Should the pledge be changed?

[SteveForever]

Under One God.....

[steveo777]

Foreigners and Atheists have fucked all this up. America is moving away from a country of faith with great values and moral fiber.
Liberal butt fuckers!

[SteveForever]

Sadly, I work in a govt. office where most people are liberals and want it removed.

[conversationpc]

Sadly, I work in a govt. office where most people are liberals and want it removed.

So do they want to remove it from the "Declaration of Independence" also?

[SteveForever]

Sadly, I work in a govt. office where most people are liberals and want it removed.

So do they want to remove it from the "Declaration of Independence" also?

good point Dave and I'll use it!

[parfait]

Sadly, I work in a govt. office where most people are liberals and want it removed.

So do they want to remove it from the "Declaration of Independence" also?

That's irrelevant. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.

[steveo777]

Sadly, I work in a govt. office where most people are liberals and want it removed.

So do they want to remove it from the "Declaration of Independence" also?

That's irrelevant. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.

Frenchie, stay in your parisienne square!

[Gideon]

That's irrelevant. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.

Technically, neither of them are.

[bluejeangirl76]

Both sides have it all effed up.

On one hand, no it doesn't really belong in there (HOLD ON A MINUTE BEFORE YOU HIT QUOTE...)

The free exercise clause (first amendment) reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." And this is where people (who don't want it) start screaming about separation of church and state without understanding what that actually meant, originally, which is simply that federal and state have to stay - legally - out'cho religious bidness. It never said one damn word about not being able to flag wave it's own bidness.

So, if the government is not to make laws regarding or interfering with it, they shouldn't be promoting it either, in my own opinion, which is why it should never have been in there to start with. But that isn't what the "law" says. So, unless they want to change it to "One nation, under your god of choice or under no god, with liberty and justice for all", then they're going to continue to have people yelling about it either way. (plus, that would screw the hell up of out of "God Bless America" )

As for the people screaming to have it taken out... ok I see the point they're making and I said the same thing for a long time - but honestly, after 2 centuries is it really harming you all that badly? It's just words. Those words have been in the pledge and on the money long before we got here to complain about it, and more than likely, will stay there. If you don't believe in God or you believe in a different God or faith, then those words don't really mean anything to you do they?

It's a tough issue. the Pledge was adopted nationally in the 40s, so was that not a violation of the first amendment, or are they following the letter of the law because technically, they didn't make a law with respect to a specific religion... and as for the money - the Department of the Treasury is a government agency, so whether they leave it on OR take it off, are they not in violation of the first amendment either way? If it had never been on there, it wouldn't be an issue. But by putting it on the money, the government exercised it's own belief, therefore, violated the amendment (depending on who is interpreting said amendment)... or the government is ALSO protected by free exercise... see how they did that? Now, with it on there, if they go and remove it, aren't they "prohibiting free exercise"?

[Gideon]

The Pledge of Allegiance, technically, isn't a law. Conservative pedants can successfully argue that there is no contradiction.

[bluejeangirl76]

The Pledge of Allegiance, technically, isn't a law. Conservative pedants can successfully argue that there is no contradiction.

No, it's not a law but was accepted by Congress as the national pledge, and "under God" was added years AFTER that happened.

[Gideon]

Though I don't mind the inclusion of the phrase into the Pledge, I do agree that it does seem to fly in the face of a separation of church and state. That said, the constitution quite clearly says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Since the Pledge is not a law, one could play semantics and successfully argue that there is no conflict between the content of the Pledge and the Constitution. (Though, again, it clearly doesn't follow the continuity of a separation between church and state.)

[bluejeangirl76]

Though I don't mind the inclusion of the phrase into the Pledge, I do agree that it does seem to fly in the face of a separation of church and state.

No it doesn't because "separation of church and state" is not a law. It was phrase posed by Jefferson with regard to the government not interfering with organized religion. I don't disagree with you, but as you said, it's a case of semantics.

