ouyangqulong said:

My objection to the phrase God in the pledge was never anti-American (although it was construed as such) it was anti-theist.

But believers never take anything as it really is. They have to twist it in order to validate their own beliefs. An example of this is the definition of atheism. So many believers simply will not accept that it is just a matter of not falling for the religious claim. Instead they insist that atheism is really just a secret way to combat god and support Satan.

They get much more public support if they promote those of us that disagree with the religious additions to the pledge and currency as anti-American. This way all denominations, sects,...

ouyangqulong said:

My objection to the phrase God in the pledge was never anti-American (although it was construed as such) it was anti-theist.

But believers never take anything as it really is. They have to twist it in order to validate their own beliefs. An example of this is the definition of atheism. So many believers simply will not accept that it is just a matter of not falling for the religious claim. Instead they insist that atheism is really just a secret way to combat god and support Satan.

They get much more public support if they promote those of us that disagree with the religious additions to the pledge and currency as anti-American. This way all denominations, sects, cults, and groups of people can band together.

Religion has to create an "us vs them" mentality in order that its members more easily follow along.

You have a really good point. To elaborate on this, consider my relationship with atheism. I am a Buddhist, of the Tibetan Sakyapa sect. When one takes refuge in this sect (sort of like a baptism, it's an official declaration of Buddhist faith) we all make a vow, there are three parts of this which I find particularly relevant to this question:

1. One must strive to live without killing or causing suffering.

2. One must not slander the "dharma."

and (here's the important part!)

3. One must not place faith in gods or the supernatural for salvation. This is a very important detail. It is not so much a disavowal of gods as it is a disavowal of theology altogether. Instead we swear to use lo...

You have a really good point. To elaborate on this, consider my relationship with atheism. I am a Buddhist, of the Tibetan Sakyapa sect. When one takes refuge in this sect (sort of like a baptism, it's an official declaration of Buddhist faith) we all make a vow, there are three parts of this which I find particularly relevant to this question:

1. One must strive to live without killing or causing suffering.

2. One must not slander the "dharma."

and (here's the important part!)

3. One must not place faith in gods or the supernatural for salvation. This is a very important detail. It is not so much a disavowal of gods as it is a disavowal of theology altogether. Instead we swear to use logic and contemplation to understand the true nature of the world, and that this is the only true salvation that exists.

This last part really ticks off evangelicals. It's not so much that I don't believe in God as that I just plain don't care. They always think I must be against God if I don't believe in Him, but in reality, whether God exists or not doesn't matter to me. I am not interested in offers of rapture or heaven, just in obtaining a realistic understanding of the world around me.

It's not that we're batting for the other team, it's that we're playing a completely different game with no bats and no balls at all!

You know, at several points in the history of the pledge, God was omitted, and it was still a fine piece of work. I say, if you want to pledge allegiance to the flag, and do not want to mention God, then don't, if you do, then go on and do it. Do we really need the government to approve or disapprove of everything we say, do, think, and believe? Is there really a need to legislate the wording of a pledge, a poem, a song? Are people really so in need of the gov't to tell them or approve of everything? It's not like the pledge is in the constitution, or there is a law stating you must state it word for word in this way or that.
Now currency, that's a whole different story. We all have to use...

You know, at several points in the history of the pledge, God was omitted, and it was still a fine piece of work. I say, if you want to pledge allegiance to the flag, and do not want to mention God, then don't, if you do, then go on and do it. Do we really need the government to approve or disapprove of everything we say, do, think, and believe? Is there really a need to legislate the wording of a pledge, a poem, a song? Are people really so in need of the gov't to tell them or approve of everything? It's not like the pledge is in the constitution, or there is a law stating you must state it word for word in this way or that.
Now currency, that's a whole different story. We all have to use it and there really are no alternatives beside the ones that mention God. The motto is actually that of Deism, in that the word "trust" is used in variant to the Christian "faith" in God, that is a little known bit of background info, but I fail to really see how people are so determined in insisting that God and money mix, people were screaming when the motto was on the edge of the new coins and thought it had been removed! Weird.
I wonder what God would have to say about all of this, do you think (s)he's an atheist?

