CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
If people have other religious views than they should be excused from saying that part of the pledge. That is the minority, why should the majority be punished for such a minor thing. Also we have free speech rights
because the founders believed in individual liberty no matter what the majority thought. if the majority says you can't have a gun would you just say ok?
how are you punished if you just say the pledge (or any pledge, or prayer) on your own time?
last time i checked schools don't say the pledge due to this problem, and last time i checked kids who are Christians are losing freedom of speech and religion in schools nation wide. so who's taking things to the extreme now?
you obviously have no clue what you are talking about - most states do require schools to lead their students in reciting the pledge, some even require the kids to get their parents' permission to opt out of saying it
Because every country needs a mascot :) Beside, America is about supporting the majority, and guess what? Around 76% of Americans are Christian :) Last time I checked, they worshiped God...
it should be removed. For one, it wasn't originally in the pledge; it was added by a Christian group in the 50's. Also, America is not a "Christian nation," we were founded on the idea for religious freedom. That in lament terms means that one religion can not enforce its own beliefs over people of another religion or non at all. We have a separation of Church and state and that clearly violates that law.
it should be removed. For one, it wasn't originally in the pledge; it was added by a Christian group in the 50's. Also, America is not a "Christian nation," we were founded on the idea for religious freedom. That in lament terms means that one religion can not enforce its own beliefs over people of another religion or non at all. We have a separation of Church and state and that clearly violates that law.
I don't believe we should force someone to "under god," but we shouldn't take it out of the pledge. If the people don't want to say it then they should have the choice over whether or not.
NO, this is most deffinitely not! Our nation should not be labled as a "Christian nation" our country shouldnt be labled at all, is there a reason to make people of various or no religion say something Christian?
Recognizing something legally and/or officially is violating the Separation of Church and State. It is effectively favoring one religion over another.
So because people think we are, we must be something? Talk about giving into mainstream society peer pressure. So let's pretend your friends and your enemies think you're stupid, SIMPLY BY THAT STATEMENT ALONE and no other information included: does this mean you ARE stupid?
The 3rd recorded unanimous vote of the Senate was the ratification of the Treaty of Tripoli.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
it shows the stupidity of the 'whatever the majority is must be what the nation is' argument - the nation's population was mostly women when no women could even vote.
argumentum ad populum is just a logic fallacy used by people with no real argument
This article was written primarily to make the U.S. appear neutral when making a peace treaty with a predominantly Muslim nation. Also it should be noted that the English translation is a very sketchy one that can easily be twisted out of order. Furthermore, the majority of U.S. citizens at the time WERE Christian. There is no possible way that a government founded on the will of it's people (a democracy) cannot be swayed by the beliefs of said people.
If either of you bothered to read the constitution and the history surrounding it, you'd understand that the reason our government was founded without official church support was because Europe at the time was bitterly divided between religions and sectarian violence. Protestants and Catholics were killing each other, and only a century or two prior there was the Spanish inquisition, and the crusades against Muslims.
What makes a country theocratic, or a specific religion is WHEN the government SANCTIONS a particular CHURCH. There is no such thing as a Christian nation. The term is meaningless because there are around a hundred sects of Christianity, and an official church would exclude them all except for one.
People get riled up over seemingly small things like "under god" in the pledge, and "in god we trust" on money and our motto because these are slow but progressive affronts to our guaranteed right in this country to be able to believe what we want. It is what could be called the shadow of a greater threat, Dominionists, Christian Reconstructionists, among others who are bent upon making this country a true theocracy where only one belief is allowed. They are being allowed to succeed because they are using your in-built prejudicial support for anything with god in it.
if the entire US Senate and the President want America to appear to be neutral - then aren't we neutral?? or were all those Christians just lying to fool the Muslims?
"the Barlow translation (Article 11 included) was the text presented to, read aloud in, and ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate"
being swayed by the beliefs of the founders is far from saying that the country in perpetuity has to believe in the same religion as the founders - especially when those founders (given their religion and experience) specifically said in the Bill of Rights that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
"Also it should be noted that the English translation is a very sketchy one that can easily be twisted out of order."
Are you serious?
If I hand you a contract that's written entirely in a language that you don't understand, are you going to sign it and THEN ask me to translate it for you?
The Pledge, was never meant to hurt anyone with their religious views, in the first place. no one is forcing them to say "under god". there not going to go to jail if they dont say "under god". so why is it that by mojority, thats how people are viewing their points.?
