Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Pledge of Allegiance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Pledge of Allegiance

    For those not familiar or up to date with the news, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide on the "One nation under God." line of the Pledge and the possibility of removing it. What are your opinions of this and why? I feel that people are trying to change history and for the wrong reasons. If you do not like that part OMIT IT and get over it. The word GOD is used in quite a few of the National Documents of the United States and if this does pass (which I hope it does not) could possibly allow for the changing of these other important and historical documents.
    "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    "Don't try to re-invent the wheel"

  • #2
    Personally, I don't think "under God" has a place in the Pledge of Allegiance. It wasn't part of the original Pledge, having been added in 1954, during a spate of anti-communist fear.

    One of the founding precepts of the United States is that people may be free to practice the religion of their choice -- or no religion at all, if they prefer. But the Pledge -- which was intended simply to demonstrate loyalty to flag and country -- violates this idea by dragging religious beliefs into the very arena where the Constitution says they don't matter. In my opinion, this cheapens both religion AND government.

    Now that Antonin Scalia -- an "under God" supporter -- has recused himself from voting on the appeal, it should be a close vote for the Supreme Court, possibly even a tie.

    My two cents,
    ~Gregory
    ________
    Pornstars blonde

    Comment


    • #3
      Removing the part Under God would then basically mean reprinting all the money with One Nation Under God and the coins with One Nation Under God and all the other items associated with the United States of America that have the phrase Under God. Personally I think it is testimony to the Christian foundation upon which our nation was started. I can see where this is going... Sep of Church and State.
      CheckSix

      Equipment: A camera (who gives a rip about the brand?)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by CheckSix
        Removing the part Under God would then basically mean reprinting all the money with One Nation Under God and the coins with One Nation Under God and all the other items associated with the United States of America that have the phrase Under God. Personally I think it is testimony to the Christian foundation upon which our nation was started. I can see where this is going... Sep of Church and State.
        Removing those phrases from our money probably should've happened a long time ago... but it is so firmly entrenched that I doubt it will ever happen. I rather doubt that the Pledge will be changed, too. And honestly -- even though I am an unbeliever -- neither of those things bothers me that much. I'd probably just leave out the "under God" if I ever have to say the Pledge, and I've found that money spends just the same no matter what's printed on it (or whatever gay color it is).

        Many religious people fear the words "separation of church and state", but few realize that it's a good thing for both sides -- not just the government. Unless they're doing something illegal or freaky, churches don't have to worry about the government harrassing them, outlawing them, or controlling them. The only worry I have is when the government sets up one religion (basic Christianity) to the detriment and exclusion of others.

        I realize that our brilliant Founding Fathers were culturally Christian people -- and many of their ideas ran concurrent with traditional Western Christian beliefs -- but their aims weren't to set up a strictly Christian nation. Rather, they were wise enough to foresee a nation that was going to be made up of people from all over the world, and therefore they tried to grant enough Constitutional latitude to allow for many beliefs, Christian and non-Christian alike. It worries me that today so many people forget this, and would happily relegate non-Christians to second-class citizenship.

        ~Gregory
        ________
        Bdsm bondage

        Comment


        • #5
          (oops... don't mind me -- just removing a double-post)

          ~g.
          ________
          Quad-4 engine

          Comment


          • #6
            I see no problem in keeping 'Under God' in the literature of the United States, as it is an extremely important part of the nations history. However, it has to be known that it is kept there for historical reasons, and not to encourage one religion to the detriment of another. I guess it's just common sense application really!
            I walked across an empty land
            I knew the pathway like the back of my hand
            I felt the earth beneath my feet
            Sat by the river and it made me complete

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by CheckSix
              Removing the part Under God would then basically mean reprinting all the money with One Nation Under God and the coins with One Nation Under God and all the other items associated with the United States of America that have the phrase Under God.
              Why? What is written on the currency is not at issue here. When some busy-body from California launches a legal challenge to the reference to God on the currency, then we'll talk.

              And if you think that a decision affirming that of the 9th Circuit is going to open the floodgates, think again. Justice Scalia has already recused himself from the case, leaving an 8-justice court. If it is a 4-4 tie, constitutionally, the 9th Circuit decision stands. BUT - as a very weak precedent. No one in their right mind would rely on such a weak decision to launch further action. So this is not the end of this country or Christianity as we know it.

              Similarly, it is not the end of the pledge of allegiance as we know it...

              First, let's get something straight. The "under God" was inserted into the pledge under Eisenhower to distinguish the US from effectively atheist communism. The "under God" part of the pledge had as much (if not more) to do with fear of communism than it did with christianity itself. The "under God" bit is not exactly something that came over on the Mayflower. It's only been around about a decade longer than civil rights legislation.

              Secondly, if "under God" is removed from the pledge, it DOES NOT stop anyone from saying it. Anyone would be well within their rights to insert "under God" into their recitation of the pledge. What is at issue here is FORCING people to say it. (And if you think people currently have freedom NOT to say "under God" in their recitation of the pledge, my wife would like to introduce you to her high school principal who almost expelled her because she refused to say "under God" in the pledge when she was at school). There is much more compulsion to say "under God" than there would otherwise be to not say it if it weren't part of the official pledge.

              Personally, I don't much care either way, since I don't have to say the pledge myself. But, that's my "legalistic" interpretation of the situation. I really don't think it is that big a deal. Just my 2 pesos.

              [Edited typo - meant to say "pledge", not "constitution"]
              AIRIGAMI.NET
              http://www.airigami.net - The next generation of paper airliner modeling.

              Comment


              • #8
                I say to keep the phrase on it. One reason is that I'm so used to saying under god that I most probably won't change it.

                And the second is that it is a waste. note that it does not specify which God. If it said Under Allah or Under Christ or Under Buddha, I'm all for it being gone. But it does not say that...just a God. For those who don't believe in God, that is slowly becoming understandable these days. However, it is not a matter of politically correct being anymore. 'God' does not have to be a spiritual thing. It can be anything and I'm sure if you delve into the atheist's mind, they have something in lieu of God.

                So it is just another way of making waste!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ATLcenter
                  I say to keep the phrase on it. One reason is that I'm so used to saying under god that I most probably won't change it.

                  And the second is that it is a waste. note that it does not specify which God. If it said Under Allah or Under Christ or Under Buddha, I'm all for it being gone. But it does not say that...just a God. For those who don't believe in God, that is slowly becoming understandable these days. However, it is not a matter of politically correct being anymore. 'God' does not have to be a spiritual thing. It can be anything and I'm sure if you delve into the atheist's mind, they have something in lieu of God.

                  So it is just another way of making waste!


                  You nailed it on the head!!!

                  The concept of God is so generic in the Pledge of Allegiance that it's not sanctioning any religion whatsoever, thus proving that the Government is NOT establishing religion by including "under God" in the pledge.

                  This also happens with the nation's motto: In God We Trust. Which is printed in all US currency. It's so generic, it's not sanctioning any religion.

                  The atheist nuts are just making a fuss of it.


                  A Colombian guy moved by the winds of fate to St. Louis, MO

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X