Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I don't believe in "God" so why shouldn't God be taken out of the pledge?

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Buford2
 


Enjoyed this part of your post especially:


Man was meant to live on this Earth Free. The so called Gov has enslaved all of us on earth. The Contitution is an illusion of freedom. It is actually used to destroy freedoms and lives. Look how many Presidents use, bypass, or simply spin the Constitution to allow them to rule with an iron fist? I would not lose sleep over In God We Trust being removed from a worthless piece of paper that people will kill for? How many people even read the message on the worthless paper these days? People kill for the slave notes daily.


I am tending to agree with you. I saw the book of Eli. I enjoyed the film as well and now I carry those wet naps everywhere with me. I don't want to be caught without a shower.




posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Why change something that has worked for how many decades?
Why do so select few think their likes and sis-likes take precedence over reality? Why don't you go ask Mexico, or Egypt to change something in their national pledge? Of you don't like it go back to where you came from.
You dis prove God and well maybe just maybe you would have a starting argument.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
Notice Atheist seem to lack the stomach for this argument and I'd like to see it out there so theoretically I don't and would like to see UNDER GOD taken out of the pledge.


I don't know why you say that atheists can't stomach this argument. I've seen no indication of that at all. I'm not afraid of it.

I'd like to see "under God" removed from the pledge because it wasn't there when it was written and we are not one nation under god.

I don't say the pledge anyway, so it's not a big deal to me. I imagine to most atheists, it's not that big of a deal. If I had kids in public schools where they recited the pledge, I might feel differently about it. (if I had kids, I wouldn't send them to public schools.)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Get rid of the whole pledge, in my opinion. As an 'outsider' it is patently obvious that people are saying it without meaning it, just paying lip service to it, as where is the liberty and justice for all?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
This makes a lot of sense but I don't see why people are using it as a political weapon all of a sudden.


People will use ANYTHING as a political weapon. In this case, I think it was being used as a political weapon in the 50s.


Originally posted by Badgered1
Repeating things, especially divisive things, doesn't make you more patriotic or a better American.


Just more manipulable...



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
*snip*


I'm agnostic/atheist depending on the day really.... I don't mind under god being in the pledge... however...

It's not hitler esque at all to remove it from the national pledge. This isn't limiting anyones free speech in any way, shape, form, or fashion. The pledge is not an individualist idea... It is the product of cult mentality. Like you said, God is a topic open for debate, so to claim that we all in this nation believe in God is just wrong and cultish. We don't all believe in god, so to say "One nation under god" is a falsity. On the flipside, I do believe in freespeech... so I believe it has the right to be there if who ever has the authority to edit the pledge wishes it to remain....

I only propose that removing it does not infact harm free speech. It's only makes the pledge more factual, since we aren't all united in the belief of God.

This is a deeply philosophical question... Thanks for the topic :-D. Star and flagged.
edit on 26-6-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I was in public school when the pledge was changed and we had to learn the new version.

Let me tell you - - a lot of people were not happy then either. It was not something that was fully embraced by all citizens.

It was just as controversial then - when our government over-stepped its bounds - - - as it still is today.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by shadowx089
Soo people who don't believe want UNDER GOD gone?

But believers want UNDER GOD there!?

So...So if a non-believer is a 0 because its nothing and a believer is a 1 because its something and both want something so its a +. Then ends up,

Non-believer + Believer = Believers.

So only believers of God have to right to choose if UNDER GOD should or shouldn't be allowed.

Problem solved...lol...you don't have the right to say because you chose to give up that right...the end.


What kind of poor logic is this?

Please re-explain this with better context please...

I tried to understand this, but it makes no sense. So you propose only believers in god have the authority to edit the pledge?

So you propose that Believers in God are infact more of a better person... and as such, should be granted rights non believers are deprived of?

Where is this fair and reasonable?

A non believer + a believer does not equal two believers.

The equation should read, NB+B=NB/B. Meaning a Non-believer and a Believer. Where are you getting your second believer from.

I.E.

You math is 0+1=2

WTF is that?
edit on 26-6-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 



Think of it as tradition. Even though you are an athiest would you demand that cathedrals be leveled because they offend your very sight? Or that the study of medieval cathedral archtecture be removed from the standard university art history cannon because its somehow offensive to you? Are you not able to appreciate the architecural beauty of cathedrals anyway on a purely secular level? How about the paintings of the great Masters, the medieval, renassance, and baroque art that was often Christian-themed? What's next, the sack of the Met and the Louvre?

Why not look at the appearance of the word "God" in public spaces, statements, currency, etc. merely from the standpoint of tradition, like an old cathedral still has its traditional place in a mostly-secular Europe?

