God in the Pledge of Allegiance..

[The Architect]

Do you think the word "god" should stay in the Pledge. Its been that way for years, Im fine with it. What about you guys??

[belverron]

I don't like it, and I won't say it.

[RickSp]

Forget the"under God" bit, why should we have a loyalty oath in a free society? The Pledge wasn't even adopted until 1945. It is a relic of the Cold War. I suspect Jefferson and Washington would have been horrified by the idea.

[shield772]

Quote by: RickSp Forget the"under God" bit, why should we have a loyalty oath in a free society? The Pledge wasn't even adopted until 1945. It is a relic of the Cold War. I suspect Jefferson and Washington would have been horrified by the idea.

The pledge was first used in american schools in October of 1892, it was changed in 1923 and again in 1924, the under God was added in june of 1954. It became official in 1942 and was officially named the pledge of allegiance in 1945.

Story & Meaning Pledge

Now with that cleared up, the adding of under God is unconstitutional and should be removed.

[underbear1]

It was put in during the McCarthy Era, when all the "nice" people were ratting out their neighbors, calling them commie sympathizers, it feels SO RIGHT for 2006 under Cheney/Bush why change it?

[Georgia]

I have no problem with oaths or the word god. No, I'm not a church goer.

I think anti-religion is a religion in of itself and have spread across the nation.
I was shocked last spring when they took down a paper in our courthouse that said:
You shall not kill, You shall not steal...etc
Pretty basic rules to govern a peaceful society, all because one person was "offended" and threatened to sue under the omnipotent power of the ACLU.
Now I heard the anti-religion crusaders are even removing deity symbols off of grave stones in public cemetaries.

Somehow "congress shall pass no law" has been translated into "Nobody shall be offended by".

Society run amuck.

[underbear1]

Quote by: Georgia I have no problem with oaths or the word god. No, I'm not a church goer. I think anti-religion is a religion in of itself and have spread across the nation. I was shocked last spring when they took down a paper in our courthouse that said: You shall not kill, You shall not steal...etc Pretty basic rules to govern a peaceful society, all because one person was "offended" and threatened to sue under the omnipotent power of the ACLU. Now I heard the anti-religion crusaders are even removing deity symbols off of grave stones in public cemetaries. Somehow "congress shall pass no law" has been translated into "Nobody shall be offended by". Society run amuck.

Do you mean the 10 commandments? because ONLY the two you quoted actually became US Civil Laws.

[Georgia]

I just googled them:
1.Do not worship any other gods
I don't have a problem with that. Could be tree worship, Islam or anything.
Sure it came from the christian teachings but could be applied to most other religions. Could also be skewed into don't worship any gods.
2. Do not make any idols.
I'm sure catholics might be offended by that one, but especially the folks making $$$ from those little Jesus and mary figurines.
3. Don't misuse the name of god
Again, could be applied to any religion, even yourself if you wish
4. Keep the sabbath holy
Could be applied to any religion
5. Honor your father & mother
I don't see a problem with that one either.

Surely many could find those as "offensive" but congress had passed no law regarding those, and were simply displayed in our courthouse by our elected officials.

6. Don't murder
7. Keep your private parts to yourself and your spouse
8. Don't steal
9. Don't lie
10. Don't scheme to get your neighbors belongings.

6 out of 10 good suggestions to govern society I don't have a problem with.

[underbear1]

The US Supreme Court made the ruling to remove the 10 commandments from courthouses, so it's a DEAD ISSUE, it'll never get another Supreme Court ruling.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: underbear1 It was put in during the McCarthy Era, when all the "nice" people were ratting out their neighbors, calling them commie sympathizers, it feels SO RIGHT for 2006 under Cheney/Bush why change it?

That about sums up my take on the situation.


Well said Underbear.

[kubedawg]

Having the word god in the pledge of allegience is fine, just cannot constitutionally be forced on a person. it is the view of the persons who wrote the damn thing, so therefore, it is constitutional for it to exist, just not to be forced.

[RickSp]

I do find it amusing that a pledge written by a utopian socialist is defended primarily by conservatives. And the pledge, as adopted officially in 1945, is indeed a relic of the cold war.