Or just get rid of the pledge of allegiance.

When I enrolled in the military the end process involved a pledge as well, but it was not the pledge of allegiance. The people who often say the POA are children, who really don't comprehend what it is they are pledging themselves too.

The pledge has only become a hot button issue because religious people managed to get some of their propaganda inserted into it and now staunchly fight to keep it there.

Currency spends either way, but again, its a matter of religious people sneaking their propaganda onto it and creating a hypocritical "free country" when we have citizens that do not believe or worship the biblical god. If its such an innocent th...

Or just get rid of the pledge of allegiance.

When I enrolled in the military the end process involved a pledge as well, but it was not the pledge of allegiance. The people who often say the POA are children, who really don't comprehend what it is they are pledging themselves too.

The pledge has only become a hot button issue because religious people managed to get some of their propaganda inserted into it and now staunchly fight to keep it there.

Currency spends either way, but again, its a matter of religious people sneaking their propaganda onto it and creating a hypocritical "free country" when we have citizens that do not believe or worship the biblical god. If its such an innocent thing, then why not include some phrase of symbol of the Moonies on our stamps, or wisdom of Scientology spoken before each legal hearing, or some other none sense thing like that.

Sahara, it's not "at several points"; the god reference was only added once. Here is the original pledge with later changes:

1892: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

1923: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

1924: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

1954: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to ...

Sahara, it's not "at several points"; the god reference was only added once. Here is the original pledge with later changes:

1892: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

1923: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

1924: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

1954: 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.

The god reference was the last thing added.

Before World War II, the Pledge began with the right hand over the heart during the phrase "I pledge allegiance". The arm was then extended toward the Flag at the phrase "to the Flag". This practice was discontinued because it looked too much like the Nazi salute.

It was written by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and Christian socialist. He intended it to teach obedience to the state. It's obvious from the original wording that Bellamy intended it to be used in any country, not just the United States. I have read elsewhere (but don't have the links) that Bellamy's grandchildren have stated that their grandfather disapproved of the changes made in his lifetime and would have been opposed to the last revision.

Alonzo Fyfe said:

When I argue against “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, my argument is only loosely connected to the separation of church and state. My argument is that “under God” has been placed in the Pledge in such a way that it denigrates and insults all who are not “under God” by equating them with rebels (not indivisible), tyrants (not with liberty), and moral criminals (not with justice for all).

My argument against including “In God We Trust” is that this motto says, [i]This motto states that the most important principle that a country can stand for – that a person can fight and die for – is the principle that the nation’s population should be divided between an included a...

Alonzo Fyfe said:

When I argue against “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, my argument is only loosely connected to the separation of church and state. My argument is that “under God” has been placed in the Pledge in such a way that it denigrates and insults all who are not “under God” by equating them with rebels (not indivisible), tyrants (not with liberty), and moral criminals (not with justice for all).

My argument against including “In God We Trust” is that this motto says, This motto states that the most important principle that a country can stand for – that a person can fight and die for – is the principle that the nation’s population should be divided between an included and accepted ‘we’ who trust in God, and a group of ‘they’ or ‘those who do not truly belong here’ who do not. Not only is this principle not the most important principle to live and die for, it happens to be a principle that no fair and just person could embrace at all.
...
I fear that constantly objecting to these policies on the basis of ‘separation of church and state’ will serve only to promote a general hatred of the idea that church and state are to be kept separate, and an endorsement of the idea that church and state were not meant to be separate. We must remember, we are dealing with people who can sweep aside the mounds of evidence against a young earth and in favor of evolution – they are certainly not going to have any trouble sweeping aside evidence of a secular Constitution.

I would argue in favor of focusing on what is really wrong with these proposals – and it is not the fact that they violate the principle of separation of church and state. It is that they are primitive ideas of both science and morality that belong back in the dark ages if not before.

sahara said:

I say, if you want to pledge allegiance to the flag, and do not want to mention God, then don't, if you do, then go on and do it.

