It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 06:39 AM

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.

No we used to be a great nation before the Federal Reserve devalued our currency by 96%. This country was also founded on slavery, gold backed currency [which should of never changed and only did because america is greedy for power] and as a nation without an official religion.

Are you telling people not to evolve like the religions want you to? To just read the same book for 2,000 years?

Under god should be removed from the pledge AND currency, and the pledge should be removed with it [but it never will be, its a nationalism tool] Take away the churches of all kinds of burn all religious doctrine that spoonfeeds good people what they should believe in just because everyone else around them believes it too, not to mention the large amount of people not only in america, but worldwide that use god to do horrible things, like burn their children alive or themselves, or put on a bomb vest and kill innocent people because they are sinners or whatever garbage they spew out.

But that is just a dream, too many idiots that would take offense to it and would lead to a civil war. I think the only real solution is to educate children on why religion is a plague, so that it slows the spread of it so that when this generation dies hopefully the majority of religious people are gone. But ofcourse that would not help anyone in our lifetimes

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:20 AM
The pledge is a brainwashing tool

How many intelligent People would face a inanimate object and pledge their allegiance to it?

If you are a Christian, then its considered idolatry by definition. Another "golden calf".

I dont pledge allegiance to inanimate objects. I do however am loyal to the American People. Key word there is People. A living breathing entity.

I get looks from alot of People, with disgust in their eyes. Im waiting until the day one of them actually follows through with his disgust.

But, being in Mystery Babylon, this overt hypocrisy and ignorance doesnt surprise me.

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:32 AM
reply to post by daggyz

Yes, Humans are the problem. And that is why they have to go. And the Earth is doing just that with the help of some Humans.

I advocate this, as I see Humanity as "the problem". I believe in the Georgia Guidstones, and eugenics. One look around here proves some People just should not reproduce, and even the so called "smart Humans" are destructive and unreasonable.

But its going to come from Nature, not Man. A comet. Asteroid Droughts. Climate change. All the that is taking place today on the Earth is self evidence that Nature hates us, and is fixing to solve the problem.

Most Humans cant even agree on the simplest of things. You have one Human that will say the sky is blue, and another that it is Teal. And will spend hours arguing back and forth about such trivial BS.

Humanities time is short, and good riddance.

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Annee
The problem is the true history of the Pledge. And that Under God was added as political propaganda.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
At that time it was already only applicable to republics, so if the original idea was for it to be used by any country it started as a "fail".

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:

"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."
Politics as usual.

Do you (or anyone else) know why they even started using "Pledge of Allegiance"?

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:39 AM
reply to post by Partygirl

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?

This is an interesting take and to a certain extent true but reciting a phrase on a daily basis like children do is different than witnessing a work of history.

I like your view that it is a waste of time and more important things need to be done.
Often I think that yes, everything should be done in time but lets prioritize these in order of critical importance and this would fall somewhere near the bottom of the list, to me anyway. I know others it is more important to will disagree. Many will place this much higher on the "to do" list than you and I might. Thanks for the reply.

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:43 AM

As I see it the Human gave the Beings that came from the skies (Alien Beings) the name God(s) so as I see it there is nothing wrong with the word GOD it is Human terminology. I see no wrong with that term being used in anything and if someone doesn't like it they need not pay attention they can move along.

I feel the most correct term would be Creator's but everyone has the right (it's their Human right to believe and have faith in the chosen name they wish to use for their belief)

There is no right or wrong and I see nothing wrong with God being in the Pledge if someone doesn't like it then they don't need to heed to it.

Sometimes people go to far and only try to cause havoc where it doesn't need to be shame

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:45 AM
reply to post by newcovenant

How about you let me remove your leg from your body, then we can remove God from the Pledge!!!

also ETA: Why not just tatoo 666 on your arm if it doesn't matter?
Why not LET them put an RFID chip in you and your entire family, with full GPS?
Why not hook your IP directly to NSA so they know all your activity online?
edit on 27-6-2011 by ldyserenity because: to add

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:48 AM
Sorry I didn't take the time to read the thread, but correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't the pledge as it was originally written not contain the words "under God?"

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Terrormaster

Originally posted by newcovenant
Peoples identities are wrapped up in them and like sports teams our allegiance comes with colors and customs. I think it is part of a method of controlling the masses and manipulating their actions at any given time.

I think that statement hits the proverbial nail right smack dab on the head. It's the real true motivator for resisting changes in things as simple fandom to loyalty and patriotism to your nation right down the very fear of globalism and a one world government. I would say the controlling of masses has been quite successful.

Thanks for your reply. Funny when I read your take on this I can almost see the huddle before the game when the players plan their strategy and join hands. It is a team thing that will intentionally or not bond everyone in the class room together as a unit of Americans under God. This can be a good thing if you are a team and want to tackle really big things as China does.
(I remember reading somewhere we don't have the high speed electric trains because we do not have the organized and trained workforce to handle prolonged working on a project this big.)
Although I am sure it is INSTEAD a lack of political will and pressure from auto makers and fuel suppliers.
America prides itself in it's individualism and everyman for himself approach. It is enough the kids all swear allegiance to the Flag without asking them to believe in a God their parents may not even promote.

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:58 AM

Originally posted by quadagent

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by chancemusky

By not even mentioning it, we can leave it to the individual to do what they please about it. And for the people who say "its history, get over it!"Its VERY recent. It was put in by Eisenhower.

Thanks for responding...very much!
This is true. If it were simply left out people could insert it as they wish and you are not deliberately offending anyone. It does seem to be the best answer all around. Religious or not you can have it either way.