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.
IF so then why should it be taken out it should just be left alone. ................................................................................................................................
It never states a specific god, so you could be any sort of religion that believes in a "supreme being" and not have a problem with this. So, in theory: only atheists should only have a problem with this. Right?
If jehova's Witenesses, dont believe in saluting to the flag, then they shouldnt be in the discussion. and for others "under god" can be to all of there gods.
I mean, c'mon, this is to easy. In the pledge it says "Under God" right. But which God. It does not specify which god(Christian, Islam, etc.). Really this would be offensive to someone with a religion that is not monothestic.But its their choice, I am someone who believes in that everyone should have equal rights.
Congress finds God an integral part of American heritage. Under Bill S. 2690, Congress finds that the country of the United States of America was created so people may pursue their faith in God with all of the freedoms that He endows his children. The USA was established to aid in the advancement of the Christian faith. By keeping "under God" we are keeping the reason why our country was established.
They did come to escape religious persecution, but the also believed tat people should be able to worship any religion. We shouldn't force someone to say "under god."
Although the constitution doesn't exactly change, we do have amendments. Why should we keep something one way just because the founding fathers wrote it? We don't live in the past and our laws shouldn't stay in the past. As time goes on things change.
it was written more than 100 years after the founding of our country by a socialist, and even then it didn't contain "under God" which wasn't done until June 14, 1954
"Under God" should definitely be kept in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance. Country was founded on the belief in God and that he is the almighty ruler no matter what and since 96% of Americans believe in God, why should the believers succumb to the complaints of the extreme minority of non-believers?
it was one of the main factors our country was started on and for that reason i think it should be left. it was not made in the intent to offend anyone and so why should people take it to offense. people need to realize that not everything can be exactly how they want it if everything was like that our world would be a shit hole.
Though it may seem offensive to some to others it may not. Though I am aware that it was not in the original pledge. As said in one of the arguments earlier you have every right to or not to say the pledge. If you do not say the pledge that in my personal opinion does not make you any less loyal to you country. If you do not believe part of the pledge you do not have to say it. Simple as that. In the end what will be will be and we have the right to believe what we believe.
We should not have that removed because this is a nation under God. He is the one who brought us freedom and got us through slavery he was there for us.
Do you suffer undeniable harm when you say "under God" in the pledges, something that doesn't exist to you? Why should you care? Why remove something that has been in our NATIONAL PLEDGE for over 50 YEARS! Is it really that important? God doesn't even exist to you, so why do you get offended when the word "God" is in our pledge, it doesn't go against your religion, because you don't have one. So removing "under God" is completely unnecessary
What is the harm in leaving it out? It's not like anyone is replacing it with "under Vishnu" or whatever. The current wording of the pledge alienates a significant minority. Leaving it out alienates noone. The only arguments for keeping it in are religious ones, which actually strengthens the argument for removal. Perhaps it wasn't added to endorse a specific religion (although I personally don't buy that) but it has certainly been used as an endorsement by those who argue to keep it. Instead of encouraging unity, it drives a wedge between Americans who are religious and those who aren't, although both sides love their country. Removing the phrase creates a pledge that we can ALL stand behind, and that, IMHO, is necessary.
This country was founded upon Christian beliefs. The men that signed the Declaration of independence was christians. The men that fought in the early american wars was christians.
this nation wasn't founded on religion. It was founded to be a country with freedom from a single religion. And it was founded to be a free nation. Some of the founding fathers, even George Washington was a Diest. Plus, the original pledge didn't have it in it and was written by the founding fathers. If they really wanted it in there, they would off added it when the ink was wet, not in 1953 by a Christian group.
Why were they put there in the first case? They weren't there until 1954. The US Pledge of Allegiance had no mention of God up to this time.
It doesn't matter to me, I'm not a US citizen. However, considering that these words are an affront to many people who hold no belief in God who are US citizens, it makes a mockery of that word "indivisible" which has always been in the Pledge.
So God in the pledge is not O.K because it is "an affront to many people" and although abortion and gay marriage is an affront to "many' U.S. citizens thats a choice.
Abortion and gay marriage aren't mentioned in the pledge. Nor should they be. However, the USA is a country that prides itself on many things, including its separation of church and state. To include words that denote a pledge, not only to the country, but also to theism, means that many proud US citizens who aren't theists are placed in the situation where they may have to lie if they wish to recite the pledge. This wasn't the case until recently. As can be shown:
Up to 1892 the pledge read “I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”
In 1892 it was changed to "I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." (changed text in bold)
In 1923 it became "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."
