Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Not A Moron Jul 12 2011, 11:45 PM

So, for awhile now I've been hearing that "Under God" has always been in the pledge of allegiance, or that it hasn't but should stay, or that it has and shouldn't stay, etc. What are your beliefs on it? Should it stay? Should it go? Does it or does it not violate the First Amendment?

By the way, for those of you who think it's always been there, it hasn't. It was added in the '50s during a communist scare, I'm pretty sure because one of the leaders was atheist. Not quite sure if it was cause of the leader, but it was added in the 50s.


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

Personally, I feel it should go. Not just because I'm atheist, but not EVERY religion calls their god, well, God.
I also believe that if it stays, it shouldn't be mandatory to say, as I have gotten in some minor trouble for simply staying quiet during the "Under God" part.

Posted by: WindexSniper Jul 13 2011, 12:00 AM

I personally think it violates the first amendment. In my old school we got punished if we didn't say it. i felt really bad for this one Hindu kid in my class. I don't think it should be there.

Posted by: Keiiri Jul 13 2011, 12:31 AM

I'm fine with it being there but I don't believe that anyone should be pressured into saying it, or punished for not saying it. It goes against freedom of Religion.

Posted by: rileyup Jul 15 2011, 07:32 AM

i always get in trouble for not saying the pledge,i aint praying to no flag.i think they should remove it completly.

Posted by: Volcarona Jul 15 2011, 07:34 AM

This.

Posted by: Reyo Jul 16 2011, 12:22 AM

I believe that there are much more pressing matters to tend to than half a sentence. Saying the pledge every morning goes away after High School. Seriously...it does. You can fight all you want for them to take it out, but chances are it won't even BE taken out until you're well done with ever having to say it.

So you know what I advise? Don't say it. Don't be a little jerkoff and make an ass of yourself while everyone ELSE is saying it by causing a ruckus (like this one kid at my school did...) just say the pledge up until that part...skip it...go back to saying it. If the teacher decides to be a little whore jerk (because I know it happens), just say you were taking a breath. If they persist, well shit......sometimes teachers are assholes. I've had my fare share of dick teachers. They're inevitable. Besides, I know as much as you do that most of the time you're just thinking about that homework you didn't do...or that test you're about to take. I know because I did it, and it doesn't just happen with the pledge of allegiance. Once you devote saying it to muscle memory, you're mind is going to wander to ninja dinosaurs and robot pirates until it's done and you're like "oh shit...we're done". You're gonna be saying it for the next 4 years...and that's it, and I say "that's it" because 4 years isn't really that long a time in retrospect. Once you're done having to say it every morning, it'll hit you...it's also around the time you start feeling old. People your age (or younger) will be getting engaged, you'll realize that they canceled all of your favorite TV shows a good 5 years ago (and you didn't even notice it) etc, but I'm rambling......point is: it's not that big a deal. Really...it isn't.

And is it just me, or does this have the whole "PETA vs. the town of 'fishkill'" vibe to it?

Posted by: Black Ice Jul 30 2011, 11:27 PM

I am in favour of "all or nothing." And since it isn't feasible to include all other deities, I think it should be removed. It's not that it offends me, but it basically promotes Christianity and any other God-religion and ignores every other one.

Same issue with the 9/11 cross memorial thing.


And if a public school has issues with anyone not saying the pledge, tell them you have no obligation to say it. If it's a private school, you're probably out of luck. I think they're allowed to have their own set of rules. But a public school can't enforce something so mundane as politely and respectfully sitting down for the pledge.

Posted by: Heaven Falling Aug 9 2011, 09:18 PM

*bites lip*

I'm in the Military I fight for that damn flag,I respect it in every way possible.


But that's not the case. God is real. If he wasn't why would we be here? I've always said 'Under God' in the Pledge.


@Rileyyup.

*stares at you*

HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF ALQUEDA HELD YOU GUNPOINT? Exactly read a damn history book son.

Millions of Men and Women have fought for that flag. RESPECT IT.

