"Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance

[rserling]

As some of you may know, the phrase "under God" was added some time after the pledge was originally written. Some people argue that the phrase is more a relic of anti-communist sentiment and McCarthyism than real patriotism (I am one of those people). It was approved by Congress in 1954, with the objection of the daughter of Francis Bellamy, the man who authored the original pledge.

www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

I think there are two deleterious effects to having this phrase in our pledge: 1.) It gives people the impression that one must be theist to be patriotic, and the impression that anyone who chooses to opt out of that phrase is unpatriotic. 2.) It gives many people the false impression that the federal government is endorsing religion. Countless times, while having a debate on some issue with religious implications, people have said to me, "This is a nation 'under God,'" and were under the impression this was something our forefathers devised!

I do not think it is unconstitutional to include instances of "ceremonial deism," as the Supreme Court has called it, in our country's symbols, but I don't think it is unconstitutional to remove these instances either. So I am in the middle about it. I can just say "under law" instead and not turn too many heads. Would any of you like to see it go, or would you be sad to see it go?
 
Here's a good op-ed on the matter: www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/09/12/nothing-says-divisible-like-under-god/

[John Liberty]

Sept 13, 2013 18:43:27 GMT rserling said:

As some of you may know, the phrase "under God" was added some time after the pledge was originally written. Some people argue that the phrase is more a relic of anti-communist sentiment and McCarthyism than real patriotism (I am one of those people). It was approved by Congress in 1954, with the objection of the daughter of Francis Bellamy, the man who authored the original pledge.

www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

I think there are two deleterious effects to having this phrase in our pledge: 1.) It gives people the impression that one must be theist to be patriotic, and the impression that anyone who chooses to opt out of that phrase is unpatriotic. 2.) It gives many people the false impression that the federal government is endorsing religion. Countless times, while having a debate on some issue with religious implications, people have said to me, "This is a nation 'under God,'" and were under the impression this was something our forefathers devised!

I do not think it is unconstitutional to include instances of "ceremonial deism," as the Supreme Court has called it, in our country's symbols, but I don't think it is unconstitutional to remove these instances either. So I am in the middle about it. I can just say "under law" instead and not turn too many heads. Would any of you like to see it go, or would you be sad to see it go?
 
Here's a good op-ed on the matter: www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/09/12/nothing-says-divisible-like-under-god/

I agree and when Christians bring this up they say we're "intolerant"

Also, you all would agree that a pledge is an oath. An oath that is mandatory in most public schools. We are basically indirectly taking an oath to God.

[Gipper]

Sept 13, 2013 18:43:27 GMT rserling said:

As some of you may know, the phrase "under God" was added some time after the pledge was originally written. Some people argue that the phrase is more a relic of anti-communist sentiment and McCarthyism than real patriotism (I am one of those people). It was approved by Congress in 1954, with the objection of the daughter of Francis Bellamy, the man who authored the original pledge.

www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

I think there are two deleterious effects to having this phrase in our pledge: 1.) It gives people the impression that one must be theist to be patriotic, and the impression that anyone who chooses to opt out of that phrase is unpatriotic. 2.) It gives many people the false impression that the federal government is endorsing religion. Countless times, while having a debate on some issue with religious implications, people have said to me, "This is a nation 'under God,'" and were under the impression this was something our forefathers devised!

I do not think it is unconstitutional to include instances of "ceremonial deism," as the Supreme Court has called it, in our country's symbols, but I don't think it is unconstitutional to remove these instances either. So I am in the middle about it. I can just say "under law" instead and not turn too many heads. Would any of you like to see it go, or would you be sad to see it go?
 
Here's a good op-ed on the matter: www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/09/12/nothing-says-divisible-like-under-god/

Take it out, there's no logical reason for that to be in the pledge other than to appease the Christians! We are not a nation under God. Half the country is either agnostic or atheist these days. The Founding Fathers never meant for this country to have an established religion in this country. True, our founders may have been Christians...but anybody that actually reads and understands the constitution can tell you that we are not a Christian country.

[DarkShadow]

I think we should just leave the pledge how it is, but make it so people don't have to say under God if they don't want to... mane to where they can say it either way and be correct... perhapse I am over reacting ...but if under God is taken out of the pledge...I refuse to say it and would even go as far as to turn my back to the flag when its being said. I feel the logical solution is to just allow it either or.