In 1924 it became "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."
In 1954 it was changed to "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."
Suddenly it went from a secular statement to a religious one.
My point is that God is an "Affront" to some people so the majority has to give in to them yet on other issues that are affronts to a Majority (I think) its an issue of choice. I say if people have a problem don't say the word but leave it for the rest of us.
The biggest problem, as I see it, is that it's a violation of the separation of church and state. By keeping it in the pledge, it becomes a government endorsement of religion. That separation of church and state is defined within the First Amendment, isn't it?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
The Pledge of Allegiance, i.e. the words you say when pledging your alliance to your nation, establishes and endorses religion and religious faith.
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The issue wasn't the government endorsing religion it was the government endorsing one religion over another. The U.S. was built on a foundation of jewish/Christian values.
So when the Pedge of Allegiance makes specific use of the term "God" in the singular, does this not endorse monotheistic belief over polytheistic belief? Or over non-theistic belief (and yes, some religions are founded upon non-theism)? This seems to me to clearly be the government endorsing one type of belief over another.
god represents all deities. My feeling is one true god, people just choose to worship this god in different ways, its still the same god. If the pledge mentioned a rock or a tree would that be endorsing a religion? If you don't like it, don't say it.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
You prove my point that the "separation of church and state' comes from letters written after the fact not the Constitution.
Religion makes only one direct and obvious appearance in the original Constitution that seems to point to a desire for some degree of religious freedom. That appearance is in Article 6, at the end of the third clause:
[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
This statement is simple and straight-forward, and applies to all offices in the entire United States, both state and federal. The clause simply means that no public position can be required to be held by any one of any religious denomination. It would be unconstitutional for there to be a requirement that the President by Lutheran, or even for the mayor of a small town to be Christian. Likewise, it would be unconstitutional for a law to forbid a Jew or Muslim from holding any office in any governmental jurisdiction in the United States.
i think you put too much stock in your "point" - that the words were used after the fact by the guy who inspired the language in the first amendment (http://www.religioustolerance.org/amend_1.htm) in order to explain it, certainly doesn't mean the idea doesn't exist; it is now just used as a shorthand reference to the establishment clause of the first amendment.
religion makes a nice big prominent appearance in the Bill of Rights:
Congress shall make no law "respecting an establishment of religion"
but in 1954 congress passed a law putting "under god" in the US pledge.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means the government can not favor one religion over an other but it can favor "religion" God is universal, if it said on nation under Jesus that would be an argument, it doesn't.
This is true. There is and should be a separation of church and state. But you misunderstand it's meaning. The Constitution defines this separation as prohibiting the government from passing any laws about how people believe or don't believe and any practices thereof. It does NOT however, prohibit references to God in government associated documents or pledges.
Why can't one pledge their allegiance to their country without also pledging it to some mythical creature?
I personally find those who insist upon vocally pledging anything to anything to be the least informed on what they are pledging to, as demonstrated by the other side of this debate.
Like it or not, and the revisionists aside, this country was founded under the idea that government and religion should always remain separate. While many founders held some belief in some Christian type god, many were also deists. In fact one of the most instrumental founders, Thomas Jefferson was very vocal about his anti-clerical views, and even wrote the "Jefferson Bible" in which he simply took a Bible and cut out all of the stuff about Jesus.
Regardless of their personal views on religion though, it is pretty evident they never would have approved the Pledge of Allegiance as it stands.
And I saw a couple of links above to some bogus sources that purposefully mis-define words like deism to fit their religious views (in other words, revisionist history)
Here is a solid source for what the US forefathers really thought of religion. link
You have to keep in mind it was a different time. Today one cannot disbelieve the Bible and at the same time go to church and be friendly because zealotry is rampant right now. I mean even on this site it is nearly impossible, with the exception of literally one semi-theistic person I've had a debate with, to get a religious person to make any sense on their view for even an instant.
Back then though, one could question god without the foaming at the mouth and righteous indignation found today. Hence, a person like Washington who was never baptized, never confirmed, never "found jesus" etc. could still go to a church for the lessons taught there about sharing and being nice and whatnot.
Here are some direct quotes from some of our founding fathers, for those who insist the likes of Jefferson and Paine would want anything to do with this religious born-again zealotry now mandatory from our political leaders, otherwise the Christian horde would have their necks:
Thomas Jefferson:
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Thomas Paine:
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."