Posted by: Reyo Aug 10 2011, 10:07 AM

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Aug 14 2011, 01:12 AM

You know, this isn't some sort of spammy forum where you can go around and post a macro and just leave it at that. If you're going to post anything, at least contribute on top of that.

Petty nationalism. It may be a symbol for you, but to us it doesn't really mean anything. I live in this nation and I will continue to do so, I'm sure my loyalty is expressed more in that than anything.

I don't even care if he's real, other people do not believe that he exists and that should be fine by you. If you fight for the flag, you also fight for the rights that protect one's right to not believe in god.

And this is where I ask you to calm down and take time to rationalize before you say anything.

Posted by: Reyo Aug 28 2011, 09:08 PM

I just couldn't get over how rediculous it sounded, you're not "praying to a flag". You're not "praying" to anything, you're showing reverence to your country, and reflecting on the freedoms you have as a United States Citizen. You don't want to do that? I say again: "reflecting on the freedoms you have as a United States Citizen"

Either way it stands that there are definitely more dire things out there than "I don't want to say 'under God' in the pledge". If you don't want to say it, that's fine, but don't expect me to respect you if a) you start acting like an ass while other people are saying it because you're "expressing your right not to say it" or b) start whining that you shouldn't have to say it. Obviously, this thread isn't whining since it's a valid question to ask, but I've known people to sit there and beligerantly argue the point that they shouldn't have t say it when I say "...then don't say it?"

"BUT WHY DO I HAVE TO!?" isn't a very clever response to that...

Posted by: KyoushiroTheSilver Sep 4 2011, 07:04 PM

Lol so much for respecting the beliefs of others. Not very 'American', is it?


Anyways, I hate that it's in the pledge. It just proves even more that America isn't the "religion friendly" place it claims to be.

Posted by: PawsrentOrigin Sep 8 2011, 09:00 PM

I request it be changed to my religion, "one nation, under Flying Spaghetti Monster, with blah blah blabitty blah blah blah blah."

Posted by: Reyo Sep 16 2011, 06:13 PM

I doubt the government put that in there as a foot in the face of anyone who doesn't believe in God. My guess is it's in there because the consensus religion of the group of people who came up with it was something related to God.



Again?

Posted by: The great Cthulhu Sep 16 2011, 06:26 PM

I am a pastafarian my self ... may he bless you all , ramen

Posted by: Rainbow Kang Sep 17 2011, 12:44 AM

Hmm...How do you non-believers think we were created? MAGIC DUST?

Posted by: Skins T Sep 17 2011, 01:52 AM

While I'm not American, if I were, I would not agree with it being in the Pledge. It wasn't in there originally, and it shouldn't have been added.

If freedom of religion is used to keep it in there, what about those religions who don't pray to a God (Buddhism for example)? Does it not violate their freedom?

Posted by: Fatal Error Sep 17 2011, 02:44 AM

Magic dust? Are you kidding me? Haven't you ever heard of the Big Bang theory, and the whole idea of evolution?



But really, I don't see why it should be in the pledge either. When we say the pledge in school, I just don't say it. I find it a little bit sad that we can't just respect the beliefs of others and just remove it, though.

Posted by: Rainbow Kang Sep 17 2011, 04:19 AM

In My Perspective.

People from other countries and have different religion don't want to say it. That's fine by me.

But straight up Americans? No. Just No.

Posted by: Skins T Sep 17 2011, 06:53 AM

Riiight.

Because Americans are only Christian. :|

Posted by: Bigwig Sep 24 2011, 05:21 PM

You say that like only people from other countries aren't christians e3e

Posted by: shou75 Sep 25 2011, 01:08 PM

it technically should stay because the country main religion is christian so thats why we say "under God" in the pledge.

Posted by: TwilitProphet Sep 26 2011, 08:05 PM

Being the 'main' religion does not make it the one and only religion. It was only put in there to help prove how different we were than the godless communists, as my grandfather puts it.

