Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Supersquatch

Should "under God" be omitted from the Pledge

Should "under God" be omitted from the Pledge of Allegiance?   30 members have voted

  1. 1. Should "under God" be omitted from the Pledge of Allegiance?

    • Yes.
      17
    • No.
      8
    • You have the right to omit it when you are saying it.
      5

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

37 posts in this topic

Should the words "under God" be legally omitted from the Pledge of Allegiance? It would seem so, as America is a secular state.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as an atheist....is doesnt really bother me....i chose option 3

they guy who took this to court and won...I really dont think it was about religion in the first place. Divorced dad...no custody...it was about control. At least thats my take on it. Religious stuff doesnt bother me. Its there. Big whip. doesnt hurt me. I ignore it.

Edited by The Mule
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if it bother you just dont say it, if you want to say it just say it.....pretty simple stuff :P

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No

Actually makes more sense to me in context if you don't believe in an actual god. One nation under God as a fictional dude would be better then One nation under the president or One nation under the king because the president or king would be real and that would be giving him waaaaaaaaaay to much power. I pretty much see it as a slam to England and their Church not as a religious thing so it doesn't bother me at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No

Actually makes more sense to me in context if you don't believe in an actual god. One nation under God as a fictional dude would be better then One nation under the president or One nation under the king because the president or king would be real and that would be giving him waaaaaaaaaay to much power. I pretty much see it as a slam to England and their Church not as a religious thing so it doesn't bother me at all.

I never thought about it as a slam..hehe that's funny. But originally it was "One nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all" Which makes us more inclusive (sounding anyway) so as the original guys laid it out we should not have any "God" in government. But come to think of it there's no government in government (not an Obama slam, settle down) anymore so something has got to fill the void....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as no one tries to assert their version of 'God' on to the nation, I think that you guys will be okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a believer in a God, take it out. It wasn't there to begin with, it doesn't need to be there. No harm to me, or anyone else.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote Kazoo, 'Meh'.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

could of also been a subtle diss towards communism as well now that I think about it.

Edited by Jinxdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word God appears from time to time in Australian political documents, but it doesn't particularly bother me because the way I see it God is just what religious people call Nature.

As for the pledge of allegience, why would a supposedly free country have one?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the pledge of allegience, why would a supposedly free country have one?

The pledge is not required of anyone. There is, at most, some social pressure, since its recitation involves an overt gesture (placing the right hand where some people think their heart is). I can't recall ever reciting it as an adult, nor being asked to. Even in grade school, I mostly remember it as a vocabulary exerice, since "indivisible" wasn't otherwise a word I used everyday as a kid.

When I did cease to believe in God (age 11-ish, and not knowing that Lincoln's God may well have been deist), I stopped saying "under God." I just did it. Nobody said anything, including me. To do this day, I cannot see the point of making sure everybody knows I'm doing something that nobody is stopping me from doing in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a believer in God.. But I never say it..I don't have to

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it to be both extremely repulsive, and disconcerting that our constitutions are governed by a fictitious being. If I ever get voted into office as a Prime Minister, religion will be the first on my list to eradicate. I believe a scientific revolution is necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should be omitted. It wasn't there originally. And really, we aren't one nation under God- we have a wide variety of faiths, not just one. Sometimes it seems like the argument about God is something that divides us rather than making us indivisible.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be replaced with "stupidity". It really p*** off my Mother when they put it in. She went to school during the 40's when god wasn't in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it to be both extremely repulsive, and disconcerting that our constitutions are governed by a fictitious being. If I ever get voted into office as a Prime Minister, religion will be the first on my list to eradicate. I believe a scientific revolution is necessary.

They have it in Canada's pledge, too. I always thought Canada was more progressive than that. When I was 18 I had thought about moving to Canada. I wish now I would have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it to be both extremely repulsive, and disconcerting that our constitutions are governed by a fictitious being. If I ever get voted into office as a Prime Minister, religion will be the first on my list to eradicate. I believe a scientific revolution is necessary.

Doesn't it bother you also when the religious say they are persecuted, even though their god is mentioned in a secular country's Pledge of Allegiance?

The "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance was directly tied to the Christian God, as evidenced by Eisenhower's sickening words of indoctrination: "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty. ... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war."

And quite frankly, how dare Eisenhower for adding the words. He knew America didn't have a state religion and he didn't keep his oath to uphold the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, for the people that said no, can you post why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I clicked yes for the hell of it ..........Y'all should say one nation under God and add more to it saying - and we are the ONLY people under god, everyone else is not saved..lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted No

Lots of reasons

I actually agree with eisenhower about the unifying principle of "one nation under god." And i especially understand his support for it, and his use of it, at that time in history

Second the constitution actually implies the existence of god although because of americas history and events in europe at the time it deliberately separates government from organised religion. This goes back to my argument on another thread. America is NOT a secular nation it is a very religious nation (mainly but not exclusively christian)

The government is largely secular but not entirely so. Most elected members are religious (i would suspect the great majority) Oaths of office, from the highest in the land down, are done on a bible. The money has a reference to god on it. etc.

So I think the oath reflects more honestly the true history and nature of america and serves as a reminder of both to modern americans, even though it offends some modern radical atheists. As long as it is not compulsory, and failure to say it does not draw either action or emotion down on a person, I think it is a symbol which unifies and strengthens about 90 % of the nation. In tough times tha tis even more necessary

I wish Australia had any form of a pledge of allegiance. Australians are generally patriotic but dont make any nationalist sort of fuss about it.

When i was a kid we did a sort of oath at school. It went something like, "I love my God, I honour my Queen, and I salute my Flag"

Personally it meant nothing emotionally to me and was never really explained or discussed. it was just one of those rituals we did in those days.

I wish i had been taught the same emotional loyalty to, and investment in, my country which american children are.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Christian it doesn't matter to me as is I don't even recite the pledge unless it is to get a job. If you have to ask what type of jobs make you recite the pledge upon being hired, just nevermind that part, if you already know then there is no need to explain.

Whatever the majority wants is fine for me. The pledge is basically meaningless to those of my generation. People fighting over meaningless crap happens all the time I guess.

I also didn't get to vote because there is no "other" or "I don't care" option...

Edited by Chasingtherabbit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am atheist, but I think they should leave well enough alone.

I have no patience for atheists who go out on stupid pointless crusades, only the name of political correctness.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should the words "under God" be legally omitted from the Pledge of Allegiance? It would seem so, as America is a secular state.

It was not so long ago that Jehovah's Witnesses were terribly persecuted in the US for refusing to say the pledge of allegiance. Though I wouldn't support any political or judiciary influence on the matter myself, being apolitical in my beliefs, i.e. not a part of this world, I think that it should be removed out of respect for God. God has promised to allow the nations to exist for a limited time, and he will eventually see them all destroyed and replaced by his own Kingdom under Christ Jesus' rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it shouldn't in this case it just means under something that is greater then yourself. Basically saying that we are no better then another country, that we have no right to force others on what we believe and stand by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it actually matters, if the term "under God" were officially removed, I'm sure people would say it anyway (some may even be disruptive about it and yell it out so that people all round know they are saying it).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.