NationStates

"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."

These words were added to the Pledge in 1954 due to Cold War-era political pressure to differentiate America from the "godless commies" of the Soviet Union. However, this addition is growing more and more controversial due to its conflict with the principle of separation of church and state as outlined in the Constitution. Supporters of the phrase's inclusion claim that because most Americans are Christian, the phrase is a simple reflection of the will of the people. However, opponents of the phrase's presence in the Pledge argue that it is violates the constitutional principles of church-state separation and freedom of religion, as well as that the US is not a Christian nation.

My opinion:
The addition of "Under God" to the Pledge was unacceptable even considering the circumstances of the Cold War, and now that the Cold War has long been over, it is especially egregious. America is not meant to be a Christian nation, and this is especially true nowadays considering that more and more Americans are not following the Christian religion. Based on Pew Research data from 2012, 27 percent of Americans are not followers of Christianity. When the many non-Christians of America have to recite the Pledge, they are being forced to acknowledge a religious deity that they do not believe to exist. Also, the phrase's presence in the Pledge contradicts freedom of religion and separation of church and state as outlined in the Constitution.

So, what is your opinion? Should the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance stay, or should it go?

mod permission to repost this thread granted here

1. You don't have to say it
2. God can refer to any god
3. I think it sounds better with it in it

It presents an air of legitimacy to Monotheism by the government.
It needs to be removed.

Your opinion is my opinion too.

Warda wrote:1. You don't have to say it
2. God can refer to any god
3. I think it sounds better with it in it

The government should not be taking any stance on religion and having 'under god' in the Pledge is taking a stance.

Warda wrote:1. You don't have to say it

That's often not true.

2. God can refer to any god

Which doesn't change the fact that 21 percent of Americans do not adhere to any religion.

3. I think it sounds better with it in it

Why does that even matter?

My opinion.

Pretty much exactly what you said Regnum.

I mean, sure you don't have to do it, but that doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.

Regnum Dominae wrote:

Warda wrote:1. You don't have to say it

That's often not true.

2. God can refer to any god

Which doesn't change the fact that 21 percent of Americans do not adhere to any religion.

3. I think it sounds better with it in it

Why does that even matter?

That's not even touching the fact that it excludes not only atheists, but polytheists as well.

Regnum Dominae wrote:

Warda wrote:1. You don't have to say it

That's often not true.

2. God can refer to any god

Which doesn't change the fact that 21 percent of Americans do not adhere to any religion.

3. I think it sounds better with it in it

Why does that even matter?

1. If 1 isn't true you need to sue your school.
2. Then they dont have to say it.
3. CAUSE IT DOES OK

Warda wrote:

Regnum Dominae wrote:That's often not true.

Which doesn't change the fact that 21 percent of Americans do not adhere to any religion.

Why does that even matter?

1. If 1 isn't true you need to sue your school.
2. Then they dont have to say it.
3. CAUSE IT DOES OK

That doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.

Remove it, for a nation that claims to have no state religion, it seems Christianity is the state religion due to the countless references of the Christian God in our government, having our president swear to oath with a bible etc.

Warda wrote:

Regnum Dominae wrote:That's often not true.

Which doesn't change the fact that 21 percent of Americans do not adhere to any religion.

Why does that even matter?

1. If 1 isn't true you need to sue your school.
2. Then they dont have to say it.
3. CAUSE IT DOES OK

1. It depends on how the pledge is said. At my elementary school, it was an entire school wide assembly in the morning and nobody gave a damn what you said. If it's a small classroom in the Bible Belt, however...
2. Again, refer to number one.
3. Yes, great argument here with no content substantive enough to uphold your point.

"Under God" should be removed from the pledge, and "In god we trust" shouldn't be our motto. We could just change the god part to something like "In liberty we trust" or "In justice he trust" or "In freedom we trust" etc.

The Scientific States wrote:Remove it, for a nation that claims to have no state religion, it seems Christianity is the state religion due to the countless references of the Christian God in our government, having our president swear to oath with a bible etc.