[Gipper]

Sept 14, 2013 4:27:42 GMT DarkShadow said:

I think we should just leave the pledge how it is, but make it so people don't have to say under God if they don't want to... mane to where they can say it either way and be correct... perhapse I am over reacting ...but if under God is taken out of the pledge...I refuse to say it and would even go as far as to turn my back to the flag when its being said. I feel the logical solution is to just allow it either or.

So it's disrespectful and "intolerant" to refuse to say the pledge or turn your back on the flag when you recite the pledge because it has "Under God" in it but it's not disrespectful to do it when God isn't in the pledge? Seriously? 

It shows governmental favoritism to theists and because the government's endorsement of the phrase is sometimes cited as a basis for more substantive violations of the Establishment Clause. Christians, when confronted about laws they favor that violate the Establishment Clause and the First Amendment, often make the argument that "this is one nation under God". This country might have a Christian heritage but it is not a Christian country! The Founding Fathers were very adamant that there not be an established religion in the country. 

[DarkShadow]

Sept 14, 2013 4:52:04 GMT Gipper said:

Sept 14, 2013 4:27:42 GMT DarkShadow said:

I think we should just leave the pledge how it is, but make it so people don't have to say under God if they don't want to... mane to where they can say it either way and be correct... perhapse I am over reacting ...but if under God is taken out of the pledge...I refuse to say it and would even go as far as to turn my back to the flag when its being said. I feel the logical solution is to just allow it either or.

So it's disrespectful and "intolerant" to refuse to say the pledge or turn your back on the flag when you recite the pledge because it has "Under God" in it but it's not disrespectful to do it when God isn't in the pledge? Seriously? 

It shows governmental favoritism to theists and because the government's endorsement of the phrase is sometimes cited as a basis for more substantive violations of the Establishment Clause. Christians, when confronted about laws they favor that violate the Establishment Clause and the First Amendment, often make the argument that "this is one nation under God". This country might have a Christian heritage but it is not a Christian country! The Founding Fathers were very adamant that there not be an established religion in the country. 

I am aware this is not a Christian country. I do not think anyone should be forced to say the under God part of the pledge. It is something that I personly feel strongly about. That's why I am saying just make it so saying it either way (with or without under
God) is correct. Politics involves compromises to make everyone happy. Another reason I say a compromise would be acceptable for this issue is that by doing something like that, it would stir the nation. We would be weaker because of the amount of protestors and rioters that would be everywhere. I think it should be a personal decision on whether to say under God and that either one to be accepted by society.

~DarkShadow

[AmazingDomo]

Sept 14, 2013 15:41:49 GMT DarkShadow said:

Sept 14, 2013 4:52:04 GMT Gipper said:

So it's disrespectful and "intolerant" to refuse to say the pledge or turn your back on the flag when you recite the pledge because it has "Under God" in it but it's not disrespectful to do it when God isn't in the pledge? Seriously? 

It shows governmental favoritism to theists and because the government's endorsement of the phrase is sometimes cited as a basis for more substantive violations of the Establishment Clause. Christians, when confronted about laws they favor that violate the Establishment Clause and the First Amendment, often make the argument that "this is one nation under God". This country might have a Christian heritage but it is not a Christian country! The Founding Fathers were very adamant that there not be an established religion in the country. 

I am aware this is not a Christian country. I do not think anyone should be forced to say the under God part of the pledge. It is something that I personly feel strongly about. That's why I am saying just make it so saying it either way (with or without under
God) is correct. Politics involves compromises to make everyone happy. Another reason I say a compromise would be acceptable for this issue is that by doing something like that, it would stir the nation. We would be weaker because of the amount of protestors and rioters that would be everywhere. I think it should be a personal decision on whether to say under God and that either one to be accepted by society.

~DarkShadow

Why is it you 'feel strongly' about it being in the pledge? I 'feel strongly' about it not being in the pledge.

