Should 'god' be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

  • Thread starter Duke
  • 206 comments
  • 5,242 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
Originally posted by Deathhawk


WRONG! Christianity is not the belief in God, becuase that incompaces Muslems ect.

Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ, Gods son, died for our sins.
...and rose again, for our salvation. :)

Originally posted by Stealth Viper
ONE MORE TIME:

The fact is that God and the government are required by law to be distinct and wholly separate, therefore the NATIONAL PLEDGE cannot involve God.

I think we've gotten a bit off-topic...I want to hear the opinions of those that oppose the change that was made (i.e. Jordan).
Yes, yes, we have gotten off-topic here. Here's my opinion on the Pledge of Allegiance:

I believe the statement of "separation of church and state" was intended to say that religion should not in any way affect government laws or decisions (i.e. allowing the Catholic church to create laws against Muslims). It prohibits the government from persecuting anyone based on their religious beliefs, be it by taxing them more, prohibiting them to worship, or whatever. I do not believe this statement was intended to say that no religion could be mentioned in government documents. Otherwise, why would our founding fathers have stated this while including God in so many places?

Also, I think it's very funny how something as trivial as the Pledge of Allegiance is under so much controversy, when the entire Congress got together to sing "God Bless America" after the September 11th attacks. Why didn't athiests get upset then?
 
It's the issue of God everyday or during hard times. Many people who don't believe really, in times of trouble take refuge in the message of Jesus, and then when things get better, deny it.
 
Originally posted by Deathhawk


WRONG! Christianity is not the belief in God, becuase that incompaces Muslems ect.

Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ, Gods son, died for our sins.

Of course you are quite correct. And you are further correct that Belief in God does not neccessarily mean belief in Jesus.

I suppose I should probably be more concerned with the truth than political correctness. Thank you for bringing it back into perspective. :D

Youth Cycler:
For many of us, myself included, the Bible is the ultimate "rule book" and authority. Written over hundreds of years, by hundreds of authors, inspired by one God. It promises great things for Christians, and it never, ever contradicts itself. In my search of the site you provided is the basic statement that "the world exists because it exists." That is pretty shallow reasoning. I still contend that the burden of proof that God does not exist is on those who hold that belief.
It's way easier to believe that this whole thing was engineered by a supreme being, or a kid with a box of "cosmic linkin logs", then to say it just exists.
On the other hand Objectivism is a mildly deep philosophy, it just seems to have a shallow foundation.

Now to the subject at hand. I'm with Jordan. You cannot possibly show me that the government is supporting any religion, due to "under God" being in the pledge.
I am also with Jordan, in asserting that in the grand scheme of things, there are more important things for us to deal with.
 
Originally posted by Gil
It promises great things for Christians, and it never, ever contradicts itself.

Ooh...ouch...wrong there. In fact, in the late 80s - early 90s a group of high-ranking Catholic Church officials met (they had a catchy name...I can't remember) to discuss the MANY, MANY discrepencies and contradictions in The Bible and attempt to explain them.
 
Also, I think it's very funny how something as trivial as the Pledge of Allegiance is under so much controversy, when the entire Congress got together to sing "God Bless America" after the September 11th attacks. Why didn't athiests get upset then? [/B]
Because it didn't involve atheists pledging allegiance to a nation under a God they don't believe in.
 
Originally posted by vat_man
Because it didn't involve atheists pledging allegiance to a nation under a God they don't believe in.
Oh, I see.
 
Sorry to seem flip - I loved the Congress response to the high court ruling of voting in support of the pledge (now, there's a body of men tackling the big issues, like massive corporate fraud, the war on terror, drugs and crime....).

Can anyone guess the number of non-Christian members of Congress?
 
Ooooh, boy, was this great! I deliberately pulled the pin out of this grenade, then went to visit America's capital for two days. It was fun to find this thread at the top of the page when I got back.