[SF-Dano]

What church exactly is that phrase endorsing? Catholic? Jewish? Moslem? Baptist? Orthodox? The only folk that i could see this truely upsetting are Atheists. And as others have stated, this is not establishing any law. I think if you personally have a problem with the phrase, simply clip your lip for the phrase if you ever say the pledge. I get the feeling most people that argue for the removal of the phrase from the pledge probably wouldn't be saying it even if removed.

[SteveForever]

What church exactly is that phrase endorsing? Catholic? Jewish? Moslem? Baptist? Orthodox? The only folk that i could see this truely upsetting are Atheists. And as others have stated, this is not establishing any law. I think if you personally have a problem with the phrase, simply clip your lip for the phrase if you ever say the pledge. I get the feeling most people that argue for the removal of the phrase from the pledge probably wouldn't be saying it even if removed.

yes!!!!!!

[bluejeangirl76]

The only folk that i could see this truely upsetting are Atheists.

That is the only group that ever seems to have anything to say about it. I've yet to meet a Buddhist that has a problem about it. I used to make the same argument that they make about it and scream 'separation of church and state' until (after 'debating' it one day) I did some looking up of my own and discovered that that doesn't mean what most people think it means and that it not something that can be either violated or enforced because it isn't a law, or at least it isn't a law as most people understand it.

[scarab]

leave it in, God can mean anything to anyone. Even for those who believe in nothing that can be there God.
The overwhelming majority believe in some kind of higher power.

[Archetype]

Abolish the pledge of allegiance entirely.

[conversationpc]

Sadly, I work in a govt. office where most people are liberals and want it removed.

So do they want to remove it from the "Declaration of Independence" also?

That's irrelevant. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.

No one said it was...Neither is "The Pledge of Allegiance", moron.

[conversationpc]

Though I don't mind the inclusion of the phrase into the Pledge, I do agree that it does seem to fly in the face of a separation of church and state.

No it doesn't because "separation of church and state" is not a law. It was phrase posed by Jefferson with regard to the government not interfering with organized religion. I don't disagree with you, but as you said, it's a case of semantics.

Not only that but the phrase itself was only included in a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists. It was never intended to be codified into law. The establishment clause was intended only to keep the federal government from creating an official church. Having the phrase "under God" in the pledge establishes no religion in any way. It was also never intended to keep students from saying a graduation prayer, a minister to say a prayer before a state or federal assembly, or other such occasions.

[Tito]

Foreigners and Atheists have fucked all this up. America is moving away from a country of faith with great values and moral fiber.
Liberal butt fuckers!

+1

[Babyblue]

Both sides have it all effed up.

On one hand, no it doesn't really belong in there (HOLD ON A MINUTE BEFORE YOU HIT QUOTE...)

The free exercise clause (first amendment) reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." And this is where people (who don't want it) start screaming about separation of church and state without understanding what that actually meant, originally, which is simply that federal and state have to stay - legally - out'cho religious bidness. It never said one damn word about not being able to flag wave it's own bidness.

So, if the government is not to make laws regarding or interfering with it, they shouldn't be promoting it either, in my own opinion, which is why it should never have been in there to start with. But that isn't what the "law" says. So, unless they want to change it to "One nation, under your god of choice or under no god, with liberty and justice for all", then they're going to continue to have people yelling about it either way. (plus, that would screw the hell up of out of "God Bless America" )

As for the people screaming to have it taken out... ok I see the point they're making and I said the same thing for a long time - but honestly, after 2 centuries is it really harming you all that badly? It's just words. Those words have been in the pledge and on the money long before we got here to complain about it, and more than likely, will stay there. If you don't believe in God or you believe in a different God or faith, then those words don't really mean anything to you do they?

It's a tough issue. the Pledge was adopted nationally in the 40s, so was that not a violation of the first amendment, or are they following the letter of the law because technically, they didn't make a law with respect to a specific religion... and as for the money - the Department of the Treasury is a government agency, so whether they leave it on OR take it off, are they not in violation of the first amendment either way? If it had never been on there, it wouldn't be an issue. But by putting it on the money, the government exercised it's own belief, therefore, violated the amendment (depending on who is interpreting said amendment)... or the government is ALSO protected by free exercise... see how they did that? Now, with it on there, if they go and remove it, aren't they "prohibiting free exercise"?

