2006-09-14 04:56:19 · 27 answers · asked by (_O_) ass after prison 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It makes no difference to me,one way or the other.
The history of our American Pledge of Allegiance:
1892:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and 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:
A campaign led by the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus caused Congress to add " under God " to the Pledge.
"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."
2002:
On June 26 a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the Pledge was unconstitutional because it amounted to an endorsement of religion.
The Pledge never had the word God in it until 1954 in the middle of the Cold War as we were trying to show what wonderful True Believers we were. Same thing with the currency. The "God " thing on those happened in 1955 for the same reasons. If you want to talk about tradition, then let's stick with either ,
(a) the 103-year-old tradition (1789-1892) of having no Pledge at all;
(b) the 165-year-old tradition of having and not having a Pledge, but no mention of "God".
© 2002 Judith Hayes
2006-09-14 05:03:21 · answer #1 · answered by zurioluchi 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Pledge of Allegiance doesn't mean anything. It's just some propaganda schools make kids recite every morning for no good reason. Ultimately, the words of the Pledge boil down to: "I promise to be loyal to this really awesome country." Big deal. What's more, once you graduate high school, no one will ever ask you to recite the Pledge of Allegiance ever again. So really, this is an issue that only kids and atheists with school-age children care about.
2006-09-14 12:03:05 · answer #2 · answered by yossarius 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Since they were added to the pledge and not there originally, they need to be removed. Small things like "under God" being placed in government creations are institutional of backdoor establishment; thus, they violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
2006-09-14 11:59:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Could go either way. I believe in God, so there's that. Other's don't, and that's fine, too. We added to the pledge as a reaction against communism around the World War era. I just don't think ppl should get so offended by having it, and I think if it were taken away, ppl should not take it so personally.
2006-09-14 11:59:49 · answer #4 · answered by Switch Angel 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
At times it does bother me, because I feel the Christians make it their ''Christian Jesus/G-d''. And this country is mostly Christians.
There are images of the 10 commandments and religious beings all over Washington D.C., so we cannot take this away. This country was started by many who considered themselves Deists, not Christians. So, I guess I will just have to accept that the words are there, and hope that people do not take it that G-d backs the United Sates over other countries. My G-d would not do that.
Most religions do accept the one G-d theory, even tho they have different ways of doing it. I just hope no one feels it is going against their beliefs. It does not go against mine, unless they are bringing the Jesus/G-d part in.
2006-09-14 12:07:07 · answer #5 · answered by Shossi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Considering they were added in 1954, when the poem was originally written in 1892, so weren't part of it for 62 years, and have only been part of it for 52 years, I'd say they need to be removed.
They were only added as a radical response to the red scare, not as a genuine religious action. So, not only were they not originally part of it, they were an ingenuine action. They stand against everything I hold dear about this great nation.
If someone ever managed to even prove a strong likelihood of the existence of a deity, I might be willing to accept 'em. But such a thing is impossible and I find myself beholden to no deity for my existence, sooo... they need to go bye-bye.
2006-09-14 12:01:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
no problem with it, it states at the time written they wanted to do things under god's care and help, if you don't want to say it just skipit and go on to the next line of the pledge.
2006-09-14 12:00:32 · answer #7 · answered by Mary S 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think the "pledge" should be reverted back to it's original form. It really isn't a nation doctrine anyway, and it does not have anything to do with any beliefs in any faiths.
2006-09-14 12:14:36 · answer #8 · answered by Sage Bluestorm 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They should take it out since the separation of church and state is the founding principle of our great nation. It was Eisenhower that put it in I guess to counter the rise of Communist ideology of the time. At that time they will always call the Soviets godless and there fore infer that people in US are all for a Christian God.
2006-09-14 12:00:57 · answer #9 · answered by Calvin the Bold 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Polls have shown that some 80% of Americans want to keep "UNDER GOD" in the pledge. So I say keep it, if that's what the majority wants. Our nation works by voting, so I say vote on it, and leave the decision up to the people of the nation (under God).
2006-09-14 11:59:22 · answer #10 · answered by TruthIsFreedom 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