It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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".
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."
Politics as usual.
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."
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by canselmi
If anything, it should be changed to "and to the republic for which it stood".