one nation "under god"

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » June 16, 2004, 12:33 am

I dont see any reason for "under god" to remain in the pledge. This is not "one nation under god" and saying so is a direct violation between the seperation of church and state, no matter how you look at it. Trying to justify the expression by our nations roots is compleatly invalid, in order to do so you would have to also stand against progression and openly support the bible beating racist colonist assholes who murdered none christians, also responsible for our "christian backround"

Im not offended by the quote personally, and this is by far one of the least important issues we are facing today, yet it is an easy fix.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » June 16, 2004, 12:46 am

Couldn't agree with you more Xzion

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 16, 2004, 12:58 am

OMG someone call the press. I agree with Xzion on this.

But of course I think it is dumb as hell to sue all the way to the Supreme Court over it. Oh yeah and do not forget it was only added 50 years ago in a cheese move to lamely counter the fact that the Soviets had pronounced themselves to be an athiestic society.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 16, 2004, 1:20 am

i dont see any reason for a pledge of allegiance at all.

it is kind of authoritarian in my opinion.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » June 16, 2004, 1:41 am

Does it honestly hurt anything?
Does anyone honestly say the pledge more than once a year after you get out of grade school - if that?
Are there more important things to fix?

Voted yes, it's not worth the time to change it.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » June 16, 2004, 2:29 am

Well it was worth the time to change it and put that bullshit line in there 50 years ago, apparently. The original pledge didn't have that line, so if we really want to go back to our roots, take that superstitious crap out of our pledge. And while there at it, the whole swearing on a bible thing in court needs to go too.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 16, 2004, 2:31 am

Voronwë wrote:i dont see any reason for a pledge of allegiance at all.

it is kind of authoritarian in my opinion.

This is how I see it as well. Just one of the things the US government does to create blind nationalism.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 16, 2004, 2:40 am

You've never had seperation of church and state...

You have "in God we trust" on your money.

You are sworn in on a bible.

It's possible to create seperation.. but would meet too much reistance just yet..

Karae · Post by **Karae** » June 16, 2004, 2:41 am

Personally, I stopped saying the phrase 'under god' when reciting the pledge in fourth grade. I don't think it should be in the pledge, but I'm not sure it's really worth the time and effort to remove it when we aren't required to say it anyway.

I did vote 'no' though.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 16, 2004, 2:42 am

Akaran_D wrote:Does it honestly hurt anything?
Does anyone honestly say the pledge more than once a year after you get out of grade school - if that?
Are there more important things to fix?

Voted yes, it's not worth the time to change it.

The rabid nationalism is well entrenched by the time you leave grade school :>

Karae · Post by **Karae** » June 16, 2004, 3:12 am

Zaelath wrote:You've never had seperation of church and state...

You have "in God we trust" on your money.

You are sworn in on a bible.

It's possible to create seperation.. but would meet too much reistance just yet..

Actually, that's not true.

"In God We Trust" was not initially on money. Originally, the phrase "E Pluribus Unum" (roughly translated as, "Out of Many, One," symbolizing unity) was on all coins and bills. In 1908 legislation was passed that mandated the placement of the phrase "In God We Trust" on all coins minted. It wasn't until the 1956 printing year, as a result of Public Law 140 signed into law in 1955, that the phrase appeared on soft currency. This was also the result of anti-Communist sentiment and a direct reply to their pronouncment of atheism.

Swearing public officials in with their hand on The Bible, and the use of the phrase "so help me God," is a bit of a Constitutional anomaly. With regards to the swearing in procedure, the Constitution says:

Constitution for the United States of America wrote:Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Note that it doesn't include the use of a Bible or the phrase "so help me God." However, it doesn't expressly forbid it either. Both are traditions that, much like the self-imposed two term limit (until the passage of the 22nd Amendment), date to George Washington. I'm not quite as fond of those two traditions!

I guess the point of this post is to show that we did have separation, we just gradually lost it.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » June 16, 2004, 3:33 am

It just seems like another moment for some assjack media hippie douche to say "this ain't right!"