Out of curiosity I wonder if Eisenhower was a Mason? As the poster earlier, NuclearPaul pointed out, this God is not defined at all anyway. We all just assume this is the Christian God when it could mean any God (maybe this IS the intention to respect religious freedom) but then again this God might all along have been Lucifer. Maybe we should be grateful the pledge doesn't say one nation under the light bearer.
A little humor.
edit on 27-6-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)

[slight derail]
Just as an FYI aside, Satan is never referred to as "Lucifer" in Scriptures, "light-bearer" is no where near the strongest translation - "morning star" is much more accurate and a number of fairly respected Bible commentators (John Gill, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, etc.) agree that the word that became the Latin word "Lucifer" originally was more than likely in reference to the Babylonian King, especially understanding Isaiah's proclamation in context.

That is, of course, if you were referring to "Lucifer" as "Satan."

If you were referring to the Babylonian King, then yes you are correct, but it would be "morning star."
[/end of derail]

edit on 27-6-2011 by quadagent because: sentence structure

Interesting and yes I was using Lucifer and Satan interchangeably. I wasn't meaning a Babylonian King. I learn something new everyday here. Thanks for the slight derailment and your reply.

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:00 AM
reply to post by ToFarGone

Why someone would assume that all freemen and women, would want to be represented by the same god, or any god at all, especially where nationalism is involved, would have to be reaching a little don't ya think?

The word "God" should be stripped, from anything and all things politics. That alone would solve just about, well.. damn, most of the worlds problems.

This is among the best reasons for doing it imo. And I also think it is quite a bit of a reach to ASSUME we all pray to the same God or even that we all pray to God.

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:04 AM

Originally posted by psyop911
reply to post by newcovenant

ah, silly atheists. what won't they come up with next? removing crosses from tombstones?
lol. world is going to #, and stupid atheists don't have better things to do than to worry
about... stupid things. oh, well. it shows that atheists are just human, ergo stupid.

There are many thing that when I first hear them I say holy cow what are they thinking but there is usually another side to the argument and one that when you hear it for the first time finally you say I now I see.
You have not got to that point yet but I think you might even understand it yourself someday. That is how "not stupid" and necessary this argument is. Thanks for your reply.

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Youmakemewonder

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.
It is a tough argument and there are those who will say we began and were founded as an escape for religious freedom and God played a big part of our nations founding.

Then those people seem pretty confused about the concept of religious freedom if they believe they have their own god to thank for it.

It was added to the pledge, it should not be such an issue to suggest the pledge be returned to it's original form.

There are people here in America who believe just like the Israelis feel they have a special God ordained claim on Israel, that God allowed the creation of America as his final and supreme achievement and to provide a place for the Christians. I kid you not.

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Bensdaddy
reply to post by newcovenant

Yes I do believe it should be taken out. I have a hard time understanding why people are so agenst separation of church and state. I would think that all people no matter there beliefs would be for it. Separation of church and state simply means the government stays out of religion, it doesn’t mean that our government is Atheist, simply that they don’t endorse one view over another. When the government stays out of religion altogether every view, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Atheism win.

This is very true and I think certain parties just put this out there and say it is the beginning of the end for us to inflame others in a political theater. They think (know) this is what a large segment of people want to hear and so they are stirring the pot. And I think these same people will turn around and be arguing for the division of Church and State when it benefits them politically.

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:17 AM

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 don't have the right to say because you chose to give up that right...the end.
That's got to be the dumbest reason I've ever seen for keeping god in the pledge. It wasn't in there first of all, and second of all, there's no actual reason to keep it in there other than "I want it to". This isn't persecuting Christians and this isn't promoting Atheism. Whether or not Separation of Church and State is in the constitution is irrelevant, it's just the logical thing to do. If more Christians adopted this position, then they wouldn't be hated as much.
edit on 27-6-2011 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:31 AM
If anything, it should be changed to "and to the republic for which it stood".

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:40 AM
God has no place in the pledge of allegiance. This country was founded to cater to all religions and no religion. It's not right to force people to say "One nation under God" when there are many who don't believe in said God. Our children everyday are forced to say this pledge in public schools where many of those children come from families who practice Paganism, Satanism, Buddhism, Hindu, Islam, or are atheists. Personally myself I have educated my children to understand, organized religion as a whole, is destroying our society. We as a people can't evolve into a service to others mindset if we keep allowing religion of any form to have a place in our public schools. For example say you are in a second grade classroom and the majority of children in the class are raised a Christian and you have one Muslim child in the class. If after the pledge is said, the Muslim student, tells a class mate he believes in Allah. Odds are as that news spreads around the classroom many of his classmates will ostracize him for his beliefs. While most of you will say that won't happen, I have personally watched that happen in a second grade classroom this past school year.

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:45 AM

Originally posted by BobbyShaftoe
Speaking as an atheist, i think whether the word god is used is of no significance.

it is my understanding that:

God folk like the word god to be used.
Anti-god folk don't.
Atheists don't care.

Have you met Annee....?

edit on 27-6-2011 by Soldier of God because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:50 AM

Originally posted by canselmi
If anything, it should be changed to "and to the republic for which it stood".

Amen Bro. Not much to pledge allegence to here anymore, is there?

In fact, associating God with the likes of the current despot run sham of a country could be considered an insult to God hisself.
edit on 27-6-2011 by romanmel because: typos

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:51 AM
Absolutely "god" should be taken out of the Pledge. Sadly, we still live in an ignorant society that brays at the Moon.

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in