The Pledge never used to say "Under God". It was added in the 1950's after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic organization) pressured Congressmen to change it.
So, why should it be kept in? The fact that not everyone believes in a god means that the very Pledge divides the "one nation indivisible".
2006-08-20 23:20:17 · 11 answers · asked by imrational 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Everyone might not be a Jay Leno fan, but I think this quote pretty much
> > hits the nail on the head.
> >
> > The quote of the month is by Jay Leno:
> >
> > With hurricanes, tornadoes, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding,
> > severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and
> > with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, "Are we sure this is a
> > good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?"
2006-08-20 23:26:40 · answer #1 · answered by His eyes are like flames 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think it should be, for two reasons. As an atheist, I think that it contributes to a divided nation, rather than an indivisible one. This only becomes a greater problem as the religious diversity of America increases. It also undermines my citizenship since it's placement in the Pledge implies that somehow I am not part of this one nation. Some people may find this ridiculous, but consider that George H.W. Bush at one point said, "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
My second reason has to do with maintaining the integrity of religion. That's right, an atheist concerned with religious integrity. The legal principle underlying the continued inclusion of the "under God" in the pledge or the motto on our currency is ceremonial Deism. The term implies that the reference to a God is merely ritual and essentially loses any religious meaning through its continued use. To me, this seems rather insulting to theists as it trivializes their beliefs as a mere formality.
Now of course, the politicians and lobbyists who continue to advocate the inclusion of religious references to God and other Judeo-Christian beliefs in the political sphere don't see it this way. The "God" in "under God" is very real and has deep religious meaning to them. The trick here is that, once "God" is given any meaning in this context, this then becomes a matter of the government establishing a religious viewpoint, which is against the principles of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
When this challenge is raised on First Amendment principles, the pro-religious advocates suddenly fall back on ceremonial deism and emphasize the generalized, religiously-pluralistic god rather than God (yet the atheists are still left out). To me, this shows that rather than stand for their beliefs even if they get overruled on constitutional grounds, they neuter the meaning of God just to keep the wording in there.
2006-08-20 23:57:21 · answer #2 · answered by phaedra 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
additionally, what number remarkable-wing Christian human beings are conscious that "the Pledge" replaced into composed via a countrywide Socialist (or, in case you decide on, a Nazi) as a skill of encouraging little ones and different voters to sense a debt of loyalty to The State?
2016-09-29 12:19:19 · answer #3 · answered by erlebach 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
honestly I would not worry so much about it.
as this country becomes more and more secular that part of the Pledge will be quietly removed.
besides focus more of your efforts on things like blue laws than two words in a school children's pledge
2006-08-20 23:59:38 · answer #4 · answered by Gamla Joe 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dividing nation and indivisable seems absurd to me.
2006-08-20 23:30:46 · answer #5 · answered by upallnite 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everyone has a God. Even if you don't believe in God, that just means that you think YOU are your own God.
And even those people, at the hour of their death, will "get God".
Hence, keep it in because despite what some people may think, we are not SOOOO strong and powerful a nation that we no longer need God. God=Hope for the future in the worst of circumstances.
2006-08-20 23:32:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
you dont have to say under god if you dont want to they cant arest you for that, first amendment freedome of speech i say under goddess because i'm a wiccan and i havent gotten in trouble yet good luck
2006-08-20 23:29:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's ridiculous. Religion has no place in civil affairs - All references to deities should be deleted from currency, courtrooms, constitutions and so on.
2006-08-20 23:27:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It should be kept because Roman Catholicism is by far the most important religion in modern America.
2006-08-20 23:27:33 · answer #9 · answered by insincere 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Why not keep it in? Who is it hurting?
2006-08-20 23:46:03 · answer #10 · answered by Bruce D 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