I can give a shit if 'god' is involved in anything. God has meant nothing for years, I can give a shit if it appears in anything...I don't really notice shit like this normally, because I am busy with other things....like fishing and clubbing seals.

On the official side....

I think church should be removed from any facet of public US life--let the christians do their thing and let the rest of us do our thing.

'God' did not found this country, angry ex-euros did.

That said, I do not notice any religious shit in currency--it is money, I spend it or save it, depending on the situation--'In God we trust' has really no hold over me, and I do not care what the hell it says--it is money!

It can say, "I hate you all and want to eat your brain" and still, I would spend it on a drink or perchance a baseball game and a lapdance....

Siji · Post by **Siji** » June 16, 2004, 4:14 am

The real question is, how lame is it that the Supreme Court threw out the case on the technicality that it did.

Neroon · Post by **Neroon** » June 16, 2004, 6:52 am

And all this time I though money said that, because it *was* our god!

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » June 16, 2004, 8:25 am

I pledge allegence
To my country
And swear not to be a selfish nutsack.

I promise not to take a real social issue
Like seperation of church and state
And take the government to court over it
Just so I can get my name in the paper.

Furthermore, I swear
To actually contribute something to society
Instead of just bitching about how
No one ever does anything for me.

And to actually do something useful with my time
Instead of buying little flags made in Korea and putting them on my car
Or cheering for my team in football
And pretending these things make me patriotic somehow.

With liberty and justice
For those who can afford it
Amen.

I think we could make that a universal pledge for pretty much the whole 1st-world. But that's just me

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 16, 2004, 9:05 am

Forthe wrote:
Voronwë wrote:i dont see any reason for a pledge of allegiance at all.

it is kind of authoritarian in my opinion.
This is how I see it as well. Just one of the things the US government does to create blind nationalism.

Like there are countries that do not promote blind nationalism

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 16, 2004, 9:15 am

Kylere wrote:
Forthe wrote:
Voronwë wrote:i dont see any reason for a pledge of allegiance at all.

it is kind of authoritarian in my opinion.
This is how I see it as well. Just one of the things the US government does to create blind nationalism.
Like there are countries that do not promote blind nationalism

I don't know anyone that does the job as effectively..

We study more world history than Australian history, hell, probably more ancient history.

We don't run around calling Australia the "greatest country in the world" every five minutes.

Don't get me wrong, we're patriotic.. but we don't brainwash our kids into it.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » June 16, 2004, 9:29 am

Zaelath wrote:
Kylere wrote:
Forthe wrote:
Voronwë wrote:i dont see any reason for a pledge of allegiance at all.

it is kind of authoritarian in my opinion.
This is how I see it as well. Just one of the things the US government does to create blind nationalism.
Like there are countries that do not promote blind nationalism
I don't know anyone that does the job as effectively..

We study more world history than Australian history, hell, probably more ancient history.

We don't run around calling Australia the "greatest country in the world" every five minutes.

Don't get me wrong, we're patriotic.. but we don't brainwash our kids into it.

heh, no offense but im sure a country founded as a prison for the worst convicts in the UK would not like to study much national history

Your right though, at least 9 out of 12 years in school, americans study US history, not different aspects of US history, but the same fucking history course for about 9 years out of 12

murr · Post by **murr** » June 16, 2004, 9:36 am

GEORGE WASHINGTON CUT DOWN A CHERRY TREE

ahahehae go pubic education

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 16, 2004, 10:05 am

Zaelath, your provincialism is showing.

Calling the US a society that brainwashes kids as if we are the leading evil in that issue demonstrates ignorance on a level subhuman. You want to talk about brainwashing, go check out kids being trained as suicide bombers, not kids saying a pledge. If you think having pride in your home country is being brainwashed, I really feel bad for you.

Of course if my country had been founded by prisoners I would have a tougher time working up patriotism also. Has the Queen released you all yet?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » June 16, 2004, 10:33 am

Voronwë wrote:i dont see any reason for a pledge of allegiance at all.

it is kind of authoritarian in my opinion.

