"Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance

[Mike the Progressive]

No. And chances are they probably never will unless they want to. Still there is such a thing as civic pride and that's largely why we have the kids do the pledge.

Then have that actually taught, hell I'd support 'Civics' or 'Ethics' being made into an entire class for elementary kids and up.

Technically they probably do learn about that in any class relating to US history/culture. But again, how much/little kids pay attention is another thing. Keep in mind we have a relatively high drop out rate in some school districts.

[New Libertarian States]

Then have that actually taught, hell I'd support 'Civics' or 'Ethics' being made into an entire class for elementary kids and up.

Yes please.

*nods in agreement*

[Distruzio]

I was basically forced to in Oklahoma as well.
That was last year.
Non compliance meant a detention, continued non compliance meant after school community work.

I don't need seven people telling me they felt forced. I honestly don't care what your school says, my point was that you have the legal right to not stand.

Absolutely. Which is important to point out to those forum members still in school.

[Genivaria]

Then have that actually taught, hell I'd support 'Civics' or 'Ethics' being made into an entire class for elementary kids and up.

Technically they probably do learn about that in any class relating to US history/culture. But again, how much/little kids pay attention is another thing. Keep in mind we have a relatively high drop out rate in some school districts.

Yes and our school system needs an overhaul as well.

[Distruzio]

By the way, I wonder if any follower of any Abrahamic faith here feels that reciting US Pledge constitutes uttering the name of the Lord in vain.

I would... if I said it.

When I did say it, however, I wasn't Christian.

[Dyakovo]

When I say forced, guys, I mean by law. You all should know this.

I was forced to stand and say it when I was in school. Though by the time I was in high school I merely stood without reciting it.

Edit: It's worth noting that I graduated HS before a lot of you were even born...

[Lunalia]

Those who say you don't have to say it.... in middle and elementary school, at least, we had to say it. It was not optional.

I wholeheartedly oppose the phrase "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance. It's a pledge to a country that has nothing to do with a religion's god.

[Ostroeuropa]

So what do the pro-abolition people think of my suggestion to abolish "Under god" and add an optional verse on the end of "So help me god" akin to the oath of office?

Kids who don't feel like reciting that line can simply not do so, while those who feel like doing it can.
Both would be valid versions of the Pledge.
The reason for scrapping under god and adding it at the end is to keep the flow and rhythm uniform across both demographics.

The major precedent is ofcourse the oath of office the president takes. They are allowed to add "So help me god" but are under no obligation to do so.

[Risottia]

So what do the pro-abolition people think of my suggestion to abolish "Under god" and add an optional verse on the end of "So help me god" akin to the oath of office?

Kids who don't feel like reciting that line can simply not do so, while those who feel like doing it can.

Make one part optional... then other parts can be optional, too?

Better just getting rid of it. Full stop.

[Condunum]

When I say forced, guys, I mean by law. You all should know this.

Of course. But my High School never made any qualms about reminding the student body that the Constitution only applied off school grounds. I know that isn't, necessarily, true now but back then... it made sense.

Indeed.

I don't need seven people telling me they felt forced. I honestly don't care what your school says, my point was that you have the legal right to not stand.

Absolutely. Which is important to point out to those forum members still in school.

I don't think it's necessarily important for us to know. Most of us can't do much. It'd be nice if the people here who have this problems and find it to be an issue for their lives use some large media (tumblr/facebook) to let it be known.

[Genivaria]

So what do the pro-abolition people think of my suggestion to abolish "Under god" and add an optional verse on the end of "So help me god" akin to the oath of office?

Kids who don't feel like reciting that line can simply not do so, while those who feel like doing it can.
Both would be valid versions of the Pledge.
The reason for scrapping under god and adding it at the end is to keep the flow and rhythm uniform across both demographics.

The major precedent is ofcourse the oath of office the president takes. They are allowed to add "So help me god" but are under no obligation to do so.

I do believe that as far as the military oath of enlistment goes the words 'so help me god' at the end are entirely optional.

[Dyakovo]

So what do the pro-abolition people think of my suggestion to abolish "Under god" and add an optional verse on the end of "So help me god" akin to the oath of office?

Kids who don't feel like reciting that line can simply not do so, while those who feel like doing it can.
Both would be valid versions of the Pledge.
The reason for scrapping under god and adding it at the end is to keep the flow and rhythm uniform across both demographics.

The major precedent is ofcourse the oath of office the president takes. They are allowed to add "So help me god" but are under no obligation to do so.

Or better yet, just eliminate all references to a deity in every oath. Religious people can feel free to tack one on if they feel like it.

[Nevanmaa]

It should stay. Ceremonial deism is not promotion of religion as determined by the US Supreme Court.

It's not ceremonial deism. It's blatant fear of communism embodied in a pledge, something that's fucking moronic.

According to the Supreme Court it's not.

Otherwise you could say that all other Supreme Court rulings are invalid because "my feelings say so". I personally trust the judges' opinion on this more than yours.

[Agritum]

Of course. But my High School never made any qualms about reminding the student body that the Constitution only applied off school grounds. I know that isn't, necessarily, true now but back then... it made sense.

Indeed.

Absolutely. Which is important to point out to those forum members still in school.