Then you won't see a problem with this clip...
One White Nation, Indivisible

See also...
School board approves amended 'In God We Trust' posters

if you are not using the same arguments that you would use if the motto said, 'We Trust In No God,' then you are being a moral hypocrite. You are proving that you care nothing about treating others as you would wish to be treated by them...

read more»

sahara said:

I say, if you want to pledge allegiance to the flag, and do not want to mention God, then don't, if you do, then go on and do it.

Then you won't see a problem with this clip...
One White Nation, Indivisible

See also...
School board approves amended 'In God We Trust' posters

if you are not using the same arguments that you would use if the motto said, 'We Trust In No God,' then you are being a moral hypocrite. You are proving that you care nothing about treating others as you would wish to be treated by them. If you are using arguments that you would claim constitute injustice if others applied them to you, then you must admit that they constitute the same injustice when you use those arguments against them.

you know that if the roles were reversed, and you were out here, and somebody was sitting up there insisting that a national motto that said 'We Trust In No God' be posted in all the schools, you would know that he was doing it in order to force his religious views on you and your children. For that very reason, we know that the reason you support this proposal is because you want to force parents who do not share your religious beliefs to encounter this message of exclusion every time they sit in a classroom.

Sahara, it's not "at several points"; the god reference was only added once. Here is the original pledge with later changes

Yeah, I should have worded that differently.

"Then you won't see a problem with this clip..."

On the contrary, I see many problems with that clip, and I am glad it was fictitious.
Would it be better to get government out of the schools, altogether? Perhaps. Public education is basically a social program, funded through the taxation of even those individuals who do not utilize it such as those who attend private schools or home schools. (taxation w/out representation?) Maybe it is time for seperation of education and government, and ...

Sahara, it's not "at several points"; the god reference was only added once. Here is the original pledge with later changes

Yeah, I should have worded that differently.

"Then you won't see a problem with this clip..."

On the contrary, I see many problems with that clip, and I am glad it was fictitious.
Would it be better to get government out of the schools, altogether? Perhaps. Public education is basically a social program, funded through the taxation of even those individuals who do not utilize it such as those who attend private schools or home schools. (taxation w/out representation?) Maybe it is time for seperation of education and government, and to get rid of the Dept. of Education, "standardized" testing, no child left behind, military socialism, etc., etc.

Second, as one of the comments on the site pointed out, one can hardly do anything about one's skin color. It is not the same thing as a belief. No one should expect anyone to respect a pledge that spits on someone's racial heritage.

As jstates1 pointed out in the clip that refers to. Do you really think that skin color is the same? Really? As a woman I demand that all references to mankind should be humankind, as well as the statement all men are created equal needs to be changed to all people are created equal, and for that matter, why are there only white men on all of the currency (and the seldom used "token" women on coins is of little compensation). There...

Second, as one of the comments on the site pointed out, one can hardly do anything about one's skin color. It is not the same thing as a belief. No one should expect anyone to respect a pledge that spits on someone's racial heritage.

As jstates1 pointed out in the clip that refers to. Do you really think that skin color is the same? Really? As a woman I demand that all references to mankind should be humankind, as well as the statement all men are created equal needs to be changed to all people are created equal, and for that matter, why are there only white men on all of the currency (and the seldom used "token" women on coins is of little compensation). There are numerous problems and injustices in our society and within our government and education, if the mention of one God word is what motivates these people to action (even though it is not mandated that everyone say it) while there are so many bigger fish to fry just surprises me. When I went to school, there was so little black history and womens' history being taught. The same is true now, though it has gotten slightly better with respect to black history, and I do mean slightly. All of it needs an overhaul.

Here's the thing, as it stands, the Pledge is a symbol of our government, just as is the flag or the national anthem. (More so than the money we use, although cynically perhaps that's no longer the case...)

If I personally chose to omit lines that are in the pledge, then isn't the implication that I am not fully pledging my allegiance to my country? What purpose does the inclusion of God serve in this pledge? Even those who do believe in God, I ask you this: why include him in a pledge to our government?

Think of it this way, if it weren't in the pledge to begin with, is it something the average American would naturally have thought to add?

After all, nobody talks about adding "God" to t...