I agree with Voro, I am not that particularly fond of the pledge in the first place. The authoritarianism of the pledge isn't exactly a mistake either.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-04-03.html

Very little, as it turns out. From its inception, in 1892, the Pledge has been a slavish ritual of devotion to the state, wholly inappropriate for a free people. It was written by Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist pushed out of his post as a Baptist minister for delivering pulpit-pounding sermons on such topics as "Jesus the Socialist." Bellamy was devoted to the ideas of his more-famous cousin Edward Bellamy, author of the 1888 utopian novel Looking Backward. Looking Backward describes the future United States as a regimented worker's paradise where everyone has equal incomes, and men are drafted into the country's "industrial army" at the age of 21, serving in the jobs assigned them by the state. Bellamy's novel was extremely popular, selling more copies than other any 19th century American novel except Uncle Tom's Cabin. Bellamy's book inspired a movement of "Nationalist Clubs," whose members campaigned for a government takeover of the economy. A few years before he wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, Francis Bellamy became a founding member of Boston's first Nationalist Club.

Granted, the meaning of things change over time and aren't used in the way their original authors intended. That being said I am still not that fond of a blind recitation of allegiance to a flag.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 16, 2004, 10:33 am

Kylere wrote:Zaelath, your provincialism is showing.

Calling the US a society that brainwashes kids as if we are the leading evil in that issue demonstrates ignorance on a level subhuman. You want to talk about brainwashing, go check out kids being trained as suicide bombers, not kids saying a pledge. If you think having pride in your home country is being brainwashed, I really feel bad for you.

Of course if my country had been founded by prisoners I would have a tougher time working up patriotism also. Has the Queen released you all yet?

You feel really bad for everyone that isn't an American, because you're the greatest country in the world. No one hates Americans because you treat them poorly, they hate you because they're jealous they're not in the greatest country in the world.

An American calling an Australian provincial is about the funniest thing I've heard this year, bravo.

You celebrate the birthday of the pedophilic slave trader that found your country, be proud!

BTW, the prison colony japes just reinforce the fact that you know nothing about Australia. No one here cares that we got 100,000 convicts shipped here 200 years ago compared to the 50,000 that were shipped to the US (OMG, you didn't even know that did you, jackass http://www.notfrisco.com/prisonhistory/ ... ins01.html) which was of course a small fraction compared to the free settlers.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » June 16, 2004, 10:41 am

Karae wrote:"In God We Trust" was not initially on money. Originally, the phrase "E Pluribus Unum" (roughly translated as, "Out of Many, One," symbolizing unity) was on all coins and bills. In 1908 legislation was passed that mandated the placement of the phrase "In God We Trust" on all coins minted. It wasn't until the 1956 printing year, as a result of Public Law 140 signed into law in 1955, that the phrase appeared on soft currency. This was also the result of anti-Communist sentiment and a direct reply to their pronouncment of atheism.

http://www.coin-newbies.com/articles/franklin.html

Saw this link the other day and found it interesting. Apparently the first motto on our national coinage was "Mind Your Business".

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » June 16, 2004, 10:43 am

Canelek wrote: 'God' did not found this country, angry ex-euros did.

This country was founded by religious nuts with guns.
– P.J. O'Rourke

P.S. I firmly believe in the separation of church and state, I just think P.J.'s quote is amusing.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 16, 2004, 11:05 am

Zaelath wrote:
Kylere wrote:Zaelath, your provincialism is showing.

Calling the US a society that brainwashes kids as if we are the leading evil in that issue demonstrates ignorance on a level subhuman. You want to talk about brainwashing, go check out kids being trained as suicide bombers, not kids saying a pledge. If you think having pride in your home country is being brainwashed, I really feel bad for you.

Of course if my country had been founded by prisoners I would have a tougher time working up patriotism also. Has the Queen released you all yet?
You feel really bad for everyone that isn't an American, because you're the greatest country in the world. No one hates Americans because you treat them poorly, they hate you because they're jealous they're not in the greatest country in the world.

An American calling an Australian provincial is about the funniest thing I've heard this year, bravo.

You celebrate the birthday of the pedophilic slave trader that found your country, be proud!

