Pledge

[Aserenity]

no, if it aint broke don't fix it. Its worked this long. Stop trying to be so damn politicly correct!

but resticting it you're just putting more power behind the words.

[Guest Madapple]

Well, I voted.

This is really an interesting question, especially when so much of this country (USA) in infused with accusations of anti-patriotism, starting with our President, "If you're not with us, you're 'agin' us." The 'under God' portion of the pledge was added under Eisenhower, so it's been in the pledge about 50 years. But, according to a friend of mine, David, who is in his 70's, the 'under God' portion wasn't the only change that has occurred to the pledge. According to him, putting the hand over the heart wasn't in practice until the Nazi's came into power. Before that, school children and countless others would hold their right hand up, palm faced upward toward the flag, to say the pledge. Apparently, this looked too much like the old Nazi salute for comfort. Of course, I don't know whether or not this is true. I took David's word for it, he was there after all.

It's also interesting that the citizens of a country, supposedly founded on principles of freedom including speech and religion, are subjected to the "us or them" mentality.

Dissent is a right, this country was founded by European dissenters. Of course, our paranoid government, who if they want to change things, should take a look at their foreign policies, is improving its finger pointing skills with every passing day.

As an aside to this rant, I have a friend who is half-Egyptian. She has family in Egypt, obviously. She talks to frequently, and friends in Jordan that she met while she was there in the Peace Corps. She swears up and down that her phone is tapped because when she get phone calls from her Peace Corps. friends, the line has a series of strange clicking noises. When I talk to her, including our last conversation, which was a vivid description of a Hugh Jackman spank inferno, the call was interspersed with a series of bizarre clicking noises, as many were before, for months. I took great pleasure in shouting "Fuck Off!" down the phone line.

If someone from Homeland Security was listening, they deserved to hear it. In that spirit, if someone from Homeland Security is reading this post, with more than leisurely intent, "Fuck Off!"

Back to the original question, I think people should have the option of saying the pledge, or better yet, if proof of patriotism is recitation of a few words, then perhaps the "under God" part should be optional. Because the whole "under God" thing does alienate a lot of people, most of whom were born here.

[Aserenity]

Back to the original question, I think people should have th option of saying the pledge, or better yet. If proof of patriotism is recitation of a few words, then perhaps the "under God" part should be optional. Because the whole "under God" thing does alienate a lot of people, most of whom were born here.

i agree. Thanks for responding and of course thank you David

[Guest cu-kid]

I'm not sure I could honestly vote one way or the other. I mean, on one hand, we have been using the phrase "under God" for fifty-some-odd years. But, on the other, if we are supposed to be the great Melting Pot of all races and religions, then why have it in there at all? (this sounds eerily like another post I wrote ).

And, if we change that, should we also change our currency, which has "In God We Trust" on it by law? Should we frown at Congress for saying a prayer before every session? What if there was a Congress member who practiced Shinto? Would they find it offensive to say a prayer to a god bred from Christianity? As a US citizen, wouldn't they have a right to pray in their own manner before a session? And, perhaps more importantly, would they be allowed to?

If we question the very pledge by which we show our patriotism, does this mean we should think of a new way to show it? Is it right to keep something because it has been burned into our minds since our first day of school, especially if it hasn't been around that long in the grand scheme of things? Or should we instead try to truly encompass all of the people that come into this country with their different beliefs and ideals?

I would have to vote to get rid of it, I suppose. I can see both sides of the arguement, and would take either depending on my mood. But in a country where the separation between Church and State is not much more than a quaint idea, I think it would bring us closer to making it a reality.

[EveKnight75]

Just because the majority of Americans are monotheists does not mean that ALL Americans are monotheists. What about the goddess worshippers? What about the religions which worship several gods? What about the demon-worshippers? What about the atheists?

State should be separate from religion. At the moment, it works better that way. I believe that everyone should acknowledge the pledge as a sign of respect to the nation. You don't have to say the words or even put your hand over your heart, but at the very least stand up and remain quiet. However, there needs to be an option for those who don't necessarily believe in "God" but love America and want to say the pledge. Skipping over the phrase kind of ruins the flow, doesn't it? How about using " under [deity]"? You can put in Christ, Allah, Deva, Mother Earth, Hecate, Satan, the president, no one... The options are limitless.

