Pages: 1 2 3 … 8

 

Poll

Should the Pledge of Allegiance Say "One Nation Under God"?

Yes58%58% - 72
No41%41% - 52
Total: 124
2006-12-28 05:36:51
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7048|Argentina
The Pledge of Allegiance is a promise or oath of allegiance to the United States as represented by its national flag.  It says these words: 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.

I'm asking this about the US Pledge of Allegiance just because this is an American forum, but f.i. the same happens in my country, where the majority is Christian and they force you to say similar crap.  If you happen to be from another country please tell us if this also happens in your country.

Isn't this a violation to the First Amendment?
Is it right to mix a patriotic thing and religion?
Where is the separation of Church and State? 
What about the atheists or those who aren't monotheistic, aren't those Americans?
2006-12-28 05:47:32
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6736|The Land of Scott Walker
Yes, it has always said one nation under God and should stay that way.  The US was founded by decidedly Christian people, that is our heritage.  The pledge is not a prayer to any specific diety and is not a violation of the 1st amendment.  No one is forced to say the pledge if they don't want to and the pledge does not say which God (Jesus, Alllah, Buddha etc etc). 

The separation of Church and State is not contained in the US Constitution and should have no bearing on this or any other legal matter.  Yet it's mentioned time and time again in an attempt to remove anything remotely acknowledging the existence of God from the symbols of our nation.
2006-12-28 05:48:16
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6783|Connecticut
Absolutely. If you do not beleive in God then dont say it.  The pledge of allegiance is to America, not God and we should not make changes to our pledge.
Malloy must go
2006-12-28 05:54:35
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7048|Argentina

Stingray24 wrote:

Yes, it has always said one nation under God and should stay that way.  The US was founded by decidedly Christian people, that is our heritage.  The pledge is not a prayer to any specific diety and is not a violation of the 1st amendment.  No one is forced to say the pledge if they don't want to and the pledge does not say which God (Jesus, Alllah, Buddha etc etc). 

The separation of Church and State is not contained in the US Constitution and should have no bearing on this or any other legal matter.  Yet it's mentioned time and time again in an attempt to remove anything remotely acknowledging the existence of God from the symbols of our nation.
The words "under God" were added in 1954.  Despite that, it's a violation to the First Amedment which prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over nonreligion.
2006-12-28 06:02:21
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6783|Connecticut

sergeriver wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Yes, it has always said one nation under God and should stay that way.  The US was founded by decidedly Christian people, that is our heritage.  The pledge is not a prayer to any specific diety and is not a violation of the 1st amendment.  No one is forced to say the pledge if they don't want to and the pledge does not say which God (Jesus, Alllah, Buddha etc etc). 

The separation of Church and State is not contained in the US Constitution and should have no bearing on this or any other legal matter.  Yet it's mentioned time and time again in an attempt to remove anything remotely acknowledging the existence of God from the symbols of our nation.
The words "under God" were added in 1954.  Despite that, it's a violation to the First Amedment which prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over nonreligion.
It is not a violation of any amendment, you are not being forced(or denied the right) to say it. Also, it does not give preference to any religion at all. There is a difference between organized religion that has structure, rules and specific beleifs and just being able to beleive in a God. By saying "One Nation Under God" you are not being forced to acknowledge a particular faith, which is what your arguement appears to be implicating.
Malloy must go
2006-12-28 06:03:40
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7048|Argentina

deeznutz1245 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Yes, it has always said one nation under God and should stay that way.  The US was founded by decidedly Christian people, that is our heritage.  The pledge is not a prayer to any specific diety and is not a violation of the 1st amendment.  No one is forced to say the pledge if they don't want to and the pledge does not say which God (Jesus, Alllah, Buddha etc etc). 