"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."
"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."
"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance."
And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."
It's maddening how the religions right has hijacked both the Bible, and now this country's founders.
None evoke the name of the founders more than the Palins of the world, yet no where in any political party in this country will you find less in common with the founders.
"Real America" as the religious right likes to arrogantly and blindly call itself, never in a million years would have elected any one of our first 20 or so presidents.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in a private letter, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." sounds like a man who truly believes in God, maybe not the bible but thats not the question.
As for Thomas Paine's Quote it sounds like he believes! just not in the new testament.
George Washington said in his first inaugural address; Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either.
Thomas Jefferson again said in his inaugural address, enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence.
And conclude with "And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity." sounds like he believed as well!
as for your last statement I don't think the Democrat party would have voted for our currant president, in say 1869, the 15 Amendment was passed by "Real America".
Your entire argument highlights your misunderstanding of what terms meant in that era.
Like I said kind of, one at that time could evoke the name of god and not believe in the Christian god.
How anyone earth can you claim that Thomas Jefferson would have wanted anything to do with the Jesus nuts trying to turn this into a Christian nation, when he wrote his own version of the Bible in which he removed everything about Jesus is a mystery.
As for Thomas Paine, what are you talking about? He disliked Christianity even more than me if that is even possible.
It is truly ridiculous and a sign of the deep psychosis Christians suffer from that everyone but apparently Christians can see so obviously.
The fact is based on real things that they really wrote, and not what right wing sites made up, there is no way the signers or any of our founding documents would have called this a Christian nation.
Today, "under god" is used like a stick by the Christians to beat down the rest of America that doesn't believe the silly ass superstition. There was a time when you could say god, or "great spirit," and it was not specific to anything.
Christians hijack everything though in order to validate their dilusions. So Washington says one or two times "god" and every Christian is like "see we're a christian state! burn the witches!"
Meanwhile the real Washington never took a communion, and only went to church "socially" and for lessons and such as I mentioned. plus there is the quotes I provided
I'll tell you what, you somehow end the Christian freakin' jihad, get Christians to stop crying everytime someone doesn't want tax payer money to be spent on a freakin crucifix in a courthouse, get them to stop with the lame "war on christmas" which is nothing but a figment of their fevered imagination,
then I'll stop dumping on the silly religion.
till then, I'll continue to point out how ridiculous it is and how silly it is to have anything about god in a pledge of allegience.
To be honest, I wouldn't care about god in the pledge if Christians weren't so damn clueless, illogical, and insistant that everyone else drink the koolaid.
As to your last paragraph, the Democratic Party did not exist as it is today. I know how much the right wing loves to use that example, but afraid much like the idea that the founders were a bunch of born again Christians, is a myth.
You see, back then Republicans were the North and Democrats the South. They switched issues. Unless you think there was a mass simultanuous migration and immigration both directions simultaneously, the Democratic Party of yore was the father of the current Republican Party, and vice versa.
I think our communication problem is when you hear "God" you think Jesus and you assume I'm a Christian and you think the
"Christians hijack everything though in order to validate their dilusions" As for "There was a time when you could say god, or "great spirit," and it was not specific to anything" you are correct it meant the local Bartender. Washington and I do have something in common, we don't take Communion.
But it is for the most part the Jesus people who try to claim we're a Christian nation,
and it is also the Jesus people spreading misinformation about the forefathers.
Regardless of the which flavor Koolaid you happen to be drinking,
The fact is most of the founders of the US either didn't drink Koolaid, or at the very least didnt' want to force others to drink Koolaid.
Great, you don't take Communion and you had that in common with George Washington. But George Washington occassionally visited churches where nearly everyone else did, and in the words of one of the other founding fathers of the time his not taking communion was "conspicuous"
That he didn't take communion was not to highlight he didn't believe in Jesus, which he didn't,
it was to highlight that he was not at church for any religious reason at all.
As stated, he went socially, and for the lessons taught as far as the best sources and his own words tell us.
The Debate is "Under God" not under Jesus, try to stay focused! Washington believed in a "supreme being" or the "Grand Artificer of the Universe" God if you will!
None of which in any way addresses the fact that the argument that the forefathers would have wanted the pledge to contain an allegience to god is just wrong.
You stay focused.
"Under God" should not be in the pledge because Church and State should be separate.