I always hated saying the pledge as a child, mainly because I didn't really see a reason why I had to stand up, put my hand over my heart, and drone out the same paragraph every day for 13 years. In my last two years of high school I decided to become Wiccan, so I would either just stand with the rest of the class and not say the pledge at all, I would change it to 'under the Goddess', or I would say the pledge and just close my mouth when 'under god' came about.

I wasn't raised towards any religion growing up. Mom told me 'There's a god', and that's it. I was actually quite terrified whenever religion was mentioned because all I ever heard was "You're going to hell if you weren't baptized", "You're going to hell if you don't believe what I do", or "You're going to hell because god just doesn't like you!".

I honestly don't understand why we need to mention him in everything we do. We have to swear under god in courts (this is a big 'why?' to me because what are we supposed to do if the person swearing to tell the truth does not believe in god?), we have him in our pledge to a sheet of fabric, and we have him on our money. Why do we have him on our money? Why would god care about what we have stamped on a coin that he has no use for?

Why would it be a problem if we removed 'god' from all these things? I really don't understand why it's such a big deal to have 'god' in there, or to remove it. I understand the whole 'phasing out the old when there are people who are used to it' but didn't we still remove Pluto from the list of planets? It's basically the same kind of thing to me.

Posted by: Bigwig Sep 26 2011, 08:14 PM

So I guess we'll just forget about those religions who aren't the 'main religion'. Religion and government should stay separate anyways, so it doesn't really mean anything if more people are christian/believe in God.

Like the person above me said(who I also fully agree with), we don't need it. So technically, it doesn't have to stay.

Posted by: BarkAtTheMoon Sep 27 2011, 09:50 AM

Are people forgetting that "In God We Trust" is written on money? If we remove God from the pledge then the next step would be removing it from all money, which simply would not be possible. You can't print batches of new money without recalling and destroying all old money. it would be impossible to get everyone to turn in all their money for new money. Its just really implausible.

No, keep God in the pledge. It would start a horrible chain reaction. But at the same time, you should NOT be forced to say the pledge or "under God" if you do not want to. I think its rediculous that schools force the pledge on people. I know in my high school, it wasn't mandatory (but it varied by teacher. Most didn't care as long as you stood up), but I remember that students would get detention in elementary school if they didn't say it.

Posted by: Skins T Sep 28 2011, 01:35 AM

What's wrong with having money reprinted? There's no reason why the old stuff should be destroyed. It could simply be phased out.

I see no harm in doing that whatsoever.

Posted by: Reyo Sep 28 2011, 03:15 AM

I guarantee that those people who disagree with you, or just plain don't care would be inconvenienced. Sure, we'll just get the mints to start printing a new form of currency (which it would be) and then tell the banks to start giving THAT out instead of the old paper money. Then someone will have to go out and change all of the money that's already in every ATM around the country. And what about the "In God We Trust" that's on every coin? Go ahead, convince the government to use even more of the metals we do have just to start minting coins despite the only difference being half a sentence. Well just melt the old ones into raw materials? How would THAT trade off happen? A trip to the bank I'd rather not make because of a silly sentence fragment offending someone's lack of belief? The same thing can be said about bills, except we don't "melt" the bills down into raw bill printing material. they become "souvenirs" for people touring the mint, only who in their right mind would want remnants of a money tainted with "religion"?

You'll have to convince the government to start wasting time and energy into a project to change half a sentence that barely anyone takes notice of until someone decides they want "under God" taken out of the pledge. Then again, they'll be too busy dealing with the religious uprising that was created from the fact that the mere notion that religion can yield currency as "unusable" sparking questions such as "What makes YOUR belief better than mine?" or "Why is the government wasting time on such an offensive project while education suffers?" Pretty soon businesses are refusing to take the new currency because it suggests that religion was somehow making it "inferior". So no, it's not "that bad", but given the choice of inaction with 0% chance of complication, or action with 100% chance of complication, what do YOU think the government would do?

Personally, I'd be inconvenienced by the gas money I'd be wasting just to get to the bank to trade in my cash and coins, all become some kid doesn't want to say 2 freaken words during a pledge I know he's not paying attention to anyway.

