One Nation Under God

[Xiilent]

I don't know if this has been made a previous topic, but i couldn't find any thread about this before (after admittedly not looking very hard). Anyways,
I was on youtube and came across a video about a guy who had tried to get the words "One Nation Under God" taken out of the pledge of allegiance. My question is, does anyone think it should be taken out, why or why not?
Generally when I say the pledge of allegiance (I'm still in high school so it's daily) I tend to still say the under god just out of respect of the occasion. Sometimes however, I just say the "one nation", pause, then continue with the rest after the "under god" part is over.
Sorry if this thread has already been discussed.

[Guardian85]

Well, it seem to me to be a very disrespectful addition to the american pledge of alligiance, as there are very many people in the US who don't associate with the christian god. I think that in public settings that pledge should not be used, but I'm not american so it really does not do much for me.

[Ali]

It's one of those sort of low priority things that I don't worry about very much.  Then again, I don't have to say it every day. 

[Davin]

The "under god" part was added in 1954 and was very much against the U.S. Constitution (the first amendment). I'm pretty sure the only reason why it passed, was because people were too scared of communists and McCarthy's red witch hunt.

Even if it wasn't against the constitution, I think it's very wrong to require immigrants to recite this to become American citizens. Religion is very bad when it mixes with people who create laws, we have thousands of years of history for examples to draw upon.

I don't think that this is any where near making the U.S. a theocracy, but it's a clear and simple violation of the U.S. Constitution that has been maintained for almost 60 years. Also for fun, google "Bellamy Salute" to see something else that changed in the early fifties. It's just for fun, because I don't really care how one salutes the flag.

[Reprobate]

Those four words were not originally in the pledge. There shouldn't even be a debate on the subject, but since some self-righteous bastard decided to add them; Yes, they should be removed.

Correction: Only two of those words were added.

[Whitney]

Of course it should be taken out..it violates the wall of separation; especially when it's recited daily in schools.  Considering that so many ignorant right wing fundamentalist Republicans use under god in the pledge and on our money as claimed evidence of the christian foundation of the US it's very important to get that stuff fixed.  If the history of it were more well known by all the dumb masses that vote in these idiots then it wouldn't matter so much other than on principle.

Really, I think it's wrong that we encourage even young kids to pledge their allegiance to flags and nations when they are not yet able to understand what it means to make such a pledge.  

Oh and Newdow is the person you read about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Newdow

[Xiilent]

It's one of those sort of low priority things that I don't worry about very much.  Then again, I don't have to say it every day. 

I mean, I agree that it's not really something that is a high priority in my opinion. I mean, sure it is unconstitutional, but i was just wondering how other people feel about it. Hopefully one day it changes, but I doubt that it'll take it'll be anytime soon unfortunately.

[Harmonie]

Of course it should be taken out..it violates the wall of separation; especially when it's recited daily in schools.  Considering that so many ignorant right wing fundamentalist Republicans use under god in the pledge and on our money as claimed evidence of the christian foundation of the US it's very important to get that stuff fixed.  If the history of it were more well known by all the dumb masses that vote in these idiots then it wouldn't matter so much other than on principle.

I'm in total agreement with this. The fact that so many people are ignorant to when and why the words were added, and then use it to try to claim (falsely) that the country was founded on Christianity makes it something that I think should be taken care of immediately.

Of course, if it were to happen, the Christians would complain about persecution. 

[Amicale]

Really, I think it's wrong that we encourage even young kids to pledge their allegiance to flags and nations when they are not yet able to understand what it means to make such a pledge.  

This is the part that concerns me more than anything -- asking children to pledge themselves when they can't possibly understand the significance.

In terms of the actual 'under God' addition, although it should probably be removed, I'm not sure that it bothers too many Americans. Even if an American isn't Christian, there's a high likelihood that they could be Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc -- so the mention of a deity may not bother too many of those people. Just food for thought, to play devil's advocate as it were.

[Traveler]

It's completely wrong. It should come out. And interestingly, I knew exactly what it meant from my very first days in elementary school. I lip synched it, rather than say those words out loud. In junior high I stopped saying that part altogether. And by high school I sat through the pledge. It's wrong. It's stupid. It's unfair. And it doesn't belong in a country that celebrates freedom of religion.

[Amicale]

It's completely wrong. It should come out. And interestingly, I knew exactly what it meant from my very first days in elementary school. I lip synched it, rather than say those words out loud. In junior high I stopped saying that part altogether. And by high school I sat through the pledge. It's wrong. It's stupid. It's unfair. And it doesn't belong in a country that celebrates freedom of religion.

I'm just curious. In the USA, when you say 'one nation under God', are people told in schools that it means specifically the Judeo-Christian god, or are they at all told that whatever God means to them is acceptable? If it's the former mentality, then yes, it needs to come out.

[Buddy]

It's completely wrong. It should come out. And interestingly, I knew exactly what it meant from my very first days in elementary school. I lip synched it, rather than say those words out loud. In junior high I stopped saying that part altogether. And by high school I sat through the pledge. It's wrong. It's stupid. It's unfair. And it doesn't belong in a country that celebrates freedom of religion.

I'm just curious. In the USA, when you say 'one nation under God', are people told in schools that it means specifically the Judeo-Christian god, or are they at all told that whatever God means to them is acceptable? If it's the former mentality, then yes, it needs to come out.

As far as I know, it just means the Christian god. Of course, my town is fairly small with not much diversity, so it could be different somewhere else.

[Firebird]

It's completely wrong. It should come out. And interestingly, I knew exactly what it meant from my very first days in elementary school. I lip synched it, rather than say those words out loud. In junior high I stopped saying that part altogether. And by high school I sat through the pledge. It's wrong. It's stupid. It's unfair. And it doesn't belong in a country that celebrates freedom of religion.

I'm just curious. In the USA, when you say 'one nation under God', are people told in schools that it means specifically the Judeo-Christian god, or are they at all told that whatever God means to them is acceptable? If it's the former mentality, then yes, it needs to come out.

I don't recall them really saying anything about what it meant in public school. It was just tradition. But I do feel the implication was that it was the Judeo-Christian god. And it absolutely should not be in the pledge as far as I'm concerned.

[Traveler]

No one comes right out and says its the christian god, but its assumed. And since tons of people (including many buddhists, unitarians, and other self-identified religious folks) don't believe in any god, it's innappropriate.

[Ali]

No one comes right out and says its the christian god, but its assumed. And since tons of people (including many buddhists, unitarians, and other self-identified religious folks) don't believe in any god, it's innappropriate.

Yeah, this.

Even if you leave it as "just any god" (which we all know is not really true) that still shows preference for people who worship a male monotheistic god.  Some people might prefer "One nation under goddess."  Some might prefer "One nation under gods."  Some might prefer "One nation under gods and goddesses."  and so on, and that is just talking about the religious folks, not even mentioning people who don't believe in god.  It basically excludes anyone who is not Christian/Jewish/Muslim.  Inappropriate!