As for the dollar bill, why not go with the Latin translation? "Deus" doesn't necessarily mean God, but rather, "deity". Deity can refer to any higher power, whether ethereal or corporeal. It's a good solution to the problem.

[NightScribe]

I'm for dropping it; it wasn't there in the first place. Interestingly enough, when I was in grammar school, we'd say the pledge every morning with "under God." When I got to jr. high, we'd do it once a week, and the "under God" was dropped. That was in the mid '70's. We never did it in high school. At the very least, until this thing is resolved, people should have the option to not say it, without getting hassled.

When I talk to her, our last conversation, which was a vivid description of a Hugh Jackman spank inferno, was interspersed with a series of bizarre clicking noises, as many were before for months. I took great pleasure in shouting "Fuck Off!" down the phone line. If someone from Homeland Security was listening, they deserved to hear it. In that spirit, if someone from Homeland Security is reading this post, with more than leisurely intent, "Fuck Off!"

Good for you! I was talking to my mom a few months back, when that whole Homeland Security phone thing was breaking in the news. We were kind of joking because we heard a click or two (and she doesn't live that far from me). I said something along the lines of "hang on a minute, mom. Hey, if you Feds are listening, kiss my ass." To which she laughed and seconded the thought.

[WotanAnubis]

I'm not American, I've never been forced or prompted to publicly pledge loyalty to my country every damn day and I think the whole "Pledge of Allegiance" thing is a bit too close to brainwashing/propaganda in any case so my opinion my not count, but I'm gonna give it anyway.

My opinion is based on 1 thing:

Seperation of Church and State.

America is not a nation under God. It's not a theocracy, after all (although... recently...). The phrase should go. If I'm not mistaken it was only introduced to weed out the communists anyway and the days of McCarthy are over.

If the phrase does have to stay 'God' should be allowed to be by substituted by whatever the person feels should go there. "One Nation Under Allah", "One Nation Under Vishnu", "One Nation Under The Invisible Pink Unicorn" and so on and so forth. Of course, this does present somewhat of a problem for atheist, but they should be allowed to have their fingers crossed.

[Guest Adara]

This is a difficult question. I don't have a problem with the phrase. Then again, I am Christian so,

First off, I hope everyone knows that the Pledge of Alligience is optional. One can simply stand when asked too and not say or do anything else. It is EVERYONE'S right not do it. The constitution protects that right. Standing simply is good manners.

Secondly, well, I understand about those who are Polytheists. The whole, "Under God" thing is certainly inaccurate. But funny enough, call this a mere technicality, but, the phrase does not emphasize on WHAT God we're under. So honestly ladies and gents, it's open for interpretation, isn't it?

[WotanAnubis]

But funny enough, call this a mere technicality, but, the phrase does not emphasize on WHAT God we're under. So honestly ladies and gents, it's open for interpretation, isn't it?

I don't think it's open to interpretation. 'God' is clearly used as a name you might say. Otherwise it would be "Under a god". God with a capital letter is always used to designate the Christian deity. Never is "God" used to denote Allah, Shakti or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[redsliver]

I don't think it's open to interpretation. 'God' is clearly used as a name you might say. Otherwise it would be "Under a god". God with a capital letter is always used to designate the Christian deity. Never is "God" used to denote Allah, Shakti or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Actually God with a capital G includes Allah and the Jewish God. Jehovah and Allah both evolved from a series of consonants which we translate as YHWH. Its the other Religions that are ostracised.

I'm Canadian and an an atheist. I feel that all things should be done in ignorance of religion not in spite of it. In our national anthem are the words "God keep our land, glorious and free." And I've never liked it, however it never occured to me to remove it. Honestly, I don't like the idea of any governement introducing or propagating any form of religion near or on children, and therefore I think it should be dropped.

[WotanAnubis]

Actually God with a capital G includes Allah and the Jewish God. Jehovah and Allah both evolved from a series of consonants which we translate as YHWH. Its the other Religions that are ostracised.

I realise that. But seriously, when somebody comes up to you and asks "Would you like to talk about God?" do you really assume he or she could be talking about Islam or Judaism?

