Should the words "under God" be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance
Yes
Side Score: 46
|
 |
No
Side Score: 20
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. Regardless of whether you feel patriotism and loyalty to a government are good things, a government should not consider spiritual belief a part of it's requirement for loyalty. Separation of church and state are founding principles for our government, and a good idea all around. Also, it's spelled allegiance. Side: yes
Being asked to pledge allegiance to "one nation under god" means two things: first, it is declaring that the nation is Christian (it is heavily implied that it refers to the Christian God, let's not be intellectually dishonest and pretend otherwise, alright?) and it is requesting that citizens pledge allegiance to that god. This is a clear violation of separation of church and state. Side: yes
"Under God" as a statement in the pledge does not mandate religeous belief nor does it exhert undue influence on the workings of government. God is a religious idea (and a reference to Christianity), therefore placing it in a secular pledge, in a country where a large percentage of people are Christian, is an undue form of state preference. Side: yes
From an historical standpoint, the founders of the United States made it perfectly clear that they were founding a secular nation between the Establishment Clause, the Treaty of Tripoli, and numerous other writings by the founding fathers. The phrase "under God" wasn't even added until 1954. If anyone here is suggesting that we should abandon this ideal no matter what the founders intended, I would ask if you would feel the same way if your religion weren't the dominant one. How many of you would pledge your allegiance to a Muslim or Hindu nation? Whenever religions and politics mix, it always leads to liberties being lost and unnecessary bloodshed. If you want to believe in an invisible puppet-master in the sky that is your business, but don't associate it in any way with our national identity. Side: yes
Yes, it is important to remove that phrase. I find it highly disrespectful that they recognize the Christian god over my god, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. While it is not directly stated, the Christian god is the one they are implying rather than the FSM. I find it highly offensive for our government to take that stance. Although it is a minor infraction, and the FSM will most likely forgive those of you who continually disrespect him by uttering "under God", it is important to save the future's souls by withdrawing this phrase immediately. Side: yes
Indeed as Crono says, this phrase is disrespectful to the Flying Spaghetti Monster who created everything after all. I know this because I really really feel it in my heart and if you don't you just don't understand and have to open your life the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It says so in the Flying Spaghetti Monster Bible so it must be true. Plus loyalty to one's nation in which they reside and pay taxes should not be Dependant on a god they do not believe in. But mostly it's due to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Side: yes
I don't think we should even have a Pledge of Allegiance to anything other than humanity. But yes it should be removed because it's government endorsement of religion, so it's not allowed. In fact, we shouldn't even pledge allegiance to humanity but to Goodness and love for all life. Side: yes
|
Should the words "under God" be removed from the Pledge of All[e]giance Let’s first consider the terms of the pledge. They are: 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. Let’s now ask a question. Should a Christian pledge his/her allegiance to a ‘flag’ and its ‘republic’ when it, their pledge of allegiance, is in direct conflict with the will of the God of Jesus Christ as represented in the Bible? Now before someone dare attempt to answer ‘yes’, and consequently justify that answer by perverse interpretations of the bible, the same should first carefully consider a few matters. a) Where in the scriptures of the Bible is it written that a believer should pledge allegiance to a flag or a republic in lieu of allegiance to God? b) Where in the scriptures of the Bible is it written that a believer should pledge allegiance to a republic and its flag as well as God? c) Where in the scriptures of the Bible is it written that a believer should pledge allegiance to anything other than God? d) Where in the scriptures of the Bible is it written that God sanctions and demands a “pledge of allegiance” with the qualifier “under God”? e) Why are American Christians the most ardent supporters of the term “under God” in the pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States when they should be wholly indifferent to the pledge itself? Especially since they should not be pledging allegiance to anything other than God! But regardless of what I understand of both the scriptures and the inconsistencies of Christian practices as measured by the Bible, I can boldly affirm that no man who calls himself a Christian is justified by the words of the bible by swearing his allegiance to a “flag” and/or a “republic” by the qualification “under God”. Furthermore, no Christian should have any input on any question that is centered upon choosing the terms of the Pledge of Allegiance; unless of course he is an idolater who serves himself despite the God, of whom, he proclaims he is servant. Conclusion: Whether the pledge reads “under God”, “under Satan”; or “under Obama”, the only people who should be debating the selection of terms for the pledge should be the ones who do not associate themselves with the God of the Bible. Yet, it appears this debate, on a national scale, is one the most ‘holy’ of ‘holies’ among, paradoxically, CHRISTIANS. As for me, I say thus: “Let all men, who hold the “pledge of allegiance” near and dear to their heart, decide the terms of their ‘promise’, which is an oath, while excluding the opinions of those who have done nothing but demonstrate pseudo, dual allegiance!” No man can serve two masters… Side: No
2
points
the only people who should be debating the selection of terms for the pledge should be the ones who do not associate themselves with the God of the Bible. I agree with you here. How about the people who aren't Christian? Why should they pledge allegiance under the Christian God? Side: yes
Firstly, I apologize for intentionally avoiding the question of this debate. Consider my post an attack against dual-allegiance as evidenced by Christians, so called. Now, in answer to your question, “How about the people who aren't Christian?”: I must affirm that I have no desire whatsoever to determine which words people choose in swearing allegiance to a flag or a republic. Swearing one’s allegiance is not some prescribed recital of another person’s ideal for swearing allegiance as the acceptable form of the recital of allegiance. The swearing of allegiance is, of all things, a personal conviction which is not subject to the conviction of another’s opinion and intention. Or said another way: if a person chooses to swear allegiance to something, the same person is the sole authority for determining the terms and conditions of allegiance. No other person, or group of persons, has a natural right to determine how any man or woman swears allegiance. Let alone determining that which qualifies as an oath of allegiance. Side: Yes
3
points
Like I said to all these debates. In my years in school, I have recited the Pledge of Allegiance more than a thousand times, and never in my opinion did I feel like I was being brainwashed into believing in God. The two-word reference to God inside our routine civic exercise is not a prayer, nor was it meant to be one. When the words "under God" were added to the Pledge on Flag Day of June 14, 1954, it emphasized the American tradition of faith written in the Declaration of Independence. President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved the addition, saying, "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 and war." Those who go against the Pledge know nothing of the values placed by the U.S. Constitution and basically are spitting in the face of our Founding Fathers. These are the grounds on which our country stands. Had there been a question of the meaning of the added clause when it was first presented in 1954, perhaps we wouldn't be having this debate now. But for more than 50 years, this has been the law, and it should stay that way. Plus, this issue must be examined in context. Taking out the words 'under God' would start a whole series of ridiculous modifications, each affecting every little aspect of our lives. Will we be banned from singing "God Bless America"? Will the term "so help me God" be taken out of the pledge as the president is sworn in? Are the mints going to need to reproduce billions in new currency because "In God we trust" just won't cut it? And I'm sure even Michael Newdow, the man who took the case to court when he said the Pledge was unconstitutional, uses His name in vain like many of us do. No, there is no need to take out or substitute the words "under God" from our Pledge of Allegiance. In fact, the law doesn't even require teachers to force their students to say the pledge if they choose not to. If you've got a problem with saying the pledge, then don't say it. It's that simple. Citizens are so lucky to be in a country as free as the United States. Other countries, where religion is the way of life, aren't so flexible. Stop trying to change the words. They were put there for a reason. And they have worked peacefully for half a century. The Pledge is not just words - it represents our restored faith in our country. If people want to change the Pledge, then perhaps they should change countries. Side: No
2
points
|