The separation of Church and State is not contained in the US Constitution and should have no bearing on this or any other legal matter.  Yet it's mentioned time and time again in an attempt to remove anything remotely acknowledging the existence of God from the symbols of our nation.
The words "under God" were added in 1954.  Despite that, it's a violation to the First Amedment which prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over nonreligion.
It is not a violation of any amendment, you are not being forced(or denied the right) to say it. Also, it does not give preference to any religion at all. There is a difference between organized religion that has structure, rules and specific beleifs and just being able to beleive in a God. By saying "One Nation Under God" you are not being forced to acknowledge a particular faith, which is what your arguement appears to be implicating.
No, you are forced to acknowledge God.
2006-12-28 06:09:20
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6783|Connecticut

sergeriver wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


The words "under God" were added in 1954.  Despite that, it's a violation to the First Amedment which prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over nonreligion.
It is not a violation of any amendment, you are not being forced(or denied the right) to say it. Also, it does not give preference to any religion at all. There is a difference between organized religion that has structure, rules and specific beleifs and just being able to beleive in a God. By saying "One Nation Under God" you are not being forced to acknowledge a particular faith, which is what your arguement appears to be implicating.
No, you are forced to acknowledge God.
Incorrect, you are forced to acknowledge the fact that America was built on religious and moral fiber. You are forced to acknowledge what America as a whole was founded on. You are not forced to "worship" anyone or anything, just pledging to our roots. Its like a mission statement that I have to write quarterly at my job. I dont beleive in half the shit I write, it just shows I stand for something.
Malloy must go
2006-12-28 06:14:09
Sydney
2λчиэλ
+783|7134|Reykjavík, Iceland.
I think all the god stuff should be completely removed from every country, just seperate.

National anthems, mottos, anything.

For example, would they let a Buddhist place his hand on the bible and swear to god in court?
2006-12-28 06:19:00
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7048|Argentina

deeznutz1245 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:


It is not a violation of any amendment, you are not being forced(or denied the right) to say it. Also, it does not give preference to any religion at all. There is a difference between organized religion that has structure, rules and specific beleifs and just being able to beleive in a God. By saying "One Nation Under God" you are not being forced to acknowledge a particular faith, which is what your arguement appears to be implicating.
No, you are forced to acknowledge God.
Incorrect, you are forced to acknowledge the fact that America was built on religious and moral fiber. You are forced to acknowledge what America as a whole was founded on. You are not forced to "worship" anyone or anything, just pledging to our roots. Its like a mission statement that I have to write quarterly at my job. I dont beleive in half the shit I write, it just shows I stand for something.
There's no need to include God in such a significant declaration.  You are promising allegiance and loyalty to your flag and your country, God has nothing to do with it.  When I was a child I was forced to promise similar things for my own flag and country "under our beloved God", wtf?
2006-12-28 06:22:33
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6783|Connecticut
I am not a religous man. I honestly believe that organized religions are elaborate businesses that just cluster fuck everyone else trying to co-exist. But that is my opinion and holds no value because it is just an opinion. What my point is, there are MANY religious people who are very peaceful and kind. Wouldnt taking away their right to say it be equally offensive to them? If something is not apprehensive or threatening then dont do it. Leve it be and dont participate. I am a heterosexual, should I try and make gay people illegal? Every month when I pay my cable bill I am being FORCED to pay for the 2 fucking Spanish channels that I do not want. I could opt to not get cable (thats not happening) but I dont. That is money that I have labored to earn making it more offensive than anything to me.
Malloy must go
2006-12-28 06:24:03
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6783|Connecticut

sergeriver wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


No, you are forced to acknowledge God.
Incorrect, you are forced to acknowledge the fact that America was built on religious and moral fiber. You are forced to acknowledge what America as a whole was founded on. You are not forced to "worship" anyone or anything, just pledging to our roots. Its like a mission statement that I have to write quarterly at my job. I dont beleive in half the shit I write, it just shows I stand for something.
There's no need to include God in such a significant declaration.  You are promising allegiance and loyalty to your flag and your country, God has nothing to do with it.  When I was a child I was forced to promise similar things for my own flag and country "under our beloved God", wtf?
But thats the thing Bro, in America you are not forced to say it. You dont have to say any of it if you so desire.
Malloy must go
2006-12-28 06:26:13
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7027|Salt Lake City

The pledge was originally written by a Baptist minister who saw no need to have "under God" in the pledge.  It was added in 1954 at the behest of The Knights of Columbus.  It was not there originally, and was only added in the last change to the pledge that occurred in 1954, even though the pledge had seen other revisions since it was originally written.

