Under God, in the Pledge of Allegiance... *SPEECH NOW AVAILABLE*

[KidViciou$]

when you say this nation was founded by christians or men who believed in god, it was also founded by white men. does that mean that non-whites shouldn't have rights? if you look back to the 1800's, the majority of people supported slavery, or at least seggregation, should that have been left up to the majority?

somethings shouldn't be left up to the majority, "under god" in the pledge is one of them. it should be taken out, we shouldn't have to NOT say it just because the majority of people believe in a god, the pledge is not a religious pledge, it's a nationalist pledge, therefore since there is no national religion, there should be no reference to any religious deity

 

[xboxist]

People need to stop taking "offense" to stupid sh!t like this that doesn't affect or impact their lives in any conceivable way. People will do anything to start an uproar.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: xboxist
People need to stop taking "offense" to stupid sh!t like this that doesn't affect or impact their lives in any conceivable way. People will do anything to start an uproar.

Just because you don't think it affects or impacts their lives in any conceivable way doesn't make it so.

 

[FoBoT]

i would leave it in, but i wonder why it was added

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

so i would think the anti-religionists would want to eliminate it entirely since a minister wrote it.

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

 

[J Heartless Slick]

I quit saying the Pledge in High School because of the mention of God. I am not a deist so I did not make a pledge to something I did not believe in.

It would be great if people kept their religion, sexuality, etc to themselves and not try to force them onto other people.

 

[Dedpuhl]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

so i would think the anti-religionists would want to eliminate it entirely since a minister wrote it.

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

I don't have a problem with a minister composing the pledge. I do, however, take offense to congress changing the pledge solely to show America was not an evil, atheist country...

 

[KidViciou$]

i have no problem with the minister creating the pledge either, just because someone is a person of god doesn't mean they can't make contributions, and i have no problem with him believing in god. however, if the original pledge contained religious references, i would move that it be re-written

since under god was added, it should be reverted to the original. we should add howard stern rules to the pledge of allegiance since it doesn't impact anybody's life in a meaningful way. see where i'm going with this? just because you don't think it impacts people's lives doesn't make it so

it impacts my life because i feel not only uncomfortable, but i fret because it is just an erosion of the founding values of america

 

[xboxist]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: xboxist
People need to stop taking "offense" to stupid sh!t like this that doesn't affect or impact their lives in any conceivable way. People will do anything to start an uproar.

Just because you don't think it affects or impacts their lives in any conceivable way doesn't make it so.

I really don't know what to say to this. I mean, I understand what you're saying. But it's still unfathomable to me that someone could possibly take an honest offense to such a trivial thing. I would have an instant dislike of such a person and we'd be incompatible forever more.

People suck. Of all the things in the world to get uptight about, people pick things like this. Immature, and irresponsible really.

/opinion off

Ok, I'll leave now.

 

[Ilmater]

P&N

 

[FoBoT]

do people that are lactose intolerant get offended by milk commercials? 😕 i am sure the commercials make them feel uncomfortable and bloated

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: Ilmater
P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N P&N

i don't see politics, or news in this topic, it's a discussion thread

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: xboxist

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: xboxist
People need to stop taking "offense" to stupid sh!t like this that doesn't affect or impact their lives in any conceivable way. People will do anything to start an uproar.

Just because you don't think it affects or impacts their lives in any conceivable way doesn't make it so.

I really don't know what to say to this. I mean, I understand what you're saying. But it's still unfathomable to me that someone could possibly take an honest offense to such a trivial thing. I would have an instant dislike of such a person and we'd be incompatible forever more.

People suck. Of all the things in the world to get uptight about, people pick things like this. Immature, and irresponsible really.

