^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^
Currently the Pledge of Allegiance declares that the US is "... one nation, under God ..."
Would Christians be willing to recite the pledge if it said the following:
"... one nation, under NO God ..."?
Alternatively, would Christians be willing to compromise by just removing the God reference altogether, so that we can say the pledge altogether?
^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^
2007-02-04 07:43:10 · 18 answers · asked by NHBaritone 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
.
Lynnrose2:
Why are you forcing others to ignore their beliefs, if you insist sto strongly that you not be forced to deny your own?
.
2007-02-04 07:50:44 · update #1
it's oxymoronic that the next word in that sentence is indivisible, when religion divides us so completely, and a christian theocracy would wish to abolish "liberty and justice for all"
2007-02-04 07:46:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
simply by fact for the duration of the early chilly conflict, the Soviets have been criticizing the U. S. simply by fact of segregation. quite than righting a incorrect, the Christians desperate they had to maintain segregation, so as they had that extra to the pledge of allegiance and called the Soviets godless communists. the author of the pledge have been a Christian, and he had in no way meant his god to be suggested in it. yet he had needed "fraternity" and "equality" suggested. yet he knew that the pledge could be rejected if he did, simply by fact whether he considered women individuals and blacks as his equals, maximum individuals did not. sure, that's unconstitutional (Article VI and modification I) . yet there are extra pressing themes, alongside with considered one of constitutional value, like warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention, equivalent risk-free practices under the regulation for comparable intercourse marriage, and so on. And Christians will throw a temper tantrum, equating not having the ability to impose their faith on different individuals is Christians being persecuted. a minimum of one justice has indicated that they push aside the point out of the Christian god on our funds and in our pledge as "ceremonial deism", even nevertheless one does not "have confidence" a deist god, nor does it bless countries. ("under god" is a grammatical errors, it comes from the Gettysburg handle the place it recommend the comparable element as "god keen" or "optimistically", and does not recommend some particular blessing. however the Christian lobyists for the duration of the chilly conflict have been blind to that, and only theory it sounded rad).
2016-09-28 10:17:50 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hello NH Baritone.. :)
I have No problem with the Pledge of Allegiance going back to the original way, as it was first written.. :)
For those that do believe in God, have His word written upon their Hearts..
In Jesus Most Precious Name..
With Love..In Christ.. :)
2007-02-04 07:53:48 · answer #3 · answered by EyeLovesJesus 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
My school tried to say that there is no pause between "one nation" and "under god" so it wouldn't sound like God was ringing in your ears when you had to say it. Personally I don't care. Most people don't even pay attention when they say the pledge anymore. Half the time at events people are yapping away on cell phones anyway.
2007-02-04 07:47:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Leaving out any reference would indeed be a much fairer deal for everyone, but I doubt too many 'God fearing Christians' would agree to it.
Of course I never understood the reason we even need a pledge of allegiance in the first place. It's mainly recited by school children too young to even understand what they are saying.
2007-02-04 07:50:17 · answer #5 · answered by Sun: supporting gay rights 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Why have a "pledge of allegiance"? Everywhere else manages without one.
As a republican (in the sense of not wanting a monarchy NOT in the sense of thinking Bush is anything but proof of how near we really are to the apes) in the UK I am often asked "but if we didn't have the Queen who would be head of state?". My answer is that if the head of state is problematical don't have one!
Is the sky really going to fall on your heads if you don't have school kids swearing allegiance to a flag?
2007-02-04 08:32:33 · answer #6 · answered by anthonypaullloyd 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
This nation is committed to the Truth and weather people like it or not we ARE under God.
2007-02-04 08:17:15 · answer #7 · answered by Midge 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Give it a break! We already got rid of praying in school! It is part of our history! Taking that out is like changing our flag from red white and blue to orange yellow and purple!
2007-02-04 08:10:55 · answer #8 · answered by Lynne 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's the way it was before 1954.
Personally, when I say the Pledge, I simply change one word. I say, "...and to the Republic, for which it STOOD, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
That way I'm still telling the truth.
2007-02-04 07:48:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
When in Rome...well you know the rest.
You are living in an nation that hold's God in high esteem. I am sorry if you don't agree.
Imagine how hard it would be living in a muslim nation where you have no choices.
Get over it.
2007-02-04 07:53:54 · answer #10 · answered by Jennifer D 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Christians aren't willing to profess allegiance to anything other than THEIR god but simply cannot understand why it would offend anyone NOT of their faith to profess the same thing.
I really can't understand why THEY can't understand where the rest of us are coming from.
Oh, and I'd very much like to simply omit the words "under God" and be done with the whole debacle.
2007-02-04 07:46:22 · answer #11 · answered by ZER0 C00L ••AM••VT•• 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