Another thing I dislike -- quibbling over this kind of point distracts everybody from more important issues, whatever their beliefs or lack thereof.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Partygirl
Think of it as tradition. Even though you are an athiest would you demand that cathedrals be leveled because they offend your very sight?


What does any of that have to do with pledging Under God to a flag of a secular nation?

The author was a socialist and did not include God in the pledge.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
If you are an unbeliever, or oppose the inclusion of "under god" in the pledge for some other reason, then you are faced with two general choices:

Choice 1): Falsely make a pledge that you think is stupid. Anyone who takes pledges seriously could have reason for emotional distress not to mention the distress of believing you live in a world that is incurably stupid.

Choice 2): Refuse to make a pledge and expose yourself as a nonconformist, unbeliever, or however you may be perceived. In some places this choice could result in social ostracism and even eventual physical danger.

I suppose the same argument could be made for the pledge as a whole, whether or not it contains the words "under god". Is it reasonable to lead individuals in a pledge they may not be willing to make, or to force them to stand out if they chose not to make that pledge? I say it depends on the social value of the pledge being made, and in this case I do not know what the social value of the pledge to the flag actually is. It might have some kind of net effect on society we would call positive if we could measure it, or the reverse could be true.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by wardk28
Why should "under God" be removed from the pledge? And you aren't pleding allegiance to just a flag but what the flag stands for (or what it use to stand for). Too many changes have been made and thats why we are on the road we are on now. We used to be a great nation but slowly what made us great has been chiseled away. People need to stop trying to change the foundation on what this country was built on. There is no seperation of church and state in the constitution. What it does say is that the state can not force you to believe in any one religion. If you don't believe in God thats fine but that doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't either.


I agree whole heartedly agree with this statement. I believe the O.P is cunningly refering to a statement I had made earlier today about being upset that my neices and nephews cannot even say the entire pledge without fear of being expelled from school because of the " under god" in it.

But as i stated in my original post. I could care less if YOU or ME or ANYONE says " one nation , under god, " at all. My point was and still is that Just because YOU don't like something does not me I dont like something. The pleadge has been around longer then MOST of us on this board and it is a matter of tradition and GOD is one of the founding traditions of this country. So the fact that someone can whine " i don't like god in this pledge here, or I think that cross should be removed from yada yada because it offends me." has the ability to effect me not only on a personal level but also the entire country is extremely one sided.

I agree that if a new pledge were written great don't add god to it if that what the MASSES are wanting. But the fact that so few can whine about something and change it for so many is ridicoulous whether or not the believe in god.

Everyone that lives in this country knew, knows or has heard of what we in a majority are about and the traditions and foundations that our country was built on. so for people to insist it all needs to be changed to suit them is overly ridicoulous .

believe it or not our country was built on christianity and freedom of religion, so as the athiests and non god believers say, WHY should I change my beliefs to suit you? Leave tradition alone and take your whining elsewhere. If you do not like the pledge don't say it thats fine. But the majority seemingly like it the way it always has been hence why is a tradition.

You ask all of the so called " GOD believers" to not infringe on your rights and beliefs yet you insist on infringing on ours? kind of bass-ackwards no?
edit on 6/26/2011 by XJMatt because: (no reason given)
edit on 6/26/2011 by XJMatt because: spelling



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
good thing god still believes in you...............



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
I wouldn't mind the "one nation under God" part taken out because to those outside of America, it just seems like more arrogance and "we're the only country in this world who matter" (which is exactly the same kind of argument that causes holy wars throughout the centuries, just swap "country" for "religion").



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
good thing god still believes in you...............


Lame.

Please - keep your god to yourself. I am not interested.

And they wonder why it gets irritating.


God in the pledge had nothing to do with god anyway. It was for political propaganda.
edit on 26-6-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


aww you took me the wrong way. it was tongue and cheek....



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
I'm an atheist, but in my country we don't have such a thing as the "pledge of allegiance".

How I see it, if the expression "under God" is there to represent that the person making the pledge agrees with the idea that the United States are "a nation under God" and that expression is meaningless to an atheist, then it means that the person was not sincere when they made the pledge.

If I was in that situation, I would remove the "under God" myself and would say the rest of the pledge. After all, what's the meaning of a false pledge?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
No one is forcing you to say it. If you dont like it just dont say it.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Keeper of Kheb
No one is forcing you to say it. If you dont like it just dont say it.


Every time I hear that - - it reminds me how dumb it is.

God does not belong in a pledge to a flag/secular government where all people are not god believers.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Annee
 


aww you took me the wrong way. it was tongue and cheek....


Oh sorry


But - - I'm beginning to understand how an Atheist can become hostile





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join