Should 'god' be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

  • Thread starter Duke
  • 206 comments
  • 5,236 views

Should 'god' be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

  • Yes, indeedy! God made this nation great!

    Votes: 22 37.3%

  • Heck, no! This country was founded on Enlightenment principles.

    Votes: 22 37.3%

  • I forget the words, and who cares anyway?

    Votes: 15 25.4%
  • Total voters
    59
Duke

Duke

Keep 'em separated
Staff Emeritus
24,344
United States
Midlantic Area
GTP_Duke
OK, folks, post your thoughts:

I think that the Pledge of Allegiance should be spoken with the words "under God" removed. This is in keeping with the Constitutional article which forbids the government to adopt a state religion. In no way does it interfere with an individual's right to worship or not as they so choose.

After all, Fundamentalist Christians have screamed and lobbied to have homosexuality (and even SEX itself) removed from school curricula, on the grounds that they need to protect their children from this evil influence.

I believe that the atheist gentleman out West is simply acting in a similar manner in protecting his daughter from the evil influence of organized religion.

What do you think?
 
As neon_duke already knows, I am against the word "God" in the Pledge. I also don't appreciate "In God We Trust" being on money, nor do I think it was right for some political leaders to exclaim "We are one nation because of God..." That is a subjective opinion, thank you very much. :thumbsdow
 
not settled. but if you really want to be fair you need to read the court transcripts of the ninth circuit and supreme court, state laws, letters by the founding fathers, the minutes of the debates surrounding the constitution and and the constitution itself. than use your own reasoning and whatever to determine the proper way of handling this.

I should point out that reciting is voluntary in most cases, and that while it may be that the inclusion violates some principles of the constitution or the constitution itself, i do not know if it is a strong constitutional case to see the reciting of the words in the presence of an atheist as a violation of the constitution or their civil rights. i'm not sure that there is any constitutional protection from uncomfortable words.
 
The words may hold up constitutionally, most of what I've heard indicates this. As for whether or not it is fair is subjective.

One defense brought up is that the supreme court, i think, determined that the words do not constitute a support of religion but state the "reality" of the greater part of the nation.

interestingly, many critics challenge the monotheitic implication of under gods. but what strikes me is that while it is certainly in reference to the judeo-christian god, the pantheon religions generally have a head god themselves. zues, odin, I think vishnu for hindus, so if any of these religions and mythologies were included they would probably be edited to refer to a single deity (the head deity) though athena might be the one refered to instead of zues in the case of greek mythology.
 
Absoutely not. "God" has no business in something that is recited by requisite in our public schools. It's a clearly unconstitutional and the court made the correct decision. It should be noted that the "under God" phrase was added by what was then the radical christian religious right in 1954.

I also believe that "In God We Trust" should not be on the nation's official currency.
 
Since I am agnostic I care more about how closely this follows the constitution than whether the words are there or not.
 
Originally posted by Talentless
I should point out that reciting is voluntary in most cases,
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, they never tell us that... I was never told that, so I went on the assumption that I had to say the Pledge...

Also, when someone doesn't say it, it's pretty obvious to others, and guess what... that poor person is going to be bombarded by faithful Christians asking him/her why (s)he didn't recite the Pledge, which by no means does any good for self-esteem... that's why I'm always hesitant when someone I know asks me what religion I am... If I were to tell them I was an atheist, they would be "disillusioned", and many, many people think atheists are "bad" people, which is quite unfortunate... :shakehead
 
A socialist wrote the original words. That alone tends to make me nervous about the flag.

Not too big on socialism.
 
Originally posted by Talentless
A socialist wrote the original words. That alone tends to make me nervous about the flag.

Not too big on socialism.
Click to expand...
lol... I'm not too sure anybody is too big on socialism. ;)
 
Youth, chasticing you for not sharing a belief is mean but not necessarily illegal. Your self-esteem is not relevant to the argument concerning constitutionality. If feelings alone were enough, than removing the words that have been there for almost as long as they hadn't, could be insulting to many service men and religious types accustomed to the words.
 
There's also a thing called ignorance of the law not being an excuse. Which I concede is rather unfair in some cases.
 
Well, like some other things, everyone has an opinion.

in mine, that joke is old, but is it passe?
 