Here's the thing, as it stands, the Pledge is a symbol of our government, just as is the flag or the national anthem. (More so than the money we use, although cynically perhaps that's no longer the case...)

If I personally chose to omit lines that are in the pledge, then isn't the implication that I am not fully pledging my allegiance to my country? What purpose does the inclusion of God serve in this pledge? Even those who do believe in God, I ask you this: why include him in a pledge to our government?

Think of it this way, if it weren't in the pledge to begin with, is it something the average American would naturally have thought to add?

After all, nobody talks about adding "God" to the National Anthem. Why not? Because it's anti-American, that's why.

Anyone who supports God in the pledge is against liberty, against democracy, and against the principles on which our country was founded. If we equivocate on this, and the protections enshrined in the Constitution, our democracy is nothing more than a dictatorship of the masses.

Let me put it another way:

What if there was an amendment to change the pledge to read:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, FREE OF GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Surely, Christians would complain that such a pledge violated their belief in the omnipotence and supreme authority of God. However, we could argue that such an addition represents the secularism in government that was so important to the founding fathers, and important American tradition.

"But no!" The Christians would say, "We are Americans too! It's discrimination to link the American government in this pledge with an ideology that specifically is agai...

Let me put it another way:

What if there was an amendment to change the pledge to read:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, FREE OF GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Surely, Christians would complain that such a pledge violated their belief in the omnipotence and supreme authority of God. However, we could argue that such an addition represents the secularism in government that was so important to the founding fathers, and important American tradition.

"But no!" The Christians would say, "We are Americans too! It's discrimination to link the American government in this pledge with an ideology that specifically is against our personal religious beliefs! You have no right!"

And they would be right. It would be wrong to make the pledge anti-Christian, even if the founding fathers did consider secularism in government one of the most important principles of our nation. In just the same way, it is wrong to make the pledge anti-Atheists, even if most of the founding fathers appear to have believed in God.

Democracy was often derided as mob-rule, a dictatorship of popularity. How has America risen above this? Through the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, we protect the rights of the individual. Thus, even though atheists may be a minority in America, their inalienable right to hold their own opinion on the question of religion is protected. Christians can't make America a Christian nation simply because they are in the majority, just as a majority of shoplifters couldn't make shoplifting legal.

It is not sufficient to say "well, you don't have to say those words" because that will single out those individuals as somehow only partially American, or second-class citizens.

In a democracy such as ours, the government must respect all its citizens equally. Why? Because I vote. I am a part of the government. And I don't believe in God.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in America. What if, thanks to immigration, evangelism, and the victory of Al Qaeda in the War on Terror, the majority of Americans became Muslim.

What then? Would it be in keeping with our principles to adjust the pledge as follows:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the Islamic Republic for which it stands, One Nation, under God, and his Prophet Mohammad, Peace Be Upon Him, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Explain to me why adding the Prophet Mohammad P.B.U.H. to the pledge would be any different from what we have now. Granted, you wouldn't like it, but that's just because you it always sucks to be on the receiving end of civ...

Islam is the fastest growing religion in America. What if, thanks to immigration, evangelism, and the victory of Al Qaeda in the War on Terror, the majority of Americans became Muslim.

What then? Would it be in keeping with our principles to adjust the pledge as follows:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the Islamic Republic for which it stands, One Nation, under God, and his Prophet Mohammad, Peace Be Upon Him, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Explain to me why adding the Prophet Mohammad P.B.U.H. to the pledge would be any different from what we have now. Granted, you wouldn't like it, but that's just because you it always sucks to be on the receiving end of civil rights violations. Welcome to the club, get in line and take a number.

But Austin, you may say, adding the Prophet Mohammad, P.B.U.H. would respect one religion before others, that is different from including a generalized endorsement of the principle of a higher being. (Put in less sophisticated terms, I have often been told "You have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.")

But that is not true. The insertion of "under God" carries certain very specific connotations, and no body should pretend they aren't aware of them. First, not all "religions" believe in God. For instance, Buddhism, as I understand and practice it, is pretty much exclusive of the worship of gods. Exactly what constitutes a "higher being" is left intentionally vague so many can claim support, but the term "under God" is not vague. It implies a theological understanding of the world in which a single god rules supremely over the entire world. This is a view unique to the Abrahamic religions, and by virtue of its punctuation, it is exclusively Christian. (Since Muslims would use the Arabic word for God, Allah, and Jews believe that Israel is the only country that could be termed "under God.")