Youth_cycler and Stealth Viper, I commend you both on an excellent job in defending both Rationalism and the Constitution as written. Religious people (specifically Christians, but that may or may not be relevant) always seem to fall back on the basic statement of "Well, the original colonists came here for religious freedom, and the Founding Fathers were all Christian, so this country was founded on Christian principles." They are dead wrong: America was founded upon Enlightenment principles, which are based entirely in rational, objective logic. There are, in fact, a number of large flaws with the "Christian Fathers" reasoning:

1) The colonists came here for religious freedom. This is partially true. A specific group of early settlers - the Massachussets Bay Colony - were here to create an utopian community based on their religious beliefs. However, many other equally early colonies, such as Jamestown and Roanoke, Virginia, were founded for purely economic reasons. They were here to exploit a new continent of natural resources, and to expand their populations into new territory.

2) The Founding Fathers were Christian, and so this country is built on Christian Principles. This is not true, plain and simple. Religious defenders point to the Declaration of Independence, which contains approximately 8 references to "God", as proof of their statement. They carefully OMIT the fact that the Constitution itself, the actual basis of American government, contains no words about God whatsoever. Here's the Preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

WE THE PEOPLE...secure the blessings of LIBERTY to OURSELVES. Not 'by God', not 'thanks to God', not 'for God'. In fact, the Founders were even careful enough to include these words: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;. NOTE that these words DO guarantee freedom of personal worship. This is not the issue under debate. However, from a rational, CONSTITUTIONAL point of view, the first portion of the sentence above clearly indicates that "God" should not be in the Pledge of Allegiance (and wasn't, originally); nor should the currency state "In God We Trust", nor should we sing "God Bless America" at government functions. Individuals, including individuals who work for the government, are welcome to believe those statements on a personal basis. However, when adopted by practice of government entities, they are clearly UNconstitutional.

The Constitution was written more than SIX YEARS after the Declaration of Independence. During the intervening years, the Articles of Confederation were our basis of government. Using that experience, the writers of the Contstitution were extremely careful to frame it in such a way as to guarantee a maximum of personal religious freedom (which of course includes freedom FROM religion) while at the same time keeping religion entirely out of the picture as a basis for, or even a part of, the government. I suggest those that consider America to be founded on 'Christian' principles read the actual words written by the Founding Fathers. No mention is made of morality or religion as a function of the document. The Constitution is entirely aimed at maintaining freedom of commerce for the States and personal freedom for the citizens. Nothing more, nothing less.

Here is the text of the US Constitution.

Personal to Gil: Atheism leaves plenty of room for hope, joy, and fulfillment. My hope is that all humans will lose the artificial divisivness created by differing religions. My joy comes from seeing the incredible feats of which man is capable, using his rational mind and his skilled hands. My fulfillment comes from using MY rational mind and MY skilled hands.

Personal to Jordan: I was raised in a morally strong, non-religious household. I feel sure that, if I were trained to obey an external moral system, rather than analyzing and discovering my own INTERNAL morality, that I would not be as good a person as I am today.
 
Originally posted by neon_duke
The First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;. NOTE that these words DO guarantee freedom of personal worship. This is not the issue under debate. However, from a rational, CONSTITUTIONAL point of view, the first portion of the sentence above clearly indicates that "God" should not be in the Pledge of Allegiance (and wasn't, originally); nor should the currency state "In God We Trust", nor should we sing "God Bless America" at government functions. Individuals, including individuals who work for the government, are welcome to believe those statements on a personal basis. However, when adopted by practice of government entities, they are clearly UNconstitutional.
What? :odd: The First Ammendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The statements about God in the Pledge of Allegiance, on money, and in the lyrics to "God Bless America" are not laws!
 
Including them in official - by LAW - pledges and currencies grants those words the weight of LAW. Which is unconstitutional... The dollar bill doesn't say 'LEGAL TENDER' by accident..
 
The bill says legal tender because it is endorsed by the state, and guarenteed by the state. Money is not a "law", it is a paper representation of gold.
 
So, it comes down to personal opinion. It offends athiests with it, and it offends religious people without it.
 
Originally posted by Jordan
So, it comes down to personal opinion. It offends athiests with it, and it offends religious people without it.

Hate to be picky, but, put more accurately...

It offends athiests and non-Christian people with it, and it offends religious Christian people without it.
 
Originally posted by Deathhawk
The bill says legal tender because it is endorsed by the state, and guarenteed by the state. Money is not a "law", it is a paper representation of gold.

OK, if money is not a law, here: I'll draw something on a scrap of paper and tell you it represents $20 worth of gold. What will you give me for it?