I also think that we should stop the tradition/custom of swearing an oath to the bible. The US and all governments should be secular.

Pandeeria wrote:"Under God" should be removed from the pledge, and "In god we trust" shouldn't be our motto. We could just change the god part to something like "In liberty we trust" or "In justice he trust" or "In freedom we trust" etc.

The original motto was E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one.

I honestly don't have a problem with it either way. Remove it, keep it, I'm really indifferent.

Regnum Dominae wrote:"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."

These words were added to the Pledge in 1954 due to Cold War-era political pressure to differentiate America from the "godless commies" of the Soviet Union. However, this addition is growing more and more controversial due to its conflict with the principle of separation of church and state as outlined in the Constitution. Supporters of the phrase's inclusion claim that because most Americans are Christian, the phrase is a simple reflection of the will of the people. However, opponents of the phrase's presence in the Pledge argue that it is violates the constitutional principles of church-state separation and freedom of religion, as well as that the US is not a Christian nation.

My opinion:
The addition of "Under God" to the Pledge was unacceptable even considering the circumstances of the Cold War, and now that the Cold War has long been over, it is especially egregious. America is not meant to be a Christian nation, and this is especially true nowadays considering that more and more Americans are not following the Christian religion. Based on Pew Research data from 2012, 27 percent of Americans are not followers of Christianity. When the many non-Christians of America have to recite the Pledge, they are being forced to acknowledge a religious deity that they do not believe to exist. Also, the phrase's presence in the Pledge contradicts freedom of religion and separation of church and state as outlined in the Constitution.

So, what is your opinion? Should the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance stay, or should it go?

mod permission to repost this thread granted here

It should be removed, it's insertion was a McCarthy era violation of separation of church and state.

Mike the Progressive wrote:I honestly don't have a problem with it either way. Remove it, keep it, I'm really indifferent.

I just don't want it to be replaced with something stupid.

Warda wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:I honestly don't have a problem with it either way. Remove it, keep it, I'm really indifferent.

I just don't want it to be replaced with something stupid.

Something stupid < Something Religious?

Warda wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:I honestly don't have a problem with it either way. Remove it, keep it, I'm really indifferent.

I just don't want it to be replaced with something stupid.

As long as it's not "Yes we can", or some lame campaign slogan. I won't lose a whole lot of sleep over it.

Warda wrote:1. You don't have to say it
2. God can refer to any god
3. I think it sounds better with it in it

1. Having it there is still close to state sponsorship of theism.
2. Not everyone believes in a God.
3. "Under glorious and beautiful God" sounds even better, does that mean we should change it to that?

Warda wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:I honestly don't have a problem with it either way. Remove it, keep it, I'm really indifferent.

I just don't want it to be replaced with something stupid.

Removing under god but keeping the rest sounds just fine.

Geilinor wrote:

Warda wrote:1. You don't have to say it
2. God can refer to any god
3. I think it sounds better with it in it

1. Having it there is still close to state sponsorship of theism.
2. Not everyone believes in a God.
3. "Under glorious and beautiful God" sounds even better, does that mean we should change it to that?

Actually, that doesn't sound better. At all.

Warda wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:I honestly don't have a problem with it either way. Remove it, keep it, I'm really indifferent.

I just don't want it to be replaced with something stupid.

It will be removed and returned to its original state. Nobody wants to replace it.

Mike the Progressive wrote:

Geilinor wrote:1. Having it there is still close to state sponsorship of theism.
2. Not everyone believes in a God.
3. "Under glorious and beautiful God" sounds even better, does that mean we should change it to that?

Actually, that doesn't sound better. At all.

It was a bad attempt at sarcasm.

Mike the Progressive wrote:

Geilinor wrote:1. Having it there is still close to state sponsorship of theism.
2. Not everyone believes in a God.
3. "Under glorious and beautiful God" sounds even better, does that mean we should change it to that?

Actually, that doesn't sound better. At all.

How about 'Under Canada and above Mexico'?