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
2006-12-28 06:26:35
Sydney
2λчиэλ
+783|7134|Reykjavík, Iceland.

deeznutz1245 wrote:

I am not a religous man. I honestly believe that organized religions are elaborate businesses that just cluster fuck everyone else trying to co-exist. But that is my opinion and holds no value because it is just an opinion. What my point is, there are MANY religious people who are very peaceful and kind. Wouldnt taking away their right to say it be equally offensive to them? If something is not apprehensive or threatening then dont do it. Leve it be and dont participate. I am a heterosexual, should I try and make gay people illegal? Every month when I pay my cable bill I am being FORCED to pay for the 2 fucking Spanish channels that I do not want. I could opt to not get cable (thats not happening) but I dont. That is money that I have labored to earn making it more offensive than anything to me.
Atheists have been screwed over for too long, time to make a change.
2006-12-28 06:29:31
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7048|Argentina

deeznutz1245 wrote:

I am not a religous man. I honestly believe that organized religions are elaborate businesses that just cluster fuck everyone else trying to co-exist. But that is my opinion and holds no value because it is just an opinion. What my point is, there are MANY religious people who are very peaceful and kind. Wouldnt taking away their right to say it be equally offensive to them? If something is not apprehensive or threatening then dont do it. Leve it be and dont participate. I am a heterosexual, should I try and make gay people illegal? Every month when I pay my cable bill I am being FORCED to pay for the 2 fucking Spanish channels that I do not want. I could opt to not get cable (thats not happening) but I dont. That is money that I have labored to earn making it more offensive than anything to me.
But it's the same for non religious persons who want to promise their loyalty to their country.  What about them?  If you don't include the words "under God", everyone can say it.  If the religious persons want to acknowledge God, they are free to go to church or wherever they go.  But putting the loyalty to your country with your religious beliefs together is wrong.

Last edited by sergeriver (2006-12-28 06:29:57)

2006-12-28 06:32:32
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6783|Connecticut

PBAsydney wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

I am not a religous man. I honestly believe that organized religions are elaborate businesses that just cluster fuck everyone else trying to co-exist. But that is my opinion and holds no value because it is just an opinion. What my point is, there are MANY religious people who are very peaceful and kind. Wouldnt taking away their right to say it be equally offensive to them? If something is not apprehensive or threatening then dont do it. Leve it be and dont participate. I am a heterosexual, should I try and make gay people illegal? Every month when I pay my cable bill I am being FORCED to pay for the 2 fucking Spanish channels that I do not want. I could opt to not get cable (thats not happening) but I dont. That is money that I have labored to earn making it more offensive than anything to me.
Atheists have been screwed over for too long, time to make a change.
Thats the thing, nobody is getting screwed over. Every affiliation has some sort of vision of entitlement. Just live for you and what you beleive in and dont worry about everyone else. I could give two shits about what Athiests do, or what Catholics do. Fux 'em all. I live for what I beleive in and dont concern myself with what other individuals beleive in. If it bothers someone that much then leave, why screw it for the people that beleive in it. If I felt that opressed by words then I would go insane.
Malloy must go
2006-12-28 06:32:53
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6736|The Land of Scott Walker

sergeriver wrote:

There's no need to include God in such a significant declaration.  You are promising allegiance and loyalty to your flag and your country, God has nothing to do with it.  When I was a child I was forced to promise similar things for my own flag and country "under our beloved God", wtf?
The US was founded by religious people, the pledge simply acknowledges that fact.  It does not say, "One nation, under Jesus, the one true God, with liberty and justice for all" or "One nation, under Allah, and Mohammed is His prophet, with liberty and justice for all" or "One nation, under Buddha, the enlightened one, with liberty and justice for all" etc etc etc
2006-12-28 06:34:37
Sydney
2λчиэλ
+783|7134|Reykjavík, Iceland.

deeznutz1245 wrote:

PBAsydney wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

I am not a religous man. I honestly believe that organized religions are elaborate businesses that just cluster fuck everyone else trying to co-exist. But that is my opinion and holds no value because it is just an opinion. What my point is, there are MANY religious people who are very peaceful and kind. Wouldnt taking away their right to say it be equally offensive to them? If something is not apprehensive or threatening then dont do it. Leve it be and dont participate. I am a heterosexual, should I try and make gay people illegal? Every month when I pay my cable bill I am being FORCED to pay for the 2 fucking Spanish channels that I do not want. I could opt to not get cable (thats not happening) but I dont. That is money that I have labored to earn making it more offensive than anything to me.
Atheists have been screwed over for too long, time to make a change.
Thats the thing, nobody is getting screwed over. Every affiliation has some sort of vision of entitlement. Just live for you and what you beleive in and dont worry about everyone else. I could give two shits about what Athiests do, or what Catholics do. Fux 'em all. I live for what I beleive in and dont concern myself with what other individuals beleive in. If it bothers someone that much then leave, why screw it for the people that beleive in it. If I felt that opressed by words then I would go insane.
Lets take your original sample, of the spanish channels, we simply want the Spanish channels out of the cable and make them a unique subscription. (If I have the right idea of what cable TV is)
2006-12-28 06:36:44
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6783|Connecticut

sergeriver wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

I am not a religous man. I honestly believe that organized religions are elaborate businesses that just cluster fuck everyone else trying to co-exist. But that is my opinion and holds no value because it is just an opinion. What my point is, there are MANY religious people who are very peaceful and kind. Wouldnt taking away their right to say it be equally offensive to them? If something is not apprehensive or threatening then dont do it. Leve it be and dont participate. I am a heterosexual, should I try and make gay people illegal? Every month when I pay my cable bill I am being FORCED to pay for the 2 fucking Spanish channels that I do not want. I could opt to not get cable (thats not happening) but I dont. That is money that I have labored to earn making it more offensive than anything to me.
But it's the same for non religious persons who want to promise their loyalty to their country.  What about them?  If you don't include the words "under God", everyone can say it.  If the religious persons want to acknowledge God, they are free to go to church or wherever they go.  But putting the loyalty to your country with your religious beliefs together is wrong.
In the Marine Corps Hymn (which you are forced so sing if you are a US Marine) the last verse says: " If the  Army and the Navy, ever look on Heavens scenes, they find the streets are guarded, by United States Marines". Should we change that too?
Malloy must go
2006-12-28 06:36:44
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7048|Argentina

Stingray24 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

There's no need to include God in such a significant declaration.  You are promising allegiance and loyalty to your flag and your country, God has nothing to do with it.  When I was a child I was forced to promise similar things for my own flag and country "under our beloved God", wtf?
The US was founded by religious people, the pledge simply acknowledges that fact.  It does not say, "One nation, under Jesus, the one true God, with liberty and justice for all" or "One nation, under Allah, and Mohammed is His prophet, with liberty and justice for all" or "One nation, under Buddha, the enlightened one, with liberty and justice for all" etc etc etc
Yes, my country was also founded by religious people, but that was two centuries ago.  The words "under God" were added in 1954, not by the founders of your country.  There's no need to include God.  You say "it does not say which God", but it says God.  What about non religious people?
2006-12-28 06:38:07
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6783|Connecticut

PBAsydney wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

PBAsydney wrote:


Atheists have been screwed over for too long, time to make a change.
Thats the thing, nobody is getting screwed over. Every affiliation has some sort of vision of entitlement. Just live for you and what you beleive in and dont worry about everyone else. I could give two shits about what Athiests do, or what Catholics do. Fux 'em all. I live for what I beleive in and dont concern myself with what other individuals beleive in. If it bothers someone that much then leave, why screw it for the people that beleive in it. If I felt that opressed by words then I would go insane.
Lets take your original sample, of the spanish channels, we simply want the Spanish channels out of the cable and make them a unique subscription. (If I have the right idea of what cable TV is)
Cant do it, I tried. It is a block package or nothing. *sighs*
Malloy must go
2006-12-28 06:40:09
Sydney
2λчиэλ
+783|7134|Reykjavík, Iceland.

deeznutz1245 wrote:

PBAsydney wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:


Thats the thing, nobody is getting screwed over. Every affiliation has some sort of vision of entitlement. Just live for you and what you beleive in and dont worry about everyone else