FWIW, money is a "law". It is issued in its current forms by act of Congress. It also has not represented actual GOLD for many, many, many years:

"The disruptions of the Depression led to the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, which stipulated that gold could not be used as a medium of domestic exchange and made it illegal for private persons or firms to own gold bullion. Gold became, in effect, a prerogative of government. Attempts were later made to reestablish the gold standard, but in 1970 gold backing for the dollar was completely removed when the requirement that the Treasury maintain a 25% gold backing for all Federal Reserve notes was dropped. In August 1971, the Treasury also suspended gold convertibility of the dollar for international transactions."
 
Originally posted by vat_man


Hate to be picky, but, put more accurately...

It offends athiests and non-Christian people with it, and it offends religious Christian people without it.
Not necessarily. Many religions focus on one supernatural person/thing, like the Christian God only with different names (like Allah...).
 
Originally posted by Jordan
So, it comes down to personal opinion. It offends athiests with it, and it offends religious people without it.
Actually, there is a fundamental difference; one that is nearly always missed by religious people:

Removing the words "under God" and "In God We Trust" leaves you free to continue believing that there is a God, that you trust in Him, and that He is sovereign over your nation. You are not prevented from holding that opinion.

However, keeping those words in the Pledge and on the currency restricts MY freedom to believe there is no god, and that I do not trust in him, and he is not sovereign over the Constitution of my nation. I am prevented from holding my opinion by those words being there. You remain free to hold your opinion, even if they are removed.

I see that no one has come up with a meaningful response to the bulk of my second post, and that we are continuing to focus on trivialities.
 
Originally posted by Jordan
Not necessarily. Many religions focus on one supernatural person/thing, like the Christian God only with different names (like Allah...).

True - but the term 'God' as used in pledge is a Christian reference - each religion uses a specific name for their deity (such as 'Allah', or 'Vishnu', or indeed 'God') - it is not a 'concept of God reference') and the name is VERY important - I mean, it would be a big deal for you if it was changed to 'Allah', wouldn't it, even if both Muslims and Christians worship a central 'God'.

And - for those who are athiests, tough bananas.
 
Must... keep... topic... active... :P

Originally posted by Jordan
That's a very good question. I believe that had I not been raised in a Christian household with strong morals, I would not be the person I am today.
I wasn't raised in a Christian household, though I was raised with strong morals... and I am the [good] person I am today. *shrugs*

By Jordan
LOL! :lol:
:D

By neon_duke
Removing the words "under God" and "In God We Trust" leaves you free to continue believing that there is a God, that you trust in Him, and that he is sovereign over your nation. You are not prevented from holding that opinion.
Another person who has read my mind and then taken the words right out of my mouth. :) I don't believe that there is a rational counter-attack to this statement, unless I'm even more under-educated than I thought. ;)

By vatty
And - for those who are athiests, tough bananas.
I like bananas. I make sure I eat one each day.
 
Well, I think anyone who argue beyond a secularist stance and the US Constitution and how they percieve it, that using religious sensity as an arguing point, where you say that the monotheist implication is unfair, or that the lack of representation of your religion is wrong, even if you state that only to argue for its removal is in effect using relgion to influence, one might say 'pressure' the state.
 
Hmmm, Talentless, I'm sorry but I don't follow you. Can you clarify? Thanks.
 
Because some peoples' religion is, in their mind, being disrespected, the government should take action to remove the under God line or be passive in response to the decision by the 9th Court. That is in a sense using religion to guide the government in its action.
 
I'm confused by your last sentece Talentless... do you mean because religion could theoretically be the basis for removing "under God" and so forth, that that is considered using religion to guide the gov't, thus you support keeping it? Or do you mean Christianity is guiding the gov't (because of "under God"), thus you wish to have it removed? :confused:

Sorry, my feeble mind no worketh well.
 
It really amazes me that a country that was founded under the direction of God, not the church of England, would have citizens that would debate the validity of such a pledge. How quick we forget about the lives that were lost to form this country and what they sacrificed to insure our freedom under the guidance and direction of God.

Maybe a little "WAR" would bring some humility to our society and give the people with excess time on their hands something more valid to debate about. People are nit-picking because they have nothing more worthwhile to talk about.