EDIT: SPACE!

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Sep 28 2011, 05:40 PM

This is not about money; this is about the pledge of allegiance. Removing "Under God" from our pledge will under no circumstance devalue our currency.

Posted by: BarkAtTheMoon Sep 29 2011, 09:54 AM

No, you missed by point completely. If you remove Under God from the pledge, there is a good chance that it will start a chain reaction of people wanting God removed from everything. If "under God" is successful removed, then whats stopping people from taking it a step further? They dont want to say God, so why should they be forced to use money that says "In God We trust?"

Really, you dont see the chain forming? Someone gets cocky that the pledge was successfully altered, then tries to get money changed.

I'm not saying that removing God from the pledge will directly affect money, I'm saying that if they successfully won that, they are going to think they can remove God from everything that is government related.
I mentioned money because it was the most obvious example.

Posted by: Skins T Sep 30 2011, 02:27 AM

I think you missed the part about 'phasing out'.

New currency is released every so often. New prints, new colours, you name it, in every country in the world. The old style currency is not reduced in value, it is simply not circulated anymore and in time, eventually is destroyed. That is how new currency is introduced.

I would know, as I lived through a transition of new currency here in Australia. Every now and then, I still get old bank notes at work and whatnot and it's never a problem.

So I fail to see what would be such a big deal about phasing out currency.

Posted by: Reyo Sep 30 2011, 02:50 AM

1. Because they've already had a phase in currency here in America.
2. It's a bit more of a change than "OOH, the number 20 is flashy!"
3. You're asking they phase out EVERY bit of the currency. In the last one, they only phased the major bills.
4. Changing "In God We Trust" is a LOT more controversial than "It isn't just plain green anymore..."

Posted by: Skins T Sep 30 2011, 04:22 AM

The currency here (as an example) had a fair bit of change done to it when the last one happened.

Yes, its indeed controversial, but not impossible, that's all I mean. ^^;

Posted by: BarkAtTheMoon Sep 30 2011, 08:14 AM

I realize my first post may not have been that clear in hindsight, but phasing money out is not my point. People want instant gratification. Older currency is still allowed to be used, and its been a while since we released the updated version. There is just too much currency to reprint and remint everything. Even just phasing it out, it will take decades. And you can't expect people to go to the bank and turn all their money in.

Its more about cocky "I dont believe in god so why should I be exposed to it" people who want god instantly removed from everything that are going to take the removal of god from the pledge and attempt to remove god from money. And they will probably not be satisfied with phasing out and want it done instantly, which is not possible.


I'm sorry I even brought it up

Posted by: Reyo Sep 30 2011, 02:24 PM

What caught my attention was "I see no harm in doing that whatsoever."

Yes, there is very much harm that can come from doing it. Very much many harm. That's what I was pointing out.

Posted by: shou75 Oct 1 2011, 12:19 PM

well for the most part , once you get into highschool most people just stand up they dont actually say the pledge.

The teachers dont make you say it either.

Posted by: Raccoonicorn Oct 2 2011, 06:59 PM

I find the overall concept of the pledge overall pretty creepy. My main issue with it isn't "under God" or anything else, it's the age at which children are taught to recite it. Indoctrination starts at an early age. I certainly wasn't taught what it meant or what I was saying when it was drilled into my brain at the tender age of six. Children that young can't comprehend what pledging allegiance is, they barely have any concept of what nations are.

Posted by: vaporeongirl2010 Jan 18 2012, 04:57 PM

I, as a Christian, believe that it should stay in the Pledge of Allegiance. But as not everyone believes in the same things I do, I think people should not be required to say it. As part of our First Amendment rights, people should be allowed to say what they want, but don't officially remove it. Even if they did, I would say it anyway.

Posted by: zerohundred May 23 2012, 06:35 PM

Technichaly, most people believe in the same god, but worship different ways. the only religions that believe in a different god are polytheistic(many-gods) religions. I think it should stay because it is not so specific, so it can encompass all monotheistic(one-god) religions. Any polytheistic religion would believe we are under at least one god, and athiests can ignore it if they want. I really don't see anything wrong with it. The only religion it defys is atheism, but athiests should be used to putting up with religious people or at least be respectful.