BTW, the prison colony japes just reinforce the fact that you know nothing about Australia. No one here cares that we got 100,000 convicts shipped here 200 years ago compared to the 50,000 that were shipped to the US (OMG, you didn't even know that did you, jackass http://www.notfrisco.com/prisonhistory/ ... ins01.html) which was of course a small fraction compared to the free settlers.

Oh I know history and unlike you I am fully aware that someone growing up in downtown London, Paris or New York can be provincial. You make a good example of this, all that access to knowledge and data and you still make luddite level comparisons of patriotism to brainwashing.

Sad, very sad.

Oh BTW the difference between the US and your homeland? We ejected our foreign leadership, and we lead ourselves into the future. If you think brainwashing our children is what made the US the most powerful nation in the history of mankind, you are sorely mistaken.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 16, 2004, 11:44 am

No one turned to God from reciting the pledge.

If christians want to win over people's hearts, there are better labors to pursue than this.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » June 16, 2004, 12:09 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:No one turned to God from reciting the pledge.

If christians want to win over people's hearts, there are better labors to pursue than this.

It may not be a way of recruiting to particular religions, but it certainly is saying that there is a god.

While I don't find 'under god' a big deal in the pledge - I certainly think it is unnecessary and should be removed.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 16, 2004, 12:26 pm

Kylere wrote: Oh I know history and unlike you I am fully aware that someone growing up in downtown London, Paris or New York can be provincial. You make a good example of this, all that access to knowledge and data and you still make luddite level comparisons of patriotism to brainwashing.

Sad, very sad.

Oh BTW the difference between the US and your homeland? We ejected our foreign leadership, and we lead ourselves into the future. If you think brainwashing our children is what made the US the most powerful nation in the history of mankind, you are sorely mistaken.

Apparently your word of the day calendar doesn't provide definitions you can understand fully.

We have had our own Federal government since 1901. Being part of the commonwealth is about as significant as the US being a member state of the UN when it comes to "leading ourselves into the future".

Pity away, your concern for others is touching, really. I wonder who the Romans pitied.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » June 16, 2004, 12:37 pm

Zaelath wrote:Pity away, your concern for others is touching, really. I wonder who the Romans pitied.

The Britons

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 16, 2004, 1:14 pm

There's a lot of out dated things we do. Anything that is remotely associated with religion should be removed.

If we keep that, muslims should be able to whip out a rug and start praying to Allah every morning as well in school.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 16, 2004, 1:17 pm

LOL I do not pity Aussies, I think they mostly rock, other than the far left and right nutcases.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 16, 2004, 1:42 pm

Al least the Aussies stand up and fight with us. 9 times out of 10.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 16, 2004, 1:55 pm

Yeah and then the bush admin anally violates them on unfair trade agreements and illegal tarriffs on australian exports while john howard keeps gagging on republican cock

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 16, 2004, 1:57 pm

kyoukan wrote:Yeah and then the bush admin anally violates them on unfair trade agreements and illegal tarriffs on australian exports while john howard keeps gagging on republican cock

"trade agreements"

Agreement being the key word

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » June 16, 2004, 2:01 pm

Ha the pledge was made to first to boost flag sales and then the words "under God" were added over 100 years. I agree I don't think it really harms me anyway besides wasting time, but I don't really see the benefit either.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 16, 2004, 2:47 pm

I don't see the problem with it. All religious people have a "God". All non-religious people can just say it and move on. The country got to where it is on the backbone of many of the morals that come from religion. While I may not believe in a God, I don't see the problem with a generic reference. It's not like they are pushing the need to be religious down anyone throats. Trying to wipe away a country's traditions is a very destructive thing. Especially if those traditions aren't harmful.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » June 16, 2004, 4:43 pm

First of all Mid, you glossed over the fact that these christian trappings were added in after the fact, as much as 150 years after the nation's founding in the case of the pledge. They are not traditions, they are hold overs from McCarthyism that the crispies snuck in there when no one was looking. The original pledge, currency, and presidential swearing in ceremony (as stated in the constitution) have no mention of any religeous trappings what so ever.

