One nation under God?

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

This thread has to do with the subject of one of the most controversal staements in American history. The term "under God" in the pledge of Allegiance.

I understand that it is only my opinion, but I think that God has a vital part in our country. I can see the point that people with other beliefs think it is unfair that they are forced to say a pledge that involves God. Then don't say the pledge! It's just that simple.

But what of those who want to pledge allegiance, but to a country that's not under God? Well, I don't really have an answer for you. Our national pledge involves God. Try to change it or live with it.

As a Christian, I feel good that Christianty still has a part to play in America. Removing the 10 Commandments from a Courthouse, or allowing an artist do whatever he wants to a crucifix saddens me. But I see hope in the pledge.

But that's only an opinion. What do you think of The Pledge?

reply to post by Nostradamouse

---

It should be taken out. I'm also a very staunch Christian, but once you've established that theology can creep its way into our political life, you've set the stage for all kinds of bad things happening. Sure, evangelical Christianity is on top right now and there really isn't anything to worry about if you're an evangelical Christian as I am, but what about down the road when ec is not on top anymore? Would you want politics and religion to be intermingled if and when Muslims got in control of the government? I know I sure wouldn't. I say we stick to exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted-religion OUT of politics.

reply to post by mentalempire

---

Hmm. I can see what you mean. But remember, the Founding Fathers did include God in the Declaration of Independence.

And when I think of what some representitives in the government try to achieve by eliminating Christianty from public places, and promote tolerance to the point where INTOLERANCE is being created, it fills me with hope that Christianty still has a foothold.

This is my opinion. Take it or leave it.

reply to post by Nostradamouse

---

As far as I know, no one's liberty to be a Christian is being impinged under the current system. I do admire how God is included in the Declaration of Independence, but any legal scholar will tell you that the DoI is not a legally binding document-the Constitution is what matters.

reply to post by Nostradamouse

---

i'm sorry, but this isn't a christian nation, it's a secular one

and those two words were added to the pledge in 1952, the pledge was written in 1892, why should we keep them?



ok... most of the commandments aren't part of our law system. why are they in the courthose?

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"
no bearing on law, we have freedom of religion in america

"Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol"
no bearing on law, we have freedom of religion in america

"Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God"
no bearing on law, we have freedom of speech in america

"Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy"
no bearing on law, freedom of religion

"Honor thy Father and Mother"
sorry, honoring isn't a requirement under our laws

"Thou shalt not murder"
oh, there's one.
we had to get to the 6th, but we finally found one

"Thou shalt not commit adultery"
oops, not a law either. grounds for divorce, maybe, but not illegal

"Thou shalt not steal"
another one, 2 for 8 so far

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"
only really applies to law if it's on the witness stand or in the media, so 2 1/2 here

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house or wife"
coveting? also not against the law..
though treating women as property is...

so you're 2 1/2 or 3 for 10
sorry, i don't think there's any argument in your favor here.

oh, and the crucifix stuff... it's their property, let them do with it as they wish. if i wish to chop up a piece of wood with a tiny statue attached to it, it's my choice. if i choose to dip it in piss, it's my choice. why should it be a difference if that wood happens to be in the shape of a lowercase t?



a hope for destruction of the first amendment?

i'm sorry, but you're really wrong here. there is no INTOLERANCE to christianity, it's all in your head. they're eliminating RELIGION from government-sanctioned public places, not just christianity.

[edit on 11/9/07 by madnessinmysoul]

Maybe, but if I had to fight someone on the issue of religion, it probably wouldn't be the Christians...

So we can't pledge our love for our country if we don't believe in God?
Religion is the one thing that has always proven to muddle politics. It causes SEVERE disagreements and arguements get very intense very quickly. Why should a national pledge include a religious figure? What point does that serve? Just because it makes sense to you for it to be there, doesn't mean everyone sees it that way. I have no problem with individuals being religous and being proud of their beliefs, but it has nothing to do with the running of a country. And the crucifix is a symbol, if you are offended by something being done to it, you have the wrong priorities. It means you've invested too much into a symbol, not what the symbol actually means for your religion.


How would you feel if we put a giant monument with the Four Noble Truths from Buddhism in a court house?

Not so good I'm guessing.

personally I'm fine with it, but if it comes down to it, 'under God' should probably be removed. Not because of any religious matter but because it is a slight on this countries honor. That line was added as a piece of propaganda.

What I really think though is that it doesn't hurt anyone to say it, and it doesn't hurt anyone to see the 10 commandments at a court house so why make a big deal?

It's the 'republican for which it stands' LOL. Under God came from Eisenhower after he freaked meeting with our furry Wookie extraT friends.
I could be quite wrong. I am contrite.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with having 2 variations. If however, push came to shove, it SHOULD be taken out for the sole reason that there is supposed to be a separation of church and state.

Why should we have a Pledge of Allegiance at all?

How many other countries make all their citizens stand and recite a nationistic pledge at every public function?

What would we think if we saw some other country, perhaps the Japanese, or Germans, or Iranians, all in unison, chanting some fervered verse? If their children did it in any organization they attended, no matter how young?

Knowing the history of the pledge, it seems a very strange thing to me. Not because of any disloyalty to my country, but because for so long I never questioned it, or why we do it.

It dosen't hurt anyone to say it? I think that that is a very close-minded statement. You have to understand what to other people, the Christian God of the Holy Bible represent. In the eyes of a ranger, or an unsuspecting stranger, ......or a non-believer, that representation isn't that positive. Furthermore, you have to put yourself in another shoes. If you come from a foreign land looking for a better life for your family or simply you, you shouldn't be forced to acknowledge an idea as your belief that you don't believe in when, the constitution of that country says that there should be a separation of church and state.


In regards to your thinking it dosen't hurt anyone to see the ten commandments in a court house, I'd suggest you visit the post my maddnessinmysoul, (weird screen name, but good post).

Am I the only one that thought the pledge was weird as a child? Here's some background info on the pledge for anyone interested, I didn't know any of this until now.

Wikipedia



Now for the "under God" reference...



Side note: As a writer and musician I find it amazing that a single person is capable of crafting a piece that could one day become completely ingrained into popular culture and society. To think that a day of writing, which only produces a three minute song, could set me for the rest of my life, and this guy only had to write a few lines.

I like it and I think it should stay.

And I'm glad the majority rules.

Would you mind expanding on that? "I like it" shouldn't mean that people should be forced to do it.

So tell me, do you like forcing your beliefs on other people, or does it just seem like it?

Does "separation of church and state" ring any bells at all?

[edit on 11/11/2007 by bigbert81]

reply to post by Nostradamouse

---

"One nation under, whoever is in control and has enough power to convince me who and what "God" is, with liberty and justice for all."

I'm quite certain the Iraqi's know it well and begin their prayers with it. 5 times a day.

"I pledge allegiance, to the bank, used by the United States of America, and to Rockefeller, for which it stands, one nation, into debt, inconceivably, with civil liberties and privacy for none."

I just thought of that and feeling good. Though inconceivable could be better, somehow princess bride popped into my head... "inconceivable!" "You use that word a lot, i'm not sure you know what it means."

I dont really care if it is left in or taken out, I think it's an overrated issue. When we recite the pledge in school I just dont say it. Why? Because I am not a particular believer in "god" no big deal doesnt really cause any problems..... And I dont believe it as if I am not pledging my country or disrespect my country because I dont say it I think things like this are overrated and dumb......


There are plenty of others way to show respect than recite some dumb saying in front of a flag, just dont say it if you dont like it

Parabol, stunning, inconcievable insight my friend! Kudos. A thousand 'non stop' payments on your checks.