[redsliver]

I don't assume anything, I just go off on atheistic rants.

I made the violent born again baptist preacher in training I worked at Wal-mart with get back on the crack from my constant badgering, arguing and logic

[StoryJunkie]

omg, red, you were a whatcha callit, a JW! omg! I'm going to keel over or something!

I think the pledge should remain as it is, even though I really don't count or even care particularly. I guess that in the long run things come and go, so I wouldn't be surprised if its ousted, however, my reasons are sentimental only. There's something about hearing a group of people reciting it that send shivers up the spine.

[redsliver]

omg, red, you were a whatcha callit, a JW!  omg!  I'm going to keel over or something!

I'm not proud of myself for sending him to drug use! I just get very antagonistic to all religions, to me all religions sound like s first grader's attempt to get out of doing homework.

And I have no idea what a JW is.

I think the pledge should remain as it is, even though I really don't count or even care particularly. I guess that in the long run things come and go, so I wouldn't be surprised if its ousted, however, my reasons are sentimental only. There's something about hearing a group of people reciting it that send shivers up the spine.

I totally agree with the effect of hearing a group of people, especially children, robotting out the pledge. There was a commercial a while back for Splinter Cell 2, in which you watched the protagonist (I haven't played the series so I don't know his name) killing terrorists while a second grade class recited the pledge of allegiance. It was probably one of the most intriguing video game commercials I have ever seen. Especially when it ends as the kids say "Under God"

[Guest Adara]

Assuming that it is of only Christian relavence is well, not right. America does include a freedom to worship whomever you choose. Just because someone may believe the "Under God" phrase refers to the Christian God, doesn't mean the next person doesn't believe it to be Allah.

If one person believes in one God, and the next in another, does it truly matter, if what they are doing is pledging allegiance to the SAME country? I think that becomes a question of faith. Not a question of patriotism THROUGH faith.

[Guest echtrae]

To me the entire "under god" portion violates the separation of church from state business that is supposed to be happening. If there really is a separation, then it shouldn't be there. There should be no connection between the two organizations. They should be independent of one another, with one pursuing peoples wallets with an offering tray and the other through their paychecks. Similarity? Yes.

To me saying "under god" is no more valid than saying "under the flying spaghetti monster." Actually, I think I'm going to say exactly that from now on. Maybe I'll start a campaign to have it added to the pledge.

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

One nation, under your mom...

[EveKnight75]

Hate to break it to you Adara, but as far as I've experienced, whenever the word "God" is mentioned as a proper noun in conversation, no one seems to want to accept it as any deity but the Christian one. No offense, but I don't think you'd truly be able to understand how it feels unless you were Muslim or Jewish, at the very least a non-Christian. It hurts, even if the other person didn't mean to.

Red, I'm living in Canada right now AND I'm a dual citizen. If anything, people are arguing to change the lyric "native land", precisely because it's not our native land for the majority.

I'd agree with trying to change "God keep our land". Still, I'd put it in as a secondary concern. As far as the concept of the term "God" goes, Canadians don't tend to be as obstinate as Americans (grâce à Dieu!).

While we're at it, why not change "porter la croix"? It's not going to be as easy because the French version is the original, but a lot of francophone Canadians are not Christian. In fact, there's a huge number of francophones who have come from Africa, the Middle East, and the Carribean, so they practice Islam or another ancient religion which we'd consider pagan (voodoo anyone?).

I didn't mean anything offensive or sarcastic by that last paragraph, but it is true and it is relevant to the topic we seem to be steering towards.

"one nation, under Bush-head" (for now)

"in smut we trust"

"sanity keep our land"

"porter la feuille" (il est dur de l'argumenter)

[Guest Adara]

I never suggested that people would not be offended by it. Nor would I begin to imagine that others would not be hurt by it. I am well aware of this, I assure you, you're not breaking any new news to my eyes.

Beside, of course most people are going to think its the Christian God, I do believe half of this world's population is Christian. Think about this, when someone thinks of the name "Connie" one doesn't think it's going to pertain to a man under normal circustances. BUT that doesn't mean a man can't be named Connie now can't it?

I know what most people assume. But that usually isn't what dictates what goes on in our heart, err mind. We will believe what we believe regardless of what others may think of it. After all, faith is viewed differently by every person, even those who are under the same dinamination.