Even if i did say it you'd probably flame me and call me an ignorant child. Even so, i don't really know how to explain my opinion without offending someone. :odd:
 
Originally posted by Talentless
Youth, chasticing you for not sharing a belief is mean but not necessarily illegal. Your self-esteem is not relevant to the argument concerning constitutionality. If feelings alone were enough, than removing the words that have been there for almost as long as they hadn't, could be insulting to many service men and religious types accustomed to the words.
Click to expand...
Oh, erm, I never said that anyone had actually been on my case for being an atheist... thankfully. ;)

My point was, it's a sign that the government strongly supports Christianity, and here we run into the differences between church and state. Would the government ever allow us to say in the Pledge, "One nation under Buddha"? Or "One nation under Alah"? No. So, is it right to say "One nation under God"?

I know my arguments are flawed, and that you'll probably *easily* come up with some way to counter them... I'm only 14. ;) (And, unfortunately, they don't teach us any da•n thing about politics, religion, etc. in elementary or middle school)
 
Originally posted by GCstyle
Even if i did say it you'd probably flame me and call me an ignorant child. Even so, i don't really know how to explain my opinion without offending someone. :odd:
Click to expand...
So, I bet I'm offending someone here at GTP... I mean, there's got to be some Christians here, considering that they're the majority world-wide... Just go ahead and tell us. :D It sparks good debate. ;)
 
Alrighty...

Well i don't know, it seems kind of odd that something so small as the "In God we trust" on our currency can offend you. Just don't read it.

I can though, sorta understand the Pledge of Allegiance thing, in some way. I also see that the Christians in the government following this case are being kida pushy saying only Christianity is accepted. I'm not really like that. But you can just ignore "Under God". I don't really see the problem, but that's probably because i'm a Christian.

I also believe it was really foolish to bring this up, because now if they do remove "Under God", many Afiests might be threatened/riddiculed/looked down on by the Chirstians with very [i mean very] strong faith in God, and vice versa.

Hmm, guess i can explain my opinion. :D
 
Originally posted by GCstyle
Alrighty...

Well i don't know, it seems kind of odd that something so small as the "In God we trust" on our currency can offend you.
Click to expand...

It doesn't offend me. I don't even know if I'm an atheist (I guess that makes me agnostic, err, sorta). The fact of the matter is that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It goes against the founding concepts of the country and at the same time sets a precedent for other breaches of the seperation between church/state.
 
First off, whoops, i spelled Athiest wrong, sorry 'bout that.

Well i guess i can agree that it's Unconstitutional. But i doubt that's the main reason Athiests want "Under God" removed. ;)
 
Originally posted by GCstyle
First off, whoops, i spelled Athiest wrong, sorry 'bout that.

Well i guess i can agree that it's Unconstitutional. But i doubt that's the main reason Athiests want "Under God" removed. ;)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that, and even if it were true it's not just atheists that want it removed, so it doesn't matter. The family that initiated the law suit was not an atheist family. I'm Jewish. I want it gone.
 
Originally posted by Stealth Viper
What's wrong with socialism?
Click to expand...
Again, I'm only 14, and don't have much (if any) education in the matter, but from what I've read, it seems that socialism is... essentially counter-productive, rather destroying in nature.

Originally posted by GC
Hmm, guess i can explain my opinion.
Click to expand...
lol... I convinced you, eh? ;) And don't worry, I'm not going to call you an ignorant child. :lol:
 
These are all based on my limited and perhaps false understanding of socialism.

Stealth, Socialism and its worth depends on your philosophical outlook. Conceptualy socialism is a form of people power. In its purest form it is like democracy, majority rule govrning afairs. Majorities can be very dangerous. Ignorance and emotion can be adverse to stability. Domestically it can be good or bad depending on how it is mnanaged. Two problems I have is that the social aid aspect can run quite high, effect military spending among whatever else. I also am one for believing in the idea of earned money and reaping the fruits of labor. And in the case of the US, if I work hard and am made to feel I am obligated to accept that some of my income will go toward programs that may not even be constitutional, I will probably be somewhat angry despite the morality of the matter.