"Under God" should not be in the pledge because Church and State should be separate.
the separation of church and state is from the Federalist papers not the constitution. the constitution says freedom of religion not freedom from religion. If you don't like it don't say it.....I don't like abortion so I will not have one, but I will not prevent you from having one........even?
The Pledge was originally totally secular. It was altered in the 1950's at the urging of religious groups to show that, unlike Communist Russia, we were "under God".
However, as a people, we have the right of religious freedom, but also freedom from religion. Religious views should have nothing to do with an expression of appreciation for a country in which we have this freedom.
The freedom of religion as described in the U.S. Constitution NEVER says that things associated with the U.S. can't have any references to God. It only states that the government cannot make laws regarding how people believe or don't believe. Making references to god does not qualify as lawmaking.
The Congress added "under god" to the pledge. They did so by enacting legislation [1] which was signed into law by President Eisenhower. That most certainly qualifies as law making.
The 1954 House Report of the legislators who inserted the "under God" phrase into the pledge of allegiance said that the "under God" phrase was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator."
That sounds like a law about what we are to believe.
"I have a right to bring up my daughter without God being imposed into her life by her schoolteachers."
Christians would not be very glad "if the atheists were in the majority and if the atheists inserted into the pledge of allegiance the phrase 'one nation under NO God.'"
So says the atheist who's case was heard by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, they made no ruling about the constitutionality of the Pledge, only ruling that the man had no standing to bring the case to court.
"The Congress added "under god" to the pledge. They did so by enacting legislation [1] which was signed into law by President Eisenhower. That most certainly qualifies as law making."
This is a law, however, it was never made to ENFORCE ANY RELIGION whatsoever.
"The 1954 House Report of the legislators who inserted the "under God" phrase into the pledge of allegiance said that the "under God" phrase was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator.""
This is true, however, There is no place in this law that enforces any religion.
It may emphasize it, but it does not demand you to follow it. If you don't believe it then DON"T SAY IT!
A parent has the right to teach his or her children their ethical beliefs and their understanding of religion. Atheists have no awareness of the existence of God; some actively deny the existence of any deity. As an atheist parent has said about the Pledge of Allegiance, "Every day at school, my child is asked to say that her father is a liar."
Imagine you are a child who is forced to make the choice to recite Pledge of Allegiance or be belittled, harassed, insulted, and assaulted.
Imagine that you are a Jewish student. You are asked to reciting a pledge that an Atheist -- a person who has no belief in the existence of a God -- wrote: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, without God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Imagine that you are a Christian, and you were forced to read a pledge written by an Wiccan -- a person who follows an earth-centered religion, and believes in the existence of a God and a Goddess: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under the God and Goddess, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"That is the situation today for millions of Americans who do not believe they are 'under' God. Some find God within their own hearts. Others believe they are part of -- not under -- a sacred universe. Still others do not believe in God at all. Yet every day the religious beliefs of these patriotic Americans are violated by our government in schools, in public meetings...anywhere the Pledge Of Allegiance is led and spoken."
The concept of god is religious, and congress shall make no law respecting such an establishment, or prohibiting it. You completely miss the point anyway, separation of church and state was to prevent religious in-fighting. How would YOU feel if our nation's motto was "In Allah we trust" or the pledge was "one nation, under Allah, indivisible" etc.
True there is religious implication in it, but it does not demand you to believe in God. THAT is the point that I think YOU are missing. If it said in Allah we trust, I simply wouldn't say it. The law putting god in the pledge does not force you to be religious.
True there is religious implication in it, but it does not demand you to believe in God. THAT is the point that I think YOU are missing. If it said in Allah we trust, I simply wouldn't say it. The law putting god in the pledge does not force you to be religious.
You already made your rebuttal when you said True there is religious implication in it because our government forbids public institutions (those institutions which are government funded) from receiving government support if they are religious. It's as simple as that.
If you can't understand that a religious endorsement is the same as a political endorsement, then you need to study history, especially pre-renaissance Europe. You keep wanting to support movements which are the thin edge of a theocratic wedge, because those movements presently serve your interests. You aren't able to appreciate that a free society demands responsibility on your part, a commitment to not entangle religion and politics, and a watchful eye against those groups who claim to be your friends but are using you to establish power.
Why should it be taken out? Look at George Washington and Abraham lincoln. They are one of the greatest people in American history yet both of them were Christian. "One nation Under God" will make our nation great.
once a majority of people in the US are agnostic or atheist - will this be an "agnostic nation"?
should we make the pledge - one nation under NO god... and then have school teachers lead all kids in saying that pledge but you can stay seated if you are that minority of kids that still believes in the invisible man?
