The issue went to court, which ultimately upheld "Under God" remaining in the Pledge of Allegiance. What's your take on this? Do you think it should remain, or does the term 'God' being inserted into the pledge, in a way, contradict one of the principals of the country: religious freedom?

Hell no it shouldn't be removed. Religious freedom has never meant freedom from religion, nor should it ever. Keep it in there and don't say it if you're opposed to a word.

Technically it wasn't in the original to begin with so if that happened it would just be restoring it to its original form. I don't have an issue either way, personally. It does in a way turn it into a prayer. I don't find it as inappropriate as the swearing on a bible issue.

No it should not, like FM said if you don't want to say the word just skip over it.

^^^^And that is your right to not say it. I wish more people who disagreed with it would simply not say it.

Chris wrote:The issue went to court, which ultimately upheld "Under God" remaining in the Pledge of Allegiance. What's your take on this? Do you think it should remain, or does the term 'God' being inserted into the pledge, in a way, contradict one of the principals of the country: religious freedom?

My answer is complex so hear me out.

No, the phrase under God should not be removed from the pledge because that is part of the pledge as we know it (allegedly under which it was written). If one values what the pledge actually says and believes it to be true as originally written, there is no reason for it to be changed. And since the Pledge of Allegiance cannot be forced on individuals (and is in most cases NOT manditory), there are no grounds for the phrase to be removed because nobody is forcing religion on you.

Having said that, I personally do not believe in the Pledge of Allegience at all. I think the entire thing is one big fat lie, not to mention a form of brainwashing. Think about it, under what circumstances do people normally say the Pledge of Allegiance? It's usually young children in the school house right? Where is the logic in that? Most children don't even know what the pledge means. Most of them barely know what the words mean, let alone what it actually stands for. Forcing a child to say the Pledge of Allegiance collectively in a school environment is basically a form of indoctrination through brainwashing. They get used to saying it over and over again, until it becomes second nature to them and they instinctively believe it! That in itself is wrong (forgetting the fact that I believe that the pledge itself is a bunch of bullshit).

I do not believe in the concept of pledging allegiance to a flag. This is nothing more than a form of idolatry to me. I find it really interesting that most of the people who claim to be "religious" routinely make exception to this by pledging allegiance to an inanimate object. I'm pretty sure this is discussed somewhere in the ten commandments, but I digress. If you examine what the pledge actually says, you'd be hard pressed to find any truth in it as it pertains to reality. "One nation under God" - obviously, if this was true then there would be no contraversy at all about the phrase being in the pledge. We are NOT one nation under God (nor have we ever been, nor was it ever intended that we would be by the founding fathers). "Indivisible" - Are you shitting me? We are probably the most divided democrasy in the western world! "With liberty and justice FOR ALL" - I actually have a hard time saying that one with a straight face! And if anyone out there actually believes that we have had or have liberty and justice for all in our country, may God have mercy on your ignorant soul!

The Pledge of Allegience is a dream! Some old time Christian's dream of what America SHOULD be about and what the flag SHOULD represent, but not actually what it DOES represent.

No, the phrase under God should not be removed from the pledge because that is part of the pledge as we know it (allegedly under which it was written).

I'm not offering an opinion, just facts. The original Pledge of Allegiance, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands -- One nation indivisible -- with liberty and justice for all," was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. "Under God" wasn't added until 1954.

alan smithee wrote:

No, the phrase under God should not be removed from the pledge because that is part of the pledge as we know it (allegedly under which it was written).

I'm not offering an opinion, just facts. The original Pledge of Allegiance, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands -- One nation indivisible -- with liberty and justice for all," was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. "Under God" wasn't added until 1954.

That sort of changes everything because I didn't know it came later. In that case....just like they added it, they can remove it. Since it wasn't as original part of the pledge, the line isn't sacred. IMNSHO.

On September 8, 1892 a Boston-based youth magazine "The Youth's Companion" published a 22-word recitation for school children to use during planned activities the following month to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of America. Under the title "The Pledge to the Flag", the composition was the earliest version of what we now know as the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

By 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that schools couldn't force students to recite the pledge. Those kids in Indian reservation schools must have been thrilled.

alan smithee wrote:

No, the phrase under God should not be removed from the pledge because that is part of the pledge as we know it (allegedly under which it was written).

I'm not offering an opinion, just facts. The original Pledge of Allegiance, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands -- One nation indivisible -- with liberty and justice for all," was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. "Under God" wasn't added until 1954.

I'd like to call your attention to the disclaimer ALLEGEDLY. :biggrin: My point being the average person who believes in this pledge is likely going to be ignorant of these facts and defend those words are part of the original intent of the authors. At the very lest, they will cling to it for its "historical" value.

Sorry cap, your meaning was unclear to me but I wasn't trying to imply anything. My only intention was to remind us of the "historic" value.

alan smithee wrote:Sorry cap, your meaning was unclear to me but I wasn't trying to imply anything. My only intention was to remind us of the "historic" value.

No worries!