[WotanAnubis]

Beside, of course most people are going to think its the Christian God, I do believe half of this world's population is Christian.  Think about this, when someone thinks of the name "Connie" one doesn't think it's going to pertain to a man under normal circustances.  BUT that doesn't mean a man can't be named Connie now can't it?

Perhaps. But everybody knows that there is only deity who is named "God". No other deity in the world is called "God". They're all gods, yes, but not God. Even when they are Allah or YHWH, they are not God.

'God' is always the Christian deity. Always.

To try and deny this in a possibly vain attempt at political correctness is... rather silly.

Also, if people really do translate 'God' into the deity of their choice in the privacy of their minds (something I doubt), then atheists are in some real trouble. The best they can think is "Hah! What a joke!", which would rather diminish the supposed solemnity of the pledge.

[Guest Adara]

Why are our children forced to say that damned Pledge, anyway?  Forget the whole Under God question and just get rid of the whole thing!  We don't need our kids brainwashed(and bored) at an early age into being patriotic.  They can decide if they're patriotic or not as they get older.  But then, I feel the same about religion.  I don't believe that children should be taught about religion in their early years, but should only be taught about it after they are old enough to decide for themselves whether it is relevant or not.  That way, they're not just spewing rote stuff that they learned from their parents, but have a true belief that they decided for themselves - whether about religion or they're being loyal and patriotic towards the country they live in.  Or even if there's a Santa Claus or not.

They aren't really forced actually, they can say "no" and simply stand up and wait as others do. People often forget they have the power to say no.

Perhaps. But everybody knows that there is only deity who is named "God". No other deity in the world is called "God". They're all gods, yes, but not God. Even when they are Allah or YHWH, they are not God.

'God' is always the Christian deity. Always.

To try and deny this in a possibly vain attempt at political correctness is... rather silly.

Also, if people really do translate 'God' into the deity of their choice in the privacy of their minds (something I doubt), then atheists are in some real trouble. The best they can think is "Hah! What a joke!", which would rather diminish the supposed solemnity of the pledge.

Well, not everyone is always going to be please with EVERYTHING a country has to offer. Hence the topic. There are people who have problems with the National Anthem being sung in a different language!

I never said it was fact that people may actually think of their own version of God, but I don't know for certain since I"ve never asked anyone. But I rather leave the possibility rather than closing it off as improbable.

[WotanAnubis]

I never said it was fact that people may actually think of their own version of God, but I don't know for certain since I"ve never asked anyone. But I rather leave the possibility rather than closing it off as improbable.

Fair enough.

Still. It still does kind of rather heavily imply that Church and State are, in fact, not seperated. Also, atheists are still screwed.

[AmyMcClair]

First and foremost, I would like to point out to Red that JW stands for Jehovas Witness (that is probably spelled wrong.)

Secondly, I think that people should realize that they are not required to say anything that they don't want to say or believe. The "under God" portion was added later and can be taken out at any time by anyone who does not wish to say it.

Thirdly I wrote a paper on this very topic in college Freedom of Religion

I know this is a shameless plug, but if you want my opinion on the topic, feel free to check it out.

[Guest Agaib]

Like some of the other people who have made comments on this forum. I don't believe that the pledge should be said at all. The "you can choose not to say it" argument is stupid because kids are told to say it at a very young age. Furthermore, I highly doubt they're told that they have a right to refuse to say it, and even if they know they can refuse to say it many of them can easily be bullied into saying it by their peers or teachers. These children are young and very susceptible to the dominating influence of perceived authority. Young children are not old enough to be allowed to make oaths of loyalty to any cause.

As an atheist I also have a problem with the whole "under god" thing. When we state that this is a nation "under god" we're basically saying that part of the ways we decide on our policies and interpret the laws is based on what we think is "god's" teachings. This sends a bad message to those who come to this country seeking refuge from religious oppression.

[Guest echtrae]

This sends a bad message to those who come to this country seeking refuge from religious oppression.

I think the bad image begins well before that point. Particularly when one considers the USA's international image of attack and kill those who don't actually have enough strength to stand up against them (effectively showing that Americans believe that "might makes right").