Then that will just validate their "Christians are discrimaneted against" bs theory and we'd have them strapping bomb to themselves in the name of Allah... or I mean god, whatever.
Talking sense to the religious about religion is like trying train fish to... I don't know where I'm going with that, but you get the point.
"Christians are discrimaneted against" Well we kinda are. In the Capital building of texas, the statue of the 10 commandments was removed because it offended someone when they walked in. But no one makes a islamic woman take of her head dress in public. Also in school, christian students can be arrested for having a bible in class, but no islamic people are arrested for head wraps or indian people for wearing the jewel on their forehead. Maybe some christians find that offensive.....
This is the difference between individual freedom and governmental. The Constitutions first amendment is meant to protect the people from governmental attacks on religion, speech, and press. The actions of individuals on other individuals is not outlined by the through religious law. Your ideology about an Islamic individual with a hijab can be equated to a Christian with a cross. Now, the Capital building in Texas should not be affiliated with any religion. It would be equally horrid to have it supported by the five pillars of Islam in comparison to the 10 Commandments.
An Islamic headress doesn't have "thou shall have no gods above me" written on it, and the woman's headress isn't paid for by tax dollars.
And again with this Christian victimization bs. Please read my replies to JesusFreak. Christians have virtually all of the power in this country. All but about 30 (exact numbers on the other side) of our nearly 500 lawmakers are Christian. We have 0 atheist representatives. And I've looked but have not found a single case of a Christian being arrested for having a Bible. There is either more to that story, like the student was yelling "god hates fags" and happened to have a Bible, or I believe you are making it up.
It happened in a school near the Dallas-Metroplex area( less than 150 mi from my high school). The teacher asked him times to put it away and the boy left it sitting on his desk. She said that it was offending other classmates and herself, but he still refused. So she took the bible threw it into the trash and escorted him to the office and it escalated from there. Our bible study teacher (classes before school) is the one who read it from a local news channel, then he reported his findings to us
I guess we're ignoring that a muslim headdress doesn't say to worship a specific god on it, or that it is not paid for by tax dollars. That's okay, it's a pretty indefensible position.
Anyway, I've again scoured the internet for articles in the Dallas area that even mentioned the words bible and student anywhere within. All I found were kids getting raped by bible study teachers.
1. It's highly improbable that a minor was arrested for anything short of a felony in the US ever in the last 20 years.
2. It sounds like the kind of propaganda Christians pawn off on the ignorant to enforce this victim delusion you and JesusFreak seem to suffer from.
3 And finally even if the student was sent to the principal's office it sounds like what the book happened to be had 0 to do with it. Seems like they would have received the same punishment had it been any book on earth that the child refused to put away after repeatedly being asked to.
Like, if I'm in school, and say I have a ball of rubber bands on my desk and the teacher says it's a distraction, and I refuse to put it away after being told several times - guess what, I'd be sent to the principal's office.
Don't worry, you are not the first one that a bible study teacher lied to. People have been making up stories about that book for about 1700 years.
"But no one makes a islamic woman take of her head dress in public"
An Islamic woman is not a piece of property, much less government owned property. You honestly don't know the difference between a government building, at which no religion can be endorsed, and a private individual of faith?
"christian students can be arrested for having a bible in class."
Prove it. Provide one piece of evidence from a reliable source this has ever happened. I doubt it has.
But, again, you can not distinguish between a government owned building, in this case a school, and people with certain cultural customs.
Also, its not a matter of "being offended", it's a matter of religious symbols or objects on government owned property.
Three strikes and you are out of the game. Sorry, but them's the rules. :)
There is no need for this in our NATIONAL pledge. If the churches want a pledge, they should get one but, the church should be kept far from the country policies. Isn't that part of why we had the revolutionary war??? ~ to get freedom of religion
Even if you believe that God is the driving force of this country, you can't believe that we have done a great job (Iraq, South America) of holding any truth as the Light of the World that you claim we are with your divinity.
We are a nation, not all of us claim to be under God. Let it be done and let's move on.
... Your comment originally said South America and Iraq... Did you just change it then downvote me for pointing out S. America has more Christians than the US?
It said i havn't been online sincel last night. I just turned my computer on. Yo escribir más rápido en español. ¿Por qué no todas las personas bilingües?