[DarkShadow]

Sept 16, 2013 14:50:16 GMT AmazingDomo said:

Sept 14, 2013 15:41:49 GMT DarkShadow said:

I am aware this is not a Christian country. I do not think anyone should be forced to say the under God part of the pledge. It is something that I personly feel strongly about. That's why I am saying just make it so saying it either way (with or without under
God) is correct. Politics involves compromises to make everyone happy. Another reason I say a compromise would be acceptable for this issue is that by doing something like that, it would stir the nation. We would be weaker because of the amount of protestors and rioters that would be everywhere. I think it should be a personal decision on whether to say under God and that either one to be accepted by society.

~DarkShadow

Why is it you 'feel strongly' about it being in the pledge? I 'feel strongly' about it not being in the pledge.

That's fine! I believe its your right on whether you say that part or don't. I believe its a personal decision. Both methods should be looked at as correct. I have no problem replacing under God with under law or under liberty, but I want to still say it the original way if I want. Its my choice and it shouldn't be considered the wrong way to say the pledge if I do.

~DarkShadow

[ProfessorKat]

Sept 17, 2013 1:14:24 GMT DarkShadow said:

Sept 16, 2013 14:50:16 GMT AmazingDomo said:

Why is it you 'feel strongly' about it being in the pledge? I 'feel strongly' about it not being in the pledge.

That's fine! I believe its your right on whether you say that part or don't. I believe its a personal decision. Both methods should be looked at as correct. I have no problem replacing under God with under law or under liberty, but I want to still say it the original way if I want. Its my choice and it shouldn't be considered the wrong way to say the pledge if I do.

~DarkShadow

I agree! Very Libertarian of you, Bryan

It should be taken out because it gives the illusion of an established theist government, but you should be allowed to add "Under God" if you want. There's reasons for me wanting to say it, that I don't feel like going into at the moment. But it's not really your business either, if I want to say it...I should be allowed to say it. That's part of living in a free society.

[Galt'sGirl]

Sept 13, 2013 18:43:27 GMT rserling said:

As some of you may know, the phrase "under God" was added some time after the pledge was originally written. Some people argue that the phrase is more a relic of anti-communist sentiment and McCarthyism than real patriotism (I am one of those people). It was approved by Congress in 1954, with the objection of the daughter of Francis Bellamy, the man who authored the original pledge.

www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

I think there are two deleterious effects to having this phrase in our pledge: 1.) It gives people the impression that one must be theist to be patriotic, and the impression that anyone who chooses to opt out of that phrase is unpatriotic. 2.) It gives many people the false impression that the federal government is endorsing religion. Countless times, while having a debate on some issue with religious implications, people have said to me, "This is a nation 'under God,'" and were under the impression this was something our forefathers devised!

I do not think it is unconstitutional to include instances of "ceremonial deism," as the Supreme Court has called it, in our country's symbols, but I don't think it is unconstitutional to remove these instances either. So I am in the middle about it. I can just say "under law" instead and not turn too many heads. Would any of you like to see it go, or would you be sad to see it go?
 
Here's a good op-ed on the matter: www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/09/12/nothing-says-divisible-like-under-god/

I agree that it gives the impression that you have to be theistic to be patriotic. I say leave it out, but like Dark said you should be able to add if you want to. I think that's a nice compromise 

[mmorado]

I think it should be left out. It dont matter when it was put in...but its time for it to come out. I kinda understand why they did it at the time, but it gives the notion that we are a christian nation, which we are not.

[docilelion]

Dec 5, 2013 3:00:49 GMT mmorado said:

I think it should be left out. It dont matter when it was put in...but its time for it to come out. I kinda understand why they did it at the time, but it gives the notion that we are a christian nation, which we are not.

We are a nation founded on Christian principles. 

[mmorado]

Dec 6, 2013 14:55:26 GMT docilelion said:

Dec 5, 2013 3:00:49 GMT mmorado said:

I think it should be left out. It dont matter when it was put in...but its time for it to come out. I kinda understand why they did it at the time, but it gives the notion that we are a christian nation, which we are not.

We are a nation founded on Christian principles. 

There is a difference between founded on principles and the christian faith. I will go into more detail when I get home(its hard to do this on my phone)

[mmorado]

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by John Adams

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
~Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

[MaggieD]

We are a free nation, not a theocracy. Forcing something like religion into a pledge to the flag just makes the pledge overall more cultish than it already is.