Second, the government endorsing religion in ANY form is an extremely dangerous thing, which is why the constitution prohibits it, in theory. Poly theists (such as people from India, pagans, and native americans) are not covered by the existance of one singular god. Atheists, such as myself, do not care if people want to waste their time with antiquated superstition, but we do not want out lives intruded by the government using a self contradicting poorly translated work of fiction as a guiding principle.

Religion NEEDS to remain seperate from government, or else you inevitably promote one religion as being superior to others. We already see this now, with Islamic, Pagan, and Hindu faiths basically being disrespected, if not openly mocked, while Christianity is being used as a rallying cry by our president. I know I for one am outraged at the whole faith based initiative crap and the whole coordinated prayer for the president, both of which are getting federal funding. Think about how god fearing crispies would react if the president authorized federal funding for pagan rituals and covens to keep kids off of drugs and you have a pretty good idea how I (and probably other Atheists) feel about the whole Faith Based Initiative thing, and who is to say that their beliefs are any less valid or nurturing? It is a slipery slope, that allows no room for error. It all has to go, for the sake of the very religious nuts who are trying to take advantage of it to wedge their cocks up our asses.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 16, 2004, 5:05 pm

Jice Virago wrote:Second, the government endorsing religion in ANY form is an extremely dangerous thing, ...

Just a side question:

Jice, in your opinion, how has the introduction of "In God we Trust" on our pennies or whatnot caused dangerous harm to American society?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 16, 2004, 5:14 pm

anything that violates the constitution of a country is harmful to that country, providing that the constitution is not an unfairly written farce designed to corrupt leadership and people. the constitution of the united states prohibits government in getting involved in matters of the faith. putting "in god we trust" onto the currency acknowledges faith; particularly faith in the judeo-christian god that it refers to. this is a tacit endorsement of christianity and therefore unconstitutional. you either think that the constitution is wrong in this case and think it is ok for it to be violated (and therefore have no respect for the law), or you just don't care about the constitution of your country at all. either way it is harmful for your country.

how would you feel if instead of "in god we trust" on all your currency it said "there is no god"? either way it would still be money and life would still go on, but there's no real reason for that to be there. the US was certainly not founded on atheistic beliefs (any more than it was build on a foundation of christianity). so why even have it at all?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 16, 2004, 5:19 pm

Or

I disagree with your interpretation of the separation of church and state language in the original law.

Not that having In God We Trust written on our currency is a big deal to me. If it goes I'll lose little sleep.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 16, 2004, 5:27 pm

If a government was strongly influenced by an islamic tradition of law. It would make sense to me that they'd give credit to islam as a part of their cultural and governmental development.

If they had "There is no god but Allah" on their coins, I'd recognise it as a statement of where they came from.

Christianity was a commonality during our nation's foundation. It shaped our law. It's not a big deal when that commonality is referenced as a reminder of our cultural roots.

But again, I don't see this particular issue as something worth fighting over.

A more worthy fight is the debate over governmental funding for religiously based charities for example.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » June 16, 2004, 6:00 pm

Adex,

Fundementally, it is a problem of inclusion (and remember these things were not added to currency until long after the founding of our nation) and respecting everyone's rights and views. I am an Athiest and consider myself to be a logical free thinking individual. I do not, however, wish to impose my beliefs on other people (unless they invite the debate, or intrude on my freedoms) like the fundies do in this country.

I would find a statement like "There is no God", "In the Celestial Beauracracy we Trust", "In mother Gaia We Trust", or "By the Blood of Qetzecoutl we Trust" just as offensive to be placed on the currency or ceremony of this nation. You cannot give liscence to one religion to bypass constitutional law in any form, or you do not have true freedom of religion. These christian trappings were added to our government after the fact by people who felt their morality and god were the only ones of worth. Those same people apparently forgot why their anscestors left europe in the first place.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » June 16, 2004, 6:42 pm

I want "By the Blood of Qetzecoutl we Trust" on our money!!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 16, 2004, 7:06 pm

If the reason for adding "In God We Trust" on our money was to promote christainity then it would violate the constitution.