Posted by: Nikki101709 May 23 2012, 08:15 PM

Even though I'm Catholic, I think it should be removed. Not everyone believes in God. It should be "under the statue of Liberty" or something...(although not as smooth as saying under god XD ..)

Posted by: KaseysKountryKreations May 24 2012, 01:56 AM

Q. If the First Amendment states there is to be a separation of church and state...

A. We suggest you read the article Separation of Church and State: A Diabolical Lie. Not just The Knights, but many historians and well known religious leaders and constitutional attorneys all agree that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. The Supreme Court has even ruled that indeed America was founded as a Christian nation. We are not trying to change America, but rather return it to it’s original form.

Also, while we are bringing up this subject we must discuss the Treaty of Tripoli. This is what naysayers like to point to when we say that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. It is the only thing they can point to, but as you will see, they have nothing to base their opinion on.

The 1797 treaty was one of several that America negotiated with Muslim nations in which five Muslim countries were using pirates to attack the property and interests of what they called the “Christian” nations, including America. Not only were their cargoes easy prey but the Barbary Powers were also capturing and enslaving “Christian” seamen.

The anti-American actions began under Washington and several times the U.S. had tried to reach settlements by paying the Muslims huge sums of money. But the Treaty of Tripoli was signed under the presidency of Adams. And both Jefferson and Adams were upset that U.S. merchant sailors were being viewed as wimps by the Muslims. While discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:
The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours.

If the treaty was signed by Adams, does this mean that Adams agreed that the United States was not a Christian nation? No. it was Adams who declared:
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.

So then why would he sign a treaty that said differently?
Here is the part of the treaty that atheists refer to.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

However, I do want to point out that in 1805 under Jefferson, that the treaty was renegotiated and the clause stating that “. . . the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion . . .” was deleted.

But back to the signing of the treaty and why would a devout Christian such as Adams who had said that the United States was founded on Christianity state otherwise?
The United States was not involved in a Holy War. The founding fathers believed in no entangling alliances with other nations. They looked for an expedite way to handle problems. The Muslim nations felt that my attacking the hated Christians, they would receive special favor from Allah.

To some it would seem that the authors of the treaty were being dishonest. After all, the state constitutions, laws, and writings of the founders clearly prove that Christianity was the prevailing faith of the land and that the common law upon which the laws of the states were founded were based upon Holy Scripture.

However, in dealing with these murderous Muslim nations, the treaty authors were quite clever. The Muslim nations, not understanding that the federal government did not constitute the government in its entirety were led to believe that they would receive no divine reward by plundering U.S. ships and murdering U.S. sailors.
The United States Constitution did not establish a religion. Why? Because the federal government was not intended to be the government. It merely represented the rights of the state governments. That is what “United States” in United States of America means. State governments came together and in essence pooled their resources and hired a security guard to protect their combined interests. That is the scope of the federal government – to provide for the safety of the state governments. The Bill of Rights DOES NOT say what the states can do. It says what the federal government CAN NOT do! They can’t establish a religion. Why? It is because the states had already established their religion; the Christian religion. No public office holder could be given a religious test – that is be tested according to denominational tenants. And not to interject something else into this discussion, but this is why states can not use state’s rights as an excuse for restricting gun ownership. The Bill of Rights speaks of unalienable rights. If the federal government can’t restrict gun ownership because it is a God given right, than obviously the states can’t restrict it either. There are some rights that are God given and no government whether state or federal can take it away.