Judaism, Christianity and islam all have the same god. They have additional texts they use or don't use but they have the same god. The torah, or the old testament is used by all three.
Yes, that is one thing i have done research and came to an understanding with. But Christianity believes in Jesus Christ, he is the one, they and myself pray to most of the time. Judaism believes in Jesus Christ but not in the same spiritual context as christianity. They do not think Christ has come a second time like the Christians do. Islam believes that Jesus Christ was a disciple of God, but their main man is Muhammad. But the country was founded on CHRISTIAN beliefs not judaism, islam, hindu, etc.
This country was not founded on Christian beliefs. The founding fathers were deists, Christians, and agnostics/atheists. However what they were or wern't doesn't matter, this country was in-fact founded on philosophy, such as the social contract theory, not religion. If it was founded on Christianity, which was around 1700 years before this country you would think the ideas so important to america would of came up a lil sooner don't cha; like before america was even found by European kings, or before there was medieval kings even.
Judaism believes christ never came the first time
Christians think christ will come a second time and that he has already once. (unless your Mormon then he came over to america after he was resurrected)
Muslims think jesus is a important historical figure but not the son of god.
Islam they don't believe in the same God Christians and Jews. They say that Jesus was a prophet and he came down from the cross and became a muslim with them and that he never rose from the grave. When God did die on the cross and rose from the grave on the 3rd day. Also its specifically said that Jesus is the Son of God not a prophet. Prophets are people like Daniel Ezekial, Isaiah and many more prophets from the Bible.
Its the same god, and (most of) the same prophets but they believe that previous texts before the Qur'an and hadiths were corrupted so they differ on the details. Well you can be picky, generally speaking its the same god.
They believe Christ lived and wanted to live subservient to god as subservience was defined for his time frame, and that thus makes him a Muslim(which is how they define the term)
the whole pledge itself is useless - who are you pledging to? what repercussions are there if you don't keep your pledge? why do we have people that have no idea what the pledge means saying it (including 1st graders)? does an elementary school child know their position on god? the complexities of a republic, whether saluting a flag is idolatrous? do they know that even though the teacher doesn't tell them they can remain seated, that they can, as long as they are willing to be ostracized?
when it reminded people of the Nazis, they shouldn't have just changed the salute, they should have said let's not indoctrinate children.
"Features: Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Bookmark Craft and learning learning activities: shapes, colors, citizenship. Discuss taking care of our school. A number of United States public and/or private schools require learning The Pledge of Allegiance in early elementary, usually first grade -- these materials can be useful for introducing this topic."
The pledge of allegiance has done much damage to this country.
It is used as a tool against everything the flag stands for and thus the only way to pledge allegiance to america is not to ever say or stand for the pledge.
The United States is not a "Christian" nation in the sense that it is a theocracy. People are certainly free to express their religion as they choose. However, adopting a pledge that alienates ANY significant portion of the populace is decidedly unAmerican. Leaving "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance only serves to strengthen the incorrect idea that one cannot be a patriot without embracing Christianity. What our founding fathers intended should never be the issue. Their opinions and decisions reflected the society in which they existed. Our decisions should do the same. As our understanding grows, our ideas about what equality and freedom mean should be adjusted.
I agree the government should not be run by religion. But a reference here and there about God is not in any way controlling our government. A lot of it is heritage. Early America was primarily Christian, and a significant amount of American history reflects that.
Yes. It respects an Establishment of religion therefore it violates the First Amendment. If a valid challenge were brought before the SCOTUS, it would fail the test outlined in Lemon v. Kurtzman. The SCOTUS has been too chicken shit to address the matter, so they don't hear the arguments based on standing grounds. The day when a challenger wants to fund the costly litigation to hire the appellate attorneys to handle this case and has standing to do so, the court will either find the words "under God" violate the Establishment clause...or they're going to create some new test to analyze these issues to keep it in.
we should save ourselves the money it takes to fight the lawsuits,
the time and money it takes teachers to create lesson plans about the pledge and lead in reciting it every day,
save the time and money of police officers who get called out to arrest people for not saying the pledge (usually arrested in error +, but some states do require a parents permission to not say the pledge ++)
and the productivity that people like us could be capable of if we weren't having this debate
It is a clear violation of the separation of church and state that wasn't even added until the 50s. I feel the same way as a Christian would pledging allegiance to "one nation under Allah" or "one nation under no god".