But then again, that's just my opinion...

:cheers:
 
Can you please explain to me, exactly, how this country was founded under the direction of God? Give examples from the Constitution that support your theory.

I have not forgotten for a moment about the lives that were given to insure freedom for this country. I'd like to know how you are so sure that those lives were given only in defense of Believers.

I'll be interested to hear it. And to me, it is an important topic. Liberty is always and important topic.
 
Originally posted by Pako
It really amazes me that a country that was founded under the direction of God,
That's your opinion.

not the church of England,
Erm, no one said we were founded under the church of England...

would have citizens that would debate the validity of such a pledge.
It's Constitutionally flawed... you can't leave broken things broken.

How quick we forget about the lives that were lost to form this country and what they sacrificed
Trust me, I do appreciate those people. I've already stated that I'm not a morally inept person.

to insure our freedom under the guidance and direction of God.
Opinion again.

Maybe a little "WAR" would bring some humility to our society and give the people with excess time on their hands something more valid to debate about. People are nit-picking because they have nothing more worthwhile to talk about.
Nit-picking? IT'S AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION! Jeezes...

But then again, that's just my opinion...
Yes it is. ;)
 
Originally posted by neon_duke
Can you please explain to me, exactly, how this country was founded under the direction of God? Give examples from the Constitution that support your theory.

As you stated before there is no reference in the constitution of God, but I can give you some brief historical insight into the migration to the new Americas. The Exodus from Europe to America was for the "pursuit of happiness" while braking away from the Church of England which was being rammed down their throat. It was common of the time, that most people (it was generally implied, expected, it just was...) were God fearing individuals, however, the Church of England was a Governmental Power that was forcing their "religion" on the people, not the fact of wheither or not there was/is a god. Free commerce and the freedom to worship "their" god was a key element. I'm just rambling off the top of my head, but let me do a little reserch and I'll get back to ya...

On a side note: Ask a man in the middle of enemy fire, with lethal wounds, and flashes of his commrade's bodies being torn apart...ask him if there's a God, ask him if he believes that there's a God. I would suspect that he would answer yes. I would rather believe in a God and salvation and be wrong, than to not believe in God and be right. What have we got to loose... :)
....but the works of men are great, but the works of God are bountiful...
(sorry about that tangent ;) )


I have not forgotten for a moment about the lives that were given to insure freedom for this country. I'd like to know how you are so sure that those lives were given only in defense of Believers.

I didn't say nor suggest that "those lives were given only in defence of believers".

:cheers:



I'll be interested to hear it. And to me, it is an important topic. Liberty is always and important topic.
 
Originally posted by Pako
As you stated before there is no reference in the constitution of God, but I can give you some brief historical insight into the migration to the new Americas. The Exodus from Europe to America was for the "pursuit of happiness" while braking away from the Church of England which was being rammed down their throat. It was common of the time, that most people (it was generally implied, expected, it just was...) were God fearing individuals, however, the Church of England was a Governmental Power that was forcing their "religion" on the people, not the fact of wheither or not there was/is a god. Free commerce and the freedom to worship "their" god was a key element. I'm just rambling off the top of my head, but let me do a little reserch and I'll get back to ya...

I would rather believe in a God and salvation and be wrong, than to not believe in God and be right. What have we got to loose...

I didn't say nor suggest that "those lives were given only in defence of believers".
Well, I see you fall back directly upon the same tired "history" that most religious people do. Please see my post above concerning the Massachussetts Bay Colony vs. Jamestown for my previous refutation of that.

Also, you say that it was common that people of the day were Christians, and so you again note that the Founders must have meant for us to follow Christian principles. I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Note how carefully the Constitution is written to avoid just that. The framers of the Constitution were men of larger vision.

I'm in a hurry, but:

1) I don't care what soldiers on a battlefield believe about God. I'd rather put my faith in my own, calm, rational thought process than anything that might cross my mind while I'm under extreme stress.

2) What do I have to "loose" by believing in a god without any rational evidence? I lose any possible faith I have in my own senses, mind, or physical abilities. I lose the comfort of knowing that the real world exists. I lose my foundation in the world. THAT's what I lose.
 
Back