America is not a Christian nation, it never was, and it never will be.

Thanks, it's the story of my life.

But actually, I'm in favor of getting rid of the pledge altogether. It's used to impress children with the importance of accepting concepts that they don't fully understand, imprinting them through repetition. This is really something sinister.

Brainwashing kids through repetition of big words and catch-phrases that they don't even comprehend is something for catechism, or dictatorships, or Nike. (Just Buy It!)

Shouldn't America rise above this? Isn't the principle at the core of our nation that governance should be voluntary not compelled through force, be it force of arms or psychological manipulation?

It is important that people love America because ...

Thanks, it's the story of my life.

But actually, I'm in favor of getting rid of the pledge altogether. It's used to impress children with the importance of accepting concepts that they don't fully understand, imprinting them through repetition. This is really something sinister.

Brainwashing kids through repetition of big words and catch-phrases that they don't even comprehend is something for catechism, or dictatorships, or Nike. (Just Buy It!)

Shouldn't America rise above this? Isn't the principle at the core of our nation that governance should be voluntary not compelled through force, be it force of arms or psychological manipulation?

It is important that people love America because they understand what it means to be American, not because it's something they were told to do by their pastor and their parents.

It's these people, the ones who don't understand the principles of our nation, yet cling to it out of reactionary nationalism, that are damaging the very basis of America. America is democracy, America is freedom, America is equality, and America is both you and me.

If we forfeit liberty for security, forfeit independence for patriotism, forfeit tolerance for piety, and forfeit individualism for consensus, then we have destroyed America in order to save it.

I demand that all references to mankind should be humankind, as well as the statement all men are created equal needs to be changed to all people are created equal...

Sahara, the English word man is derived from the Old Englis word monn, which meant "person" irrespective of gender. The words for female and male humans were, respectively, cwaen and ceorl, which,in today's English, are queen and churl. so who got the better deal there? (In fact, in modern German, the word man means the same as person or people, as in the phrase man sagt, meaning "they say" as in "That's what they say".

I'm surprised that you ...

I demand that all references to mankind should be humankind, as well as the statement all men are created equal needs to be changed to all people are created equal...

Sahara, the English word man is derived from the Old Englis word monn, which meant "person" irrespective of gender. The words for female and male humans were, respectively, cwaen and ceorl, which,in today's English, are queen and churl. so who got the better deal there? (In fact, in modern German, the word man means the same as person or people, as in the phrase man sagt, meaning "they say" as in "That's what they say".

I'm surprised that you don't demand that humanity be changed to hupersonity.

Oops, I guess my degrees in linguistics and etymology are showing.

God comes from an old Germanic word which roughly translates as ask. As a noun, its meaning is something like "the invoked one". As such, it is not intended to be the name of a specific deity but a generic term for any deity. The use of god as the proper name of the biblical deity is a legacy that comes to us from the Romans, who borrowed the name of a specific god, Zeus, as deus, which was adopted by church Latin as a name. Following this etymology, any use of the word is, de facto nonsecular.

In any case, biblical tradition forbids speaking the name of the deity (Hebrew lore is full of ways of talking around this point), so if we were to adher...

God comes from an old Germanic word which roughly translates as ask. As a noun, its meaning is something like "the invoked one". As such, it is not intended to be the name of a specific deity but a generic term for any deity. The use of god as the proper name of the biblical deity is a legacy that comes to us from the Romans, who borrowed the name of a specific god, Zeus, as deus, which was adopted by church Latin as a name. Following this etymology, any use of the word is, de facto nonsecular.

In any case, biblical tradition forbids speaking the name of the deity (Hebrew lore is full of ways of talking around this point), so if we were to adhere to these strict interpretations, putting under god in the pledge is an act of blasphemy.

And by the way, things could have been worse. The original proposal for eligibility was to allow the vote only to white males over 25 who owned property.