Is "under God" in the American Pledge of Allegiance appropriate?
Say the pledge as written. It is not open to change. If you can't say it. Don't say it.
It wasn't always written the way it currently is.
That would imply that we're all members of the abrahamic religions.
Or that we're a theocracy
Then again I can go ahead and say that "under god" is referring to Eris so whatever
No it's not appropriate but I don't think there's a reason for people to be very upset about it. It should be be there but there's really no point in changing it.
POA is the stupidest thing anyway. I don't need to "pledge my allegiance" to a flag everyday to be loyal to our country. Nor does pledging your allegiance make you loyal. It's dumb to have kids do it every morning before school, by high school most don't even bother with it anymore because they've realized how idiotic it is.
Put God in it or not, I don't care. As long as no one is forced to say it, or forces them to say God, then I'm not bothered. Teachers actually had the audacity to try and give students detention for not standing. Yeah thank god that didn't slide with our principle.
Well, it is a truth that we are all under God, whether we believe in him or not.
So God is Shrodinger?
Yes, totally. It reflects the general view of the Founders, who certainly included God in the Declaration of Independence. And it does not violate the First Amendment in any way. The modern concept of "Separation of Church and State" is completely false, having been formulated by Progressivist Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in the early 20th century. As the Founders intended it, that "separation" was a one-way wall which protected the Church from State interference, and NOT the other way around. In fact, the Founders were so unopposed to religion in government spaces, etc., that one of Jefferson's first official acts as President was to institute weekly religious services in the House chambers of the Capitol Building in Washington DC. It was then one of the largest meeting rooms in the city, so he thought it logical to use it for church services, and no one ever thought to object. This proves the consensus at that time about the First Amendment.
The pledge of allegiance isn't appropriate.
You're already worshipping an idol but you get worked up about one word. Listen to the rest of the words, there's plenty to be more worried about.
And if it bothers you, just skip that part. Easy. Next "issue" please.
Well over God sounds a wee bit presumptuous.
Touché! Well played, my friend! :^D
Absolutely not. Not everyone is Christian or even believes in a deity. The POA wasn't written with that phrase. It needs to be removed.
Well, we've become accustomed to it.
Separation of church and state, having it is inappropriate
Historically incorrect. See my comments above.
Not at all. And it wasn't there originally; it was inserted during the cold war. I remember when it changed.
Me too. and I kept forgetting every morning at school.
I think it's abbot unnecessary but I don't think we should spend the money replacing everything
I don't think it belongs there but I don't think I'd go as far to say inappropriate. Unnecessary, perhaps, but not inappropriate. And definitely not worth any cost of printing new money and disposing of the old .
What does this have to do with money
Snowball effect. It starts with the pledge. If it got removed there, those who want it scrubbed from everywhere will move onto money next. There are way bigger fish to fry than this one.
Well talk about the issue presented rather than arguing against things no one brought up
Don't tell me how to live my life
No, it was never supposed to be there.
Yes. It was placed there on purpose to aggravate atheists. 😀
Love it! :^D
And every other religion that doesn't have one god? Why would you aggravate nearly every religion but one in a country founded on religious freedom.
More than appropriate
Not even remotely, but what are you gonna do? Lots of cowards back in the 50s, desperate for magic to save them from the big bad communists.
Just like today with "muslims," nothing changes
It was "Iranians" in-between times.
It isn't, nor is in God we trust appropriate to be printed on our money.
Freedom of religion means you can worship as you please but church and state are separate.
For the same reason, I don't want churches to have to display the US flag.
This user is currently being ignored
I don't think it's a question of age.
I'm early generation X btw.
Well the money is printed by private banks....
Praet, I thought you understood "separation of Church and State." See my comments at top.
I dont think it's inappropriate. I just think its odd that i had to repeat it in school. Woo separation of church and state and individual thinking!
Separation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution.
I never said it was.
You don't have to
What's the first Amendment then??
@tekaishi please dont debate for me. I was not bringing up the 1st amendment. From here on out im not part of this.
First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;......there is nothing here about prayer in schools or a Bible in the courtroom or the display of the 10 Commandments in a government building. What you have are liberal judges who use "judicial creativity" to go beyond what is in the 1st Amendment....including the separation of church and state.
Exactly, Glock! See my comments at top to learn who the real culprit was.
Who does it harm
Non-theists who feel like they are intentionally being made social outcasts by the wording.
So no one
Not non-theists. Only anti-theists.
They make themselves social outcasts. It does not harm them or exclude them from participating in seasonal activities even if they don't believe
@malekithe I disagree on the idea that it affects no-one. As of a poll in 2012, up to 20% of the US public had no significant religious identity and self-identified agnostics and atheists made up an estimated 13 million people in the US, which as of 2013 was half the population of Texas. www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/
As for making themselves social outcasts, what precisely do you mean and how do they do so?
Lux, please, please don't send all the agnostics and atheists here to Texas! I'm begging you! We already have far too many of them in Austin. :^D
I hurts no one.
I am not religious at all and am not bothered in the least by those who do.
Words like In god we trust or Christmas displays in public locations do not bother me at all.
No one has tried to force a religion on me. We cannot be threatened by someone else expressing their faith. I have been to Christmas parties, Jewish holiday events and Muslim holiday events. I enjoy the company and the atmosphere without it effecting or changing my non beliefs.
At worst someone may ask you to go to their place of worship. Oh the horrors! Just say no thanks.
Don't like a nativity scene? Don't look at it. I find them kind of festive and i look at the spirit and good will that is being expressed this tine of year as a positive.
@malekithe as private displays, I agree, but when it becomes codified in something government endorsed, it starts to cross borders.
@Fiat. It doesn't cross anything at all. A Government building with a Christmas Tree, a Menorah, or a Festivus pole doesn't impose a religion on me or anyone else.
While having only one of those present instead of say the top ten in the area is indeed a breach of church/state separation, having an oath of office explicitly invoking a deity (religious test for office) when a sizable portion of the population doesn't believe in any would present a far more problematic imposed breach the same way invoking a deity in an oath of allegiance does.
It is not a breach of separation of church and state at all.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
A religious symbol, prayer or mention of god in no way equates to establishing a state religion or prohibits anyone from free exercise of a different religion or no religion.
Lux, remember that one of Jefferson's first acts as President was to establish religious services in the House chamber of the Capitol Building in Washington DC. No one objected, and the services continue their throughout his presidency. He chose the House chamber because it was one of the largest meeting rooms in the city, with no thought to any conflict with the First Amendment as the Founders intended it. This is because they intended the "wall of separation between Church and State," as Jefferson called it in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists, to be a one-way wall which protected the Church from State interference, not the other way around. You have probably never heard this, because Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (early 20th c.) twisted and misinterpreted the doctrine of Church and State separation to mean something entirely different: a YUGE forty-foot wall (which he undoubtedly intended to make the Church pay for) to keep the Church out of State property/ceremonies.