The states which formed the United States understood the chaos that came out of Europe’s mandated denominational system. As Noah Webster explained:
The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it.
Daniel Webster similarly explained that American Christianity was:
Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown – general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land!
The states would be Christian, but would allow each person to decide for themselves what particular sect they would belong to. And they acknowledged that no one would be forced to be a Christian. This was the idea of the liberty of conscience. This did not, however, mean that the laws would not be based upon Christian principles. What an individual may or may not believe does not interfere with the foundation of a governing body should that body be based upon certain guidelines

In fact, the Northwest Ordinance, signed by Washington as the first major federal bill was drafted at the same time as the First Amendment. The act stipulated that for a territory to become a State, the “schools and the means of education” in that territory must encourage the “religion, morality, and knowledge” that was “necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind.” Conforming to this requirement, numerous subsequent State constitutions included that clause, and it still appears in State constitutions today. Furthermore, that law is listed in the current federal code, along with the Constitution, the Declaration, and the Articles of Confederation, as one of America’s four “organic” or foundational laws.

General Eaton was the man who was finally given the duty by President Jefferson to end the attacks upon Christian sailors by the use of military means. Although the Treaty of Tripoli had used some fancy footwork by saying the United States government – as in the federal government – was not based upon Christianity, it did not work. The Muslim nations knew that the United States of America was a Christian nation, no matter what any treaty might say. It was all just semantics and they weren’t buying into it. The Muslims would continue to attack the Christian nation and the U.S. would not take decisive military action.

When General Eaton finally started his military action against Tripoli, his personal journal noted:
April 8th. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen. We have a difficult undertaking!

May 23rd. Hassien Bey, the commander in chief of the enemy’s forces, has offered by private insinuation for my head six thousand dollars and double the sum for me a prisoner; and $30 per head for Christians. Why don’t he come and take it?

All of the documentation surrounding the Treaty of Tripoli prove rather than disprove that the United States was a Christian nation and the war was between a Christian nation and Muslim nations.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven May 24 2012, 03:05 AM

There is no fucking way you are serious if you are copy+pasting the exact same content from a previous post.

Posted by: FirePower May 25 2012, 08:51 AM

Technically, it's not mandatory to say. You can't be forced to say any part of the pledge, put your hand over your heart, or even stand up. You have the freedoms of speech and religion. If somebody makes you say the pledge or punishes you for not doing so, they're violating your rights.

As for whether it should should stay or not, I'm fine with keeping it. A big part of it is that I'm Christian, but if you don't have to say it, then I don't see what the big deal is. As it is, if we remove "Under God" From the Pledge, the people who didn't want the part gone will probably get mad and start fighting with the people who wanted it gone, and then where would we be?

Posted by: Slade Wilson Jun 7 2012, 03:54 AM

I do NOT like "under God" in the pledge because I'm atheist. I never said it in school because of that reason. I once was accused of not doing it because I "hate America", which isn't true at all. As much as it sucks to be in such a divided country, I prefer living here. I had to explain to everyone in the class that I don't do the pledge because of "under God". My school didn't force us to say it, but we had to at least stand--which I never did--

Posted by: strictlyninja Jun 19 2012, 02:43 PM

Does it mean that this nation was FOUNDED under God, or that we ARE a nation under God?

Always confused me...

Posted by: xMiles Oct 4 2012, 07:41 AM

There IS absolutely no harm, you seem to have no grasp on what phasing out means. It'd take a while to happen, but eventually it'd be really rare to see the old forms of money. It wouldn't be a painful process or anything of the sort, nor stressful financial-wise. The only harm would be from religious people who have no right for their "god" to be on our money and in our pledge anyway.

Posted by: The Winnebago Oct 4 2012, 08:34 PM

I've lost enough faith in America that I don't even say the pledge any more.

Posted by: Aves Dominari Oct 5 2012, 12:40 PM

I never really cared about the Pledge of America (it's silly to assume that people will actually remain faithful to a pledge they repeated to avoid getting in trouble when they were teens, anyway) and I don't care that we're a nation 'under God.' It really isn't that big of a deal; yeah, my nickel says 'In God We Trust,' but just by holding that nickel I'm not a Christian. As long as I'm not forced to adopt Christian values simply because they're Christian ones or Christian practices just because they're Christian ones, I don't care what they print on our money. It just isn't worth making a fuss over.