/opinion off

Ok, I'll leave now.

you see, i'm not getting offended by the words "under god", i'm offended by the fact that it's in there and goes against the foundation of america

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
do people that are lactose intolerant get offended by milk commercials? 😕 i am sure the commercials make them feel uncomfortable and bloated

well then should people who don't have aids get uncomfortable when they see medicine for treating aids? how about the ads for acid reflux disease?


there is no doctrine that states there should be no advertisements for medicines to treat disorders and diseases, but there is a doctrine that states the government shouldn't endorse ANY religion


we aren't saying that the pledge should say "...one nation, there is no god, indivisible..."

that of course would violate other peoples right. all we are saying is that the government should not be taking ANY stance on religion, aside from protecting people's rights to practice it

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: shilala
Like it or not, this is "One nation under God". Note that doesn't say "One nation under Catholicism" or "One nation under ME".

Well if you capitalize "God" then, yes. Yes it does. The word "God" refers only to the christian god whereas "god" refers to any single god in any religion. Of course you are still insulting the religion of people who believe in multiple gods if you use the lowercase but singular form of the word.

Reasons to get rid of it
1) There is no reason for it to be there,
2) It alienates many different religions (and the non religious),
3) It isn't the original version and just an afterthought,
4) It breaks up the whole rythmn making the pledge an awkward and unweildly thing to speak.

Reasons for keeping it
1) You want to alienate other religions (many people DO want this as long as it is their personal religion which is in the majority),
2) Honestly, it doesn't to real harm to those who are alienated,
3) Why change something that we have had for many years.

 

[Bryophyte]

Originally posted by: xboxist

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: xboxist
People need to stop taking "offense" to stupid sh!t like this that doesn't affect or impact their lives in any conceivable way. People will do anything to start an uproar.

Just because you don't think it affects or impacts their lives in any conceivable way doesn't make it so.

I really don't know what to say to this. I mean, I understand what you're saying. But it's still unfathomable to me that someone could possibly take an honest offense to such a trivial thing. I would have an instant dislike of such a person and we'd be incompatible forever more.

People suck. Of all the things in the world to get uptight about, people pick things like this. Immature, and irresponsible really.

/opinion off

Ok, I'll leave now.

I don't see how pledging allegiance to to one's country could be construed as a trivial thing. It's not meant to be trivial. It is immature and irresponsible to treat matters like this as if they were irrelevant or trivial.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Ilmater
P&N

NO. Notice how this has NOT become a flamefest? Keeping it out of P&N is good for ACTUAL DISCUSSION.

 

[Attrox]

The problem is, to most (younger) people "Under God" has already been included in the pledge. This is what they accustomed to. To them, removing this term seems like an attack to what they hold dear.
This plus that news about the atheist group suing the Christian mentoring program seems like an attack IMO.

While having this term bothers people, removing it will also bothers a lot of people. I don't know why we need to argue about such little thing like this :disgust: What about introducing a 1-2 seconds brief paused on the pledge so that people can use either this version or the version with "Under God"?

 

[Kibbo]

It turns every atheist who takes the pledge into a liar. At the very least, there should be two versions that are acceptable. Kinda like in the courtroom, where you can choose whether or not to use a bible.

Unless you relish the idea of people lying while they pledge allegience to your nation.

 

[Actaeon]

Thanks for all of the replies guys. Alot of useful information and viewpoints on either side of the arguement. There were many facts, and idea thats I had not known or thought of before. This will certainly help me come up with valid points for my paper.

All replies are appreciated, and thanks for not turning this thread into a flamewar.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: Syringer

Originally posted by: yoda291
I think if this bothers you, you need to take a look at your priorities.

If it bothers you that it bothers him, you should take a look at your priorities.

If it bothers you that it bothers him that it bothers the other guy, then you should take a look at your priorities

EDIT: it's a joke.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Just because it's an add-on to the thing doesn't mean it's bad. While your other arguments as to why the phrase should be removed may be valid, being an add-on doesn't mean it should be removed. Should we remove the Bill of Rights because they were an afterthought??

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
I'd say I don't really care except it was added later and is silly.

If you start this game, it will never stop, money would be the next logical target

Then the days of the week

 

[JackBurton]

I thought this had already been covered.

 

[Fritzo]

"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."

- Ronald Reagan

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Actaeon
thanks for not turning this thread into a flamewar.

we can fix that


only a Nazi would want to change the pledge





😉