Should we return to a secular Pledge of Allegiance?

Question

1923
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

1924
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

1954
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

2006
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation enlightened by reasoned, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

God is currently the unchallengeable law, says Congress -
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/A1289B43235C9E61862571B1001F2F83?OpenDocument

Answer 1

I like the "enlightened by reason" part.

But you left out the version (I forget the actual year), that had "equality" in between liberty and justice.

BTW, April hit the key difference. Forcing people to behave a certain way by taking away their choice is different than allowing people to have a choice.

Congress mandates that the words "under God" are in the pledge. That's taking away a choice. Pro-choice people don't want the government making personal health and end-of-life decisions, that's guaranteeing a choice.

Why can't people understand that freedom of choice is not a minority value, even if the majority happens to disagree with the minority's choice?

Answer 2

I don't say the "under God" part myself. It was put in there to differentiate us from the 'godless' Soviets during the red scares of the 1950's. In other words it was a PR stunt by Ike to heighten the whole "us vs. them" mentality. From that context it's pretty obvious that it refers to a Christian god.

Nothing much has changed since then. Now the "under God" version could be said to be referring to the Christian god as opposed to the Islamic one.

Your updated version is (unfortunately) just too secular for today's America and I personally don't like the addition. Why does it need a modifier at all? I liked it the way it was before 1954 when it didn't have Christian overtones that many people find exclusionary. Christians and others who don't like secular humanism and reason or wish the enlightenment had never occurred probably wouldn't like the "reason" reference any more that you like the "god" reference.

But the real truth is that the "under God" debate is just intended to get them pumped up anyway. It's a straw man for right wing pundits and political strategists who want to get the good old folks upset. Don't take the bait. This is not a meaningful debate or a strategically wise one for the left to engage in.

Answer 3

You cannot change abortion rights because it violates the freedom of others. Removing God from the pledge of allegiance would simply show that we are an enlightened people whose religious sect does not need God in the constitution in order to feel secure in thier religion.

Answer 4

I love the hypocrisy liberals have toward issues like this.
conservatives can't challenge abortion because it's the law. I mean once it's the law, that's it we can't undo it.
Congress adopted that Pledge way before Roe v Wade. so by that logic, it should be accepted as mandate. yet it isn't. liberals are fighting in court almost daily to undo that.
so which is it, can we change our laws, or not?

Answer 5

"enlightened by reason"???? Haven't heard that yet nor are those idiots in Washington acting with any reason or complying with how their constituents want them to vote. Bunch of losers! Can't wait to vote them out of office.

Answer 6

It would shut up a lot of whiney liberals