I do.
2007-03-08 06:03:29 · 30 answers · asked by Chase 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Yes.
Most people believe in God and the Athiest should respect that. "Under God" does not promote one religion over another.
2007-03-08 06:08:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 8⤋
No. The 1st amendment guarantees that people have the right to follow their own religion. There are people whose religions do not support the existence of God. Having the phrase "under God" breaks the right that the Constitution has given to everyone. I think it's better to leave the pledge as it is first written, or we can substitute the words "under God" as "under the Constitution".
2007-03-09 16:01:10 · answer #2 · answered by Chi 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It needs to go. It was put in by violating the Constitution. Those who actually care about the US need to guard the Constitution - it is what makes us what we are.
The country was not founded on Christianity no matter how often the Christians say that it was. A simple history lesson is proof of that. Adding God to the pledge while trying to look better than the Russians was foolish.
2007-03-08 14:30:54 · answer #3 · answered by Sun: supporting gay rights 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The original Pledge did NOT have "under god"
Amendment I of the Constitution
Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge is now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer respecting an establishment of religion
Congress violated the constitution. "Under god" should be removed.
Pretty simple huh.
-------------------------------------------
Most people believe in God and the Athiest should respect that. "Under God" does not promote one religion over another.
---------------------------------------------
And then there are the naive people. The Knights of Columbus is a Christian organization. They had "under god" added.
How many religions refer to their deity as "God"?
How many religions have MULTIPLE deities? Doh!
2007-03-08 14:33:12 · answer #4 · answered by TLG 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it should go. The pledge should be based on ideals that are inclusive to all, some people don't believe in God. I myself say under Bob instead of under God. I know I could opt out or say words I don't mean and be a hypocrite but I don't really want to do either. I believe in what the rest of the pledge says wholeheartedly. Part of the ideals we were founded on was the freedom of conscious to follow your own belief, making a pledge that is only inclusive for people who believe in God goes against that ideal and excludes people who are in every respect also Americans.
2007-03-08 14:13:12 · answer #5 · answered by Zen Pirate 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
What is the pledge? Everyone is forced to stand, recite a poem, put their hand over their hearts...who invented this? Everyone salutes and worships a man made piece of cloth that has colors on it. You can show pride in your country by doing more useful things in America
2007-03-08 14:15:12 · answer #6 · answered by Cutie Patootie 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think they should go back to the original pledge, which did not have the language. The revisionists of the 1950s added it for political correctness purposes. I used to just say "one nation, indivisible" rather than "one nation, under God, indivisible."
2007-03-08 14:15:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
No--not only does it violate the spirit of the pledge as originally written, but it's poor grammar as well.
2007-03-10 00:02:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should use the original version of the Pledge the way it was written... WITHOUT "under God".
edit:
thumbs down? do you disagree with me factually, or with my right to have my own opinion on the matter?
2007-03-08 14:15:49 · answer #9 · answered by answer faerie, V.T., A. M. 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely not, it wasn't there to begin with and should never have been added. The original was "I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, with liberty and justice for all." Everything else was added later and without the author's consent.
2007-03-08 14:10:16 · answer #10 · answered by Huggles-the-wise 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I was a child when it was added via a national campaign by the Kinghts of Columbus. It was a knee jerk response to anti Soviet hysteria and never should have been added in the first place since we are in no sense a theocracy nor are government decisions made on the basis of religious dictates in any way. It's feel-goodism for theists in that it in no way reflects reality, and it's an insult to the rest of us who've left primitive superstition behind.
2007-03-08 14:09:23 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