Posted by: zerohundred Oct 7 2012, 03:03 PM

I have to agree with this. Just because it is written on our money and said in our pledge, doesn't necisarily mean we HAVE to believe in it. Like many other posters said before, if you don't believe in it, don't say it.

Posted by: tehriah Nov 19 2012, 04:20 PM

Not to revive a dead topic, but would you feel the same if you were expected to say Under Allah? Or Under Vishnu? Under Odin? Under Amateratsu? Because there is a very large portion of America that feels as silly about pledging their allegiance to the Christian God as you would to an Indian elephant.

In my opinion, it should be taken out because this is not one nation under any particular god, and to say otherwise is an insult to anyone who isn't Christian. You would feel silly saying the pledge in the name of Jupiter. It demeans the pledge. It sucks all of the seriousness out. How can I pledge anything to my county in one breath when I'm rolling my eyes in the next?

It's an unnecessary addition born of xenophobic fear that has long, long since outlived it's purpose. We, as a country, should be beyond this by now. Separation of church and state unless you're actually reciting the national pledge makes absolutely no sense.

Posted by: MikaChan Nov 30 2012, 12:26 PM

The country was founded by Christians, but it was made for religious freedom. There isn't as much tolerance as there should, but more and more people are being atheist. As for the pledge, I've never had a problem with it. Most of the students in my highly religious school, or at least my classes, just said it to see who could say it fastest. I'd say take it out, but the government wouldn't do anything.

Posted by: SilverLugia456 Nov 30 2012, 02:00 PM

I think this is one of those debates that will never be solved because there are many opinions and many beliefs that clash, I was always brought up to say the pledge not because of what was written in it but because of the the Pledge represent or means to this country. I know there are people out there who have their own ideals and beliefs, but the big picture in my opinion isn't about what is written in the pledge its about what the pledge represents. The pledge is said in memory of those who fought for this country so that we could be a free country. That is the personal reason why i say the pledge, because when I say it I remember those who went to war and died trying to make sure that us as a free nation kept our freedom and our rights.

Posted by: jellybean chi Mar 19 2013, 11:36 PM

i don't know a ton about american history but i know enough to say this country was founded on Christian morals, based on those from the Reformation of the holy roman empire. they don't teach that in a lot of public schools anymore, though. that it was based on Christian morals. postmodernism, and all that crap, is really corrupting teaching and stuff. i think it should stay in the pledge as a country tradition, but if you don't want to say it, then i don't think anyone should be expected to say it. i mean, i wouldn't say it if i were expected to pledge to allah or buddha etc, but i believe that the pledge speaks truth and therefore, even if "under God" is taken out, then I will always say it anyway.

Posted by: The Shadow Mar 20 2013, 02:13 PM

Here's the way I see it. You should have respect for our country; and if the pledge bothers you...

Move out.

If we were in Nazi Germany, would there be an 'optional' Hail Hitler?

I don't believe so.

It may be tedious, but I do it twice in a day so deal with it. Any part of the pledge should be respected as much as any other, but it is indeed optional in most places to say 'under god'. On the same note as jellybean chi, this country WAS founded of christian morals. If you can't respect that...

Once again, move out.

Posted by: The Shadow Mar 20 2013, 04:14 PM

The "under god" part is optional, and the only religion it is not "respecting" would be atheism.

Many, many people believe in at least one god or another. The "under god" respects every religion under that category. It is OPTIONAL to say "under god". There is no reason for a horrible drawn out debate over it. Either say it or don't, it's your choice.

Posted by: BlueShell Apr 3 2013, 02:51 AM

My school doesn't "do" the Pledge of Allegiance. There's no morning announcements or anything where it would happen. Sometimes assemblies or sports games will have the national anthem, but I don't even remember the last time I heard the pledge said aloud. Which is totally fine with me. I'm rather apathetic towards it. When I went to a school where it was a thing, I said it because it was routine. I think anyone who chooses not to say it shouldn't have to, and it really has no business in public schools to begin with, but removing it is more effort than it's worth when it's not a big deal at all.