A loyalty oath has no place in a free society. Perhaps that is why it fits so well in Bush's America.

[Chris]

Quote by: Georgia 6. Don't murder 7. Keep your private parts to yourself and your spouse 8. Don't steal 9. Don't lie 10. Don't scheme to get your neighbors belongings. 6 out of 10 good suggestions to govern society I don't have a problem with.

How do you get "Don't scheme to get your neighbors belongings."
out of
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

?

Also why do you think its ok for someone in govt to regulate and rule what goes on between consenting adults? (#7)

[Fonceai]

I don't see anything wrong with the pledge, but I don't see anything right with it either.

It's neither harmful nor beneficial.

As far as having God in the pledge, and only on that point, I think it's fine.

While some people will say that it specifically addresses the Judeo-Christian God, I have to disagree. Many other religions acknowledge that they have a God, and they don't make the twitchy distinction.

As RickSp said about the pledge being defended by conservatives, it's mostly the Atheists complaining about the "under God."

If you're Atheist and you're offended, that's on you. You can always dismiss its relevance as applying to those in the country (the other 92%) who are some type of Theist.

Insisting on eliminating God from the pledge is a form of religious persecution.

If you espouse freedom in this country, acknowledge that the majority of the people in the country had and have no problem with "under God."

[republicantiger]

here we go agian, far left radicals attacking everything religious. Our government was not meant to be absent of religion. Separation of church and state is completely different from the abscense of religion. whenever you liberals get bored, you decide to play your favorite game: attack religion.
Of course, you don't attack all religion. You protect the religion of Islam, which reduces women to little more than slaves,and promotes the killing and torture of people who don't share their beliefs. I wish you guys would find a different game to play, maybe: "let's stop being extremists and radicals and quit being unpatriotic morons."

[RickSp]

Quote by: republicantiger here we go agian, far left radicals attacking everything religious. Our government was not meant to be absent of religion. Separation of church and state is completely different from the abscense of religion. whenever you liberals get bored, you decide to play your favorite game: attack religion. Of course, you don't attack all religion. You protect the religion of Islam, which reduces women to little more than slaves,and promotes the killing and torture of people who don't share their beliefs. I wish you guys would find a different game to play, maybe: "let's stop being extremists and radicals and quit being unpatriotic morons."

Where exactly is God mentioned in the Constitution? Nowhere. God isn't mentioned. Where is religion mentioned? Only once - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". So you claims about religion are as ridiculous as your bizarre claim that those who don't share your particular bigotries somehow desire to "protect Islam."

[underbear1]

Quote by: Fonceai I don't see anything wrong with the pledge, but I don't see anything right with it either. It's neither harmful nor beneficial. As far as having God in the pledge, and only on that point, I think it's fine. While some people will say that it specifically addresses the Judeo-Christian God, I have to disagree. Many other religions acknowledge that they have a God, and they don't make the twitchy distinction. As RickSp said about the pledge being defended by conservatives, it's mostly the Atheists complaining about the "under God." If you're Atheist and you're offended, that's on you. You can always dismiss its relevance as applying to those in the country (the other 92%) who are some type of Theist. Insisting on eliminating God from the pledge is a form of religious persecution. If you espouse freedom in this country, acknowledge that the majority of the people in the country had and have no problem with "under God."

The McCarthy era was attempting to link aethiests with Communists, now they are using the exact same game plan to call aethiests, and even other Christians who aren't in the Christian Reich Islamo facist sympathizers, that's why the Pledge is absolutely fine with me in 2006.

[Fonceai]

Errr... I'm not saying Atheists are Islamic sympathizers.

Just that they have a right to their belief as do Theists.

But saying the pledge must be changed is a form of persecution against those who believe.

Another way to say it is that now that it is in the pledge, removing it will cause problems.

[underbear1]

I'm not saying change the Pledge, I'd just say "under God", VERY LOUD and SARCASTIC with just a hint of seething.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Fonceai But saying the pledge must be changed is a form of persecution against those who believe.

Forcing others to pledge to your God is OK, but not forcing others to pledge allegiance to your beliefs is somehow persecution against you? That is simply surreal.