The American Pledge of Allegiance

My English teacher brought up this rather interesting topic the other day in class and I was curious how the general population here at Sythe feels about it.

Do you feel as though the words "under God" in the Pledge are objectionable? Or possibly even unconstitutional?

I personally feel that it is unnecessarily divisive. The Pledge more or less is a way to bring the country together and make Americans feel as though they are part of something important, such as a strong nation. I do not see how keeping it in secular fashion would change the meaning at all, while not allowing any group to be offended.

The Pledge was written in 1892 by a Christian, so obviously the author did have some religious obligations but chose not to fulfill them in the form of the Pledge. It was adopted by Congress in 1942, and was later amended by President Eisenhower in 1954 to include the words "under God". Why was this change made? The Pledge had served its purpose just fine for over 60 years previous to this change. The fact of the matter is that only around 70-80% of the United States is Christian, with very low percentages of other religions. There are literally millions of Americans who are either atheist or not of the typical monotheistic Christian denomination. Why must we alienate those millions of people who do not believe in God or one particular God (implied to be the Christian God)? Before the amendment in 1954, the meaning was exactly the same and it did it in a secular fashion in which any American, regardless of their beliefs, could easily agree with.

It was our assignment to discuss this with our classmates today and while doing so I ran into a recurring problem with the Christian mindset, which seems to be "If you don't like it, don't participate!" Now I could explain how peer pressure effectively makes a person feel obligated to recite the Pledge for fear of persecution or looking unpatriotic, but that is another argument. Why, in the land of free religion, does one religion come first? Wasn't that one of America's big bonuses in the early days? You were free to come to the United States and practice any religion you want, including non-religion. The Christian mindset seems to be that if it's benefiting the majority then fuck the minority. Removing things like the words "under God" in the Pledge serves ONLY to unite the country under a more approachable premise. It does not provide any sort of disservice to the religious. Secularism does not mean that religion is not allowed, but simply that it is not advocated.

The logic that if the Pledge does not apply to you you can just not participate or plug your ears is pretty much equal to me saying that I should be allowed to express myself in a Church by saying "in evolution we trust". This is obviously a hyperbole, so don't take it super seriously, but it is truly how this type of issue makes me feel.

Thoughts?

 

ONLY? around 70-80% of the united states are christians? ONLY? lol that quite a large number and the 10% margin... but i see nothing wrong with having under god in the pledge, if you truly believe in the way you want to live your life then saying that shouldnt make you butt hurt and cry about it like a bitch. I dont care for the pledge much but im not ganna complain about it . I personally did not found this shit hole, i mean country . But im intrested in what other people say. These are just my opinions... but they may be a little astray , im pretty irritated right now... im at work and time is dragging.

 

Sorry, but why did you post if you were just going to be retarded about it lol? I'm definitely not crying about it and I'm only butt hurt because I feel like I'm being discriminated against. Would you walk up to a black person during the civil rights movement and say they're just butt hurt? I sincerely hope you are not that ignorant. It is the exact same situation, to a much lesser degree of course, but still. If you would read the post you would realize that the 20-30% of people who do not identify as Christian equates to MILLIONS of people. Are you really willing to sacrifice the support of millions of people for a line that does not effect the meaning of the Pledge? How would the meaning be ANY different without the words "under God"? Please explain that in a logical manner other than "it signifies blah blah"... basically explain how it alters the meaning of being a united country.

Also, I'd like to just point out that you did not address a SINGLE... I repeat... not a SINGLE point I made in my OP. This is not really the section to blindly throw out opinions without any sort of foundation.

 

I believe if one does not believe in God, then there really isn't a reason that this should affect them. In the same way, homosexuals don't affect people in SUCH an adverse way, other than religious nuts claiming they will go to hell. If people left gays alone everything would be fine.
This is making an issue out of a minuscule subject whilst the population in proportion is largely of a certain religious nature.

 

It differentiated the United States, a country that has historically been religious, from the atheistic communist nations that we were so vehemently opposed to during the cold war.

To say that the pledge is a violation of the first amendment is a misunderstanding of its context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_deism

 

It is advocating God, and religion by extension. Look at it from the perspective of somebody who does not believe or believes in something different. It comes off very discriminatory.

Popularity =/= correctness

The more objectivity in these types of scenarios, the wider the audience pool will be and therefore one will garner more support. Simply leaving matters involving the Church to the Church will in effect stop the alienation of persons of different belief.

