Times certainly do change. Traditions lost forever...sigh.
2006-07-11 15:51:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by wondering 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's not about anyone being offended, it's about the principle that religious freedom is possible only in a secular nation, that is, in a nation where the government neither endorses nor condemns any religion or sect or even promotes or demotes religion in general, a nation in which the government maintains neutrality in religious matters.
I don't know anything about editing the word "God" from song to not offend Christians, but I know that some people find it offensive to use the word in some contexts. "Take not the name of the Lord in vain" and so on.
2006-07-11 17:18:02
·
answer #2
·
answered by kill_yr_television 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Worrying about offending a small number of people that oppose "Under God" in our allegiance and on our money just makes me shudder...
Put it on a ballot and let the American people vote... it will remain without a doubt.
To edit God from Christian songs or songs that are not Christian, but blasphemous against God? I am miss-understanding the latter part of your question.
2006-07-11 15:59:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by MesquiteGal 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The argument comes mostly from the religious extremists. To remove the term "under God" from the Pledge would only restore it to it's original form. It wasn't meant to be a religious oath, it was originally written for use with surrendering Confederate troops.
The North actually thought if they could make a man say the Pledge, that he'd be forced to stay loyal to the Republic.
Once I found this out, I quit saying it.
I've never been a Confederate and h#ll I was raise in the land of Lincoln!
It picked up it's religious division during those fear/hate years of the Eisenhower administration and has been forced on schoolchildren ever since. I actually saw one of my classmates get a beating in Springfield's District 186 for not saying it. This was back in 59 or 60.
How would America report that, if another country beat it's children to force them to pledge their lives to a government?????
2006-07-11 15:54:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Some (not all) atheists are working to push their religion on America by removing all references to God from our past and present. They do the same thing they accuse Christians of doing. Many music teachers in public schools are so scared by these bullies that they edit God out of well-known Christmas songs and other traditional American songs. I'm not saying this is right for them to do this; I'm just answering your question.
2006-07-11 15:53:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by chdoctor 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The more editing that is done with classics, the more offended I am anyway. We are way to sensitive about too many issues. If you don't like something, ignore it. It will make you a stronger person anyway.
2006-07-11 15:56:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
People who want "under god" removed from public property desire such because it is THEIR government too, not just the government of religious believers.
Songs and other privately created art do not fall under the public domain - they are the creation of, and are owned by, a single person, and are therefore subject to that person's whim.
2006-07-11 15:52:21
·
answer #7
·
answered by extton 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
your question makes no sense.
But to answer part of your question, "Under God" should have never been on our currency or in the pledge, so removing it now is simply correcting a mistake.
2006-07-11 15:52:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
To make you forget about God and remember that the government is there for you. It's the rotting of American beliefs. If you move some place else in the world, you have to conform to their rules. If you come here, you should conform to ours, but it's not that way because we are bowing to forigners that are fighting for us to conform to them and thier way. Write your Congressmen and State Representatives.
2006-07-11 15:57:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by jeffro5150 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
its the campaign of separation of church and state.
2006-07-11 15:56:43
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