If the reason was to remind people of christainity's dominant influence on our culture and government then it is a statement of history not theology.

Given this perspective, the battle is one of interpretation. One interpretation highlights a violation of law. The other interpretation violates no law.

So now you have right and wrong hinging on a people's interpretation.

How do you decide which interpretation is correct? Some try to determine the intent of the law writer. Others shout their interpretation loudly and demonize people who hold the other interpretation in an attempt to push the majority into one interpretation.

Once there, the majority's interpretation determines right or wrong, which then in turn determines lawfullness or illegality.

So in the end? It's not a matter of the constitution. It's a matter of majority opinion.

Kinda sad isn't it?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 16, 2004, 7:08 pm

Apply this line of reasoning as a explaination of why homosexuality used to be illegal, but now is legal.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 16, 2004, 7:11 pm

Take this one step further.

Given the shifting and limited nature of one human's reasoning, how do you determine if an interpretation of right and wrong is a good one?

Some look to the majority.

Some look to their faith.

Thus a direct link between religion and it's impact on even secular law.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » June 16, 2004, 7:13 pm

"In God We Trust" was just used to one-up the commies in the 50's. It's irrelevant and out-dated now and should go. You don't have to recall the money that's already made, just stop printing it on the new money.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » June 16, 2004, 7:43 pm

They should both go, but further, I completely agree on the notion that the pledge itself - god or no - is disturbing. Since about the 3rd grade I have simply remained silent when called on to act in this manner - whether it be the pledge, a group prayer, the national anthem (at sporting events), etc.

There are appropriate times to affirm ones allegence to the country - the start of school day (when minds are supposed to be open) is about the most inappropriate one I can think of. I have taken, as an attorney, several oaths of allegence to this country and to its Constitution and Laws. All of those circumstances were completely appropriate. A citizen should not be required to blindly pledge an oath of allegience - at least in a free nation - just to start his or her day.

The sort of rabid, unthinking, nationalism the pledge is designed to foster is antithetical to the values of the country it proports to support. It also happens to be counter to many religious beliefs (the Judeo-Christian God forbids idolatry). The whole ritual should end.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 16, 2004, 7:49 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:If the reason for adding "In God We Trust" on our money was to promote christainity then it would violate the constitution.

If the reason was to remind people of christainity's dominant influence on our culture and government then it is a statement of history not theology.

you're just trying to lawyer out of the issue. you could just as easily put "god is a wanker" on your currency and say it's a statement of history about all the people who fled to the new world to get away from the religious power centers in europe.

what is it with you fundies anyway? you're always trying to sneak god and jesus into where it's not supposed to be, then you come up with these semantical arguments to try and explain yourselves. it's sneaky and not very honorable. at least islamists will put god on everything and just cut your head off if you try to argue with them about it. all this subversive shit trying to circumvent the constitution with lame explanations and spurious logic make you look even worse.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 16, 2004, 8:02 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:They should both go, but further, I completely agree on the notion that the pledge itself - god or no - is disturbing. Since about the 3rd grade I have simply remained silent when called on to act in this manner - whether it be the pledge, a group prayer, the national anthem (at sporting events), etc.

There are appropriate times to affirm ones allegence to the country - the start of school day (when minds are supposed to be open) is about the most inappropriate one I can think of. I have taken, as an attorney, several oaths of allegence to this country and to its Constitution and Laws. All of those circumstances were completely appropriate. A citizen should not be required to blindly pledge an oath of allegience - at least in a free nation - just to start his or her day.

The sort of rabid, unthinking, nationalism the pledge is designed to foster is antithetical to the values of the country it proports to support. It also happens to be counter to many religious beliefs (the Judeo-Christian God forbids idolatry). The whole ritual should end.

What you seek is anarchy. No guidelines or anything. I can only pray we have enough wacked out religious right wingers in the government for the next 100 years to stop this destructive liberal ideology.

VeeshanVault

one nation "under god"

Should the phrase "under god" be a part of the pledge

one nation "under god"