I don't think it's necessarily important for us to know. Most of us can't do much. It'd be nice if the people here who have this problems and find it to be an issue for their lives use some large media (tumblr/facebook) to let it be known.

There's Change.org

[Ostroeuropa]

So what do the pro-abolition people think of my suggestion to abolish "Under god" and add an optional verse on the end of "So help me god" akin to the oath of office?

Kids who don't feel like reciting that line can simply not do so, while those who feel like doing it can.
Both would be valid versions of the Pledge.
The reason for scrapping under god and adding it at the end is to keep the flow and rhythm uniform across both demographics.

The major precedent is ofcourse the oath of office the president takes. They are allowed to add "So help me god" but are under no obligation to do so.

I do believe that as far as the military oath of enlistment goes the words 'so help me god' at the end are entirely optional.

that's another example.

[Mike the Progressive]

Technically they probably do learn about that in any class relating to US history/culture. But again, how much/little kids pay attention is another thing. Keep in mind we have a relatively high drop out rate in some school districts.

Yes and our school system needs an overhaul as well.

Of course. We always do. Not being cynical here, just saying we'll never achieve/reach that ideal state, because new problems/challenges arise.

But that's why we continue to pledge. Even if kids are too lazy themselves to bother thinking about what those words mean.

[Ostroeuropa]

So what do the pro-abolition people think of my suggestion to abolish "Under god" and add an optional verse on the end of "So help me god" akin to the oath of office?

Kids who don't feel like reciting that line can simply not do so, while those who feel like doing it can.

Make one part optional... then other parts can be optional, too?

Better just getting rid of it. Full stop.

I'd be inclined to agree, but we'll be in a minority in that for decades to come. Better to reform it and then argue for abolition.

[Ostroeuropa]

So what do the pro-abolition people think of my suggestion to abolish "Under god" and add an optional verse on the end of "So help me god" akin to the oath of office?

Kids who don't feel like reciting that line can simply not do so, while those who feel like doing it can.
Both would be valid versions of the Pledge.
The reason for scrapping under god and adding it at the end is to keep the flow and rhythm uniform across both demographics.

The major precedent is ofcourse the oath of office the president takes. They are allowed to add "So help me god" but are under no obligation to do so.

Or better yet, just eliminate all references to a deity in every oath. Religious people can feel free to tack one on if they feel like it.

I agree.

[Risottia]

Otherwise you could say that all other Supreme Court rulings are invalid because "my feelings say so". I personally trust the judges' opinion on this more than yours.

A ruling can be valid and still be considered wrong by some. Validity is about the form; right/wrong is about the substance.
That's why there are legal, formal ways of changing rulings. Let's say, passing a new law? Amending the Constitution?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Of course it should be removed. America is a country full of humans and religion is devoted to instilling ignorance about the human condition.

[Condunum]

It's not ceremonial deism. It's blatant fear of communism embodied in a pledge, something that's fucking moronic.

According to the Supreme Court it's not.

Otherwise you could say that all other Supreme Court rulings are invalid because "my feelings say so". I personally trust the judges' opinion on this more than yours.

This is the same thing as Blurred Lines. It's a fucking excuse not to change something by making it about something else after the fact. The entire reason the addition was supported was to give a big fuck you to the soviet union. Anyone who even remotely paid attention to it when it happened would tell you this.

And since when did you agree with the Supreme Court on things? I would expect someone as radically unamerican as you to hate them.

[Dyakovo]

It's not ceremonial deism. It's blatant fear of communism embodied in a pledge, something that's fucking moronic.

According to the Supreme Court it's not.

Otherwise you could say that all other Supreme Court rulings are invalid because "my feelings say so". I personally trust the judges' opinion on this more than yours.

SCotUS has been wrong before, as they are this time. Declaring the addition of "under god" to be "ceremonial deism" is ridiculous. All you have to do to see that that never was the intention of the addition is look at the history of its addition.

[Condunum]

According to the Supreme Court it's not.

Otherwise you could say that all other Supreme Court rulings are invalid because "my feelings say so". I personally trust the judges' opinion on this more than yours.

SCotUS has been wrong before, as they are this time. Declaring the addition of "under god" to be "ceremonial deism" is ridiculous. All you have to do to see that that never was the intention of the addition is look at the history of its addition.

Changes to the pledge have almost always been fueled by xenophobia. Case in point: 1923, the clarification of the "United States of America" was added in fear that immigrants do bad things or something of that nature.

[Distruzio]

So what do the pro-abolition people think of my suggestion to abolish "Under god" and add an optional verse on the end of "So help me god" akin to the oath of office?

Kids who don't feel like reciting that line can simply not do so, while those who feel like doing it can.
Both would be valid versions of the Pledge.
The reason for scrapping under god and adding it at the end is to keep the flow and rhythm uniform across both demographics.

The major precedent is ofcourse the oath of office the president takes. They are allowed to add "So help me god" but are under no obligation to do so.

Or better yet, just eliminate all references to a deity in every oath. Religious people can feel free to tack one on if they feel like it.

I'd support this.

[Condunum]

Indeed.


I don't think it's necessarily important for us to know. Most of us can't do much. It'd be nice if the people here who have this problems and find it to be an issue for their lives use some large media (tumblr/facebook) to let it be known.

There's Change.org

I mean something that will make it public, not forgotten.