Had not thought about it in that way before.Thanks BJG

[Babyblue]

Sadly, I work in a govt. office where most people are liberals and want it removed.

So do they want to remove it from the "Declaration of Independence" also?

I bet so.

[scarab]

guess i missed the OM,
yeah change it to one God. absolutely the same as (God).
In America, people can believe in any God (or one God) they want. Kinda what makes America so great.
and to the athiests, no god can be your god.

guess I dont know we have to put the "one" in there. But either way its all good.

[ebake02]

These atheist bastards really piss me off, they fight and sue to have religious references removed from government because it offends them. Well what about me?!!!! Removing those references offends me, what makes their feelings more important than mine. I know there are more people out there who share my point of view than theirs so what gives this extremely small minority the right to get what ever the hell they want.

[Archetype]

These atheist bastards really piss me off, they fight and sue to have religious references removed from government because it offends them. Well what about me?!!!! Removing those references offends me, what makes their feelings more important than mine. I know there are more people out there who share my point of view than theirs so what gives this extremely small minority the right to get what ever the hell they want.

Having nothing there can't offend anyone. Having something there can offend someone. Use some logic.

[S2M]

Foreigners and Atheists have fucked all this up. America is moving away from a country of faith with great values and moral fiber.
Liberal butt fuckers!

Morality isn't based on religion....I don't know where everyone got the idea that being non-religious automatically means one is immoral.

However, religion is based in morality. Big difference. And the last time I took inventory, more people have been MURDERED in the name of moral religion, then all the non-religious acts COMBINED.

Actually, the LONE thing that is, and has ruined this country is altruism. The concept of altruism is not only illogical from a reason standpoint, but it presupposes that self-sacrifice is the highest moral duty. If everyone took care of themselves, and lived rationally, and had a damn purpose - there wouldn't be the need to serve others, at the expense of his own needs and wants.

[marco17]

I think it should stay and we should quit wasting so much time and money on stuff that quite frankly is pretty irrelevant in the first place.

[artist4perry]

We say it every day at our schools..............Intolerance run amok. Geez does it really kill anyone to say the word God? And how much money would it cost our already overburdened government to remove it for intolerant crackpots? Ridiculous.

Our forefathers set it up, let it be.

[artist4perry]

Foreigners and Atheists have fucked all this up. America is moving away from a country of faith with great values and moral fiber.
Liberal butt fuckers!

Morality isn't based on religion....I don't know where everyone got the idea that being non-religious automatically means one is immoral.

However, religion is based in morality. Big difference. And the last time I took inventory, more people have been MURDERED in the name of moral religion, then all the non-religious acts COMBINED.

Actually, the LONE thing that is, and has ruined this country is altruism. The concept of altruism is not only illogical from a reason standpoint, but it presupposes that self-sacrifice is the highest moral duty. If everyone took care of themselves, and lived rationally, and had a damn purpose - there wouldn't be the need to serve others, at the expense of his own needs and wants.

S2M ever think that people who murder in "God's" name are not his people anyway? It is a sin to murder. It is also a sin to not love your neighbor. How about turn the other cheek? Seems like they don't know God at all to me.
We are moving away from a world of people who truly live by God's principles.

So how is the world getting? So much better every day, right? How about young people? Are they so much better off not respecting authority or having manners? How about our society? People who stand on top of counters and throw stuff at workers for getting their orders wrong, people who laugh when someone runs someone down in a car in a parking lot, people who beat people up for 5 minutes of fame on youtube.

How is this working for you? Regardless of your wanting to not believe in God or not, which by the way I respect your right, having people who believe it is wrong to do the wrong thing around you, isn't as bad as you make it out. People who believe in non violence and kindness don't make bad neighbors, regardless of how delusional you think they are.