I never meant to imply that it is a violation of the first amendment. While I personally believe it is, I did not really wish to discuss that here because of what you have cited. It's justifiable to the majority of people, but if we are talking just pure personal opinion it seems like an excuse for the government to impose a certain belief system on me. Also, I am pretty sure that the USA has differentiated itself by now in more ways than just religion. Just because something has held true in the past does not mean they should be left unchanged. A secular government would be good for religion as well as the government.

 

I still disagree. History means nothing as they had to begin sometime. The context makes it abundantly clear that the government is forcing the idea of a god on its people because that is what the majority wants. It is a clear violation not only of the Constitution but of the whole idea of a constitutional democratic republic. One of the main reasons for a republic is to try to do away with mob rule, which it only does to an extent. If it was added to the pledge to bring about American spirit during the Cold War, it is an obvious attempt to bring the majority of the country together regardless of the rights of the minority and that is appalling and disgraceful.

 

If you do not believe in a god, then dont say that, atleast stand up to show respect the peole around you.

 

If you don't believe in segregation, don't drink from the white fountain. See how that logic falls flat?

It's an extreme example but the point still stands

 

I don't know, I suppose I am bias because I believe in god, but then again people who don't believe in god show that same bias in the opposite direction. I know atheists who have no problem with it and I know some liberal people who believe in god that do.

I personally don't see a problem with it, it is a part of our history and in my opinion reciting the pledge does not have anything to do with believing in god or not but believing in and standing up for our country.

I guess I am in the middle, it wouldn't really matter to me if it stayed or was changed, I don't see a problem with it how it is, but I don't see a problem with it being removed either, mainly for the fact that it wasn't originally part of the pledge and was added, if it was originally part of the pledge I would be against it as it would be more historical of the original.

On semi the same topic, I wouldn't agree with taking "In God We Trust" off of money, as it is more historical dating back to 1864 first appearing on coins. To me the issue isn't as much "God" as it is keeping our country historical.

Segregation is hardly a similar argument as it does not affect anything as segregation did. Many times, not only were african americans segregated in the "seperate but equal" lines of thinking, but they also had worse situations in their segregation like bad bathrooms, bad drinking fountains, bad schools, bad public transportation, having to go farther to school then a white school would have been for them, etc..

 

No not really. There isn't any link there....

Saying God is different than decades of social hardships. I don't think atheists have had 50 years of social hardships that involve terror, murder, and racial hatred. While I see where you are coming from you also have to at least be somewhat respectful. Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean that you have to be a complete douchbag to people who have served your country and died.

Edit: And what Jimmy said.

 

It was added during the war times, to try to bolster sprints, I assume. It's simply a way for the government to get the majority on its side regardless of the rights of the minority. There have been studies that have shown a majority of people believe the words are religious in nature and that is enough to make it unconstitutional because it simply is religious. Even if you look at it in a historical sense, if you don't believe in a god, then it has no history. We can't trust in god doing things for us in the past if god does exist. No matter how you spin it, it is clearly religious and thus clearly unconstitutional.

 

What use is the pledge in the first place, other than reinforcing superstitious nationalism?

It is impossible for a country to be religious, a country is not a single mind.

Historically, Americans were not religious relative to others.

Communist nations were not atheistic, leaders were deified and superstition was just as prevalent.

This logic rules out the phrase just as easily. Would changing it to “under no god” be wrong? If not, let's make the switch.

 

Absolutely not...the founders of this nation came over for freedom of religious persecution. Saying one nation under God is truly what this nation was formed for...being under God.

 

As long as we have freedom of speech in this country, there is no reason to worry about the context of ANYTHING.

If you don't want to say "under God," don't. Nobody's going to kill you.

 

It's advertizing A God
Not The God, but A God, meaning that the god you trust is in the end, whatever god you chose, which, legally, does not promote Christianity over any other religion. Combining that with ceremonial deism, there is really no purpose to be had in arguing this point at all

 

It was formed to be free and have liberty and democratic rule.

Most of the saying of this happens in elementary school where kids do what they are told. And, my kindergarten teacher told me off about not saying the pledge. This is about government supporting religion which obviously violates the first amendment.

I choose no god and thus the government is forcing religion on me and thus it is a violation of the first amendment. Ceremonial deism assumes that everyone believes in god, which is just not the case.

 

USA was founded on religion so I say it does belong there.

 

What makes you say that?

 

Puritans needed a place to practice freedom of Religion, so they came to the US. It's a nation Under a God/God because of that.