Matthew 5: 10-12 NAB

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Deina
I voted no.

We need God's help to keep this country (USA) strong and safe.

I'm proud to say that I believe God will get us through if we ask for His help. The reason why this country (USA) is going through rough times is because not enough of us are asking for God's help.

I may be the only one who has the guts to defend God in this forum, but my faith in God is very strong. The devil's evil thoughts aren't going to trick me.

C'mon.....anyone else in here gonna help me defend God's precious name?

Don't worry, right behind ya!

[Krayenhoff]

Yes, this issue boils down to just one thing:

Is the Pledge of Allegiance a law? No. It's a statement. Laws are not enacted by being put into the forms of pledges. Since this isn't a law, then it is not violating the 1st Amendment. Case closed.

The same can be said of dollar bills. When taxes were cut last year, did dollar bills have "Taxes are to be cut" written on them? No! Laws aren't written on money. "In God we trust" is a motto, nothing more.

For those of you intimidated by not saying the Pledge, why should everyone have to be bothered because you won't stand up for yourself?

And really, the pledge can be considered offensive to just about everyone if you think about it. Let's break it down.

"I pledge allegiance..." - offensive to non-comformists. This has to be cut.

"...to the flag..." - what about people who think the flag is ugly? It isn't right for us to force our beliefs on them.

"...of the United States of America..." - this is downright offensive to foreigners. People of Britain would not want this at all, you know! And what about die-hard Confederates?

"...and to the republic..." - offensive to monarchists, communists, and anarchists. This must go.

"...for which it stands..." - offensive to wimps.

"...one nation..." - offensive to Confederates and those who still support the Articles of Confederation.

"...under God..." - offensive to atheists. This is a violation of their rights, you know.

"...indivisible..." - especially offensive to Confederates.

"...with liberty..." - offensive to tyrants and communists. Can we please consider the feelings of tyrants and communists?

"...and justice..." - deathly offensive to criminals. How dare we try to impose this one them!

"...for all." - offensive to loners and recluses.

This is just the first step in our new policy, where we decide laws and policies by whether or not someone out there may possibly be offended.

[zimbach]

http://iidb.org/ubb/graemlins/banghead.gif

[BrendaBat]

I'm proud to say that I believe God will get us through if we ask for His help. The reason why this country (USA) is going through rough times is because not enough of us are asking for God's help.

Its not fair to blame the athiests for the U.S.A.'s problems :(

[cross blues]

ok I don't really care much either way but I had to vote yes because we're already forced to do so many things that this country was supposed to be against. example: excessive taxation- 1/4 of your money gets stolen, then your kids are pressured to conform and be a good "religious" person... wow maybe I do care. well I don't want to offend people or get this thread closed so I'm just gonna stop there.

[Pilmedium]

Yes, it should be taken out. Even though people do not have to say that line, it is still difficult for those opposed not to hear it when other people say it. If it was there all along, that would be another issue. Due to the fact that it was added in at a later time, you could also look back at that as a mistake.

[Krayenhoff]

That is a flimsy argument. You want it taken out because it offends your sensibilities. Well, atheism offends my sensibilities, so should I demand that you be deported?

[BrendaBat]

The words "under God" is not an imposition of my faith upon anyone else. At the time of its passing it was placed there to recognize a higher deity and provide people with the ability to use their deity within the Pledge.
No, at the time of its passing it was placed there to root out communists, athests, and anyone else deemed "anti-american" during the Red Scare. Its right there in my history book :)

That is a flimsy argument. You want it taken out because it offends your sensibilities. Well, atheism offends my sensibilities, so should I demand that you be deported?
Oh no!! You're not going to start your "if you don't like it here move to another state and/or country" again are you, Krayenhoff? :rolleyes:
By the way, born American citizens like myself can't be deported for not believing in god (thats why I like living here :) ). Besides, if I was born in America, where would I be deported to? :p

[Steve Jester]

Somethings you should know of:

1) As stated eairler, the Pledge of Alegence, along with any saying that is to be noted as "official" has to be passed in law. No, they aren't laws themselves but they are part of a law.

2) There was a ruling in the US Supreme Court that said that requires that people stand when the Pledge is recited. There is no law or court ruling stating that people have to say all or part of it. Hell, they can choose to not say anything.

DO I think that "Under God" should be removed? No. Do people who think it should be removed have to say it? No.