Futhermore, socialists appear to like regulations and greater government involvement in order to keep things "fair." But governments are not always knowledgeable about business, I am not, so they can screw up the same people from which they need their money, tax payers.

Also is the matter of the more pacifistic priority of socialistic nations. If you prefer diplomacy and such and feel comfortable, it is fine, but if you take Europe for example, though their special forces and some other individual groups may rank above us, America could take out several nations of the continent without having to spend to much time in build up. I am not trying to threaten anyone, btw.

Finally, there is also the matter of free healthcare. I know little about it, but my understanding is that while it is good in some ways, the price controls put on companies can have an adverse affect on their ability to help with research and such. Which will probably be footed by the government.
 
Originally posted by youth_cycler

Again, I'm only 14, and don't have much (if any) education in the matter, but from what I've read, it seems that socialism is... essentially counter-productive, rather destroying in nature.
Click to expand...

:confused:

Not really. Socialism wouldn't work very well in America because it doesn't function terribly well in a very diverse society. You might be getting socialism and communism mixed up. A common mistake is the thought that socialism is simply a "toned-down" version of communism. While they are based and run on similar concepts, socialism is far more moderate. Sweden, for example, is a socialist republic. Now, certainly Sweden doesn't practice "pure" theoretical socialism, as it probably wouldn't work. Nonetheless, Sweden is technically a socialist republic. It just means really, really big government...everything is publically funded. I'm sure you can use a little logic to discover why this wouldn't work in a highly diversified society.
 
Originally posted by Talentless
These are all based on my limited and perhaps false understanding of socialism.

Stealth, Socialism and its worth depends on your philosophical outlook. Conceptualy socialism is a form of people power. In its purest form it is like democracy, majority rule govrning afairs. Majorities can be very dangerous. Ignorance and emotion can be adverse to stability. Domestically it can be good or bad depending on how it is mnanaged. Two problems I have is that the social aid aspect can run quite high, effect military spending among whatever else. I also am one for believing in the idea of earned money and reaping the fruits of labor. And in the case of the US, if I work hard and am made to feel I am obligated to accept that some of my income will go toward programs that may not even be constitutional, I will probably be somewhat angry despite the morality of the matter.

Futhermore, socialists appear to like regulations and greater government involvement in order to keep things "fair." But governments are not always knowledgeable about business, I am not, so they can screw up the same people from which they need their money, tax payers.

Also is the matter of the more pacifistic priority of socialistic nations. If you prefer diplomacy and such and feel comfortable, it is fine, but if you take Europe for example, though their special forces and some other individual groups may rank above us, America could take out several nations of the continent without having to spend to much time in build up. I am not trying to threaten anyone, btw.

Finally, there is also the matter of free healthcare. I know little about it, but my understanding is that while it is good in some ways, the price controls put on companies can have an adverse affect on their ability to help with research and such. Which will probably be footed by the government.
Click to expand...

Practical/practiced socialism is never conceptual socialism, just as practiced democracy (USA) is a far cry from conceptual, or pure democracy.
 
Originally posted by Stealth Viper
I'm Jewish. I want it gone.
Click to expand...
I thought you said you were agnostic? ;)

By GC
Heh, i don't think you could anyways, you're only a year older than me. :D
Click to expand...
Hey, I'm actually older than someone on GTP! Child! :P j/k

By GC
Well i don't know, it seems kind of odd that something so small as the "In God we trust" on our currency can offend you. Just don't read it.
Click to expand...
That problem is not that it offends me (I don't scream at money ;) ), but the problem is that it is unconstitutional, because it shows that the government (which makes and designs the money) is supporting the idea of a God...
 

Similar threads

Cytoria
  • Poll
POLL : The GT Planet Authors Writing Competition (Movie Stars) - CLOSED
Replies
20
Views
1K
officialgtrch
officialgtrch
F1jocker12
The spy who came in from al-Qaeda
Replies
0
Views
543
F1jocker12
F1jocker12
milefile
Bush Mix of God and War Grates on Many Europeans
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
DGB454
D
P
Struggle for the soul of the 21st Century
Replies
8
Views
470
1X83Z
1
Sauc3
The reasons why Bush's government is corrupt
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Solid Fro
Solid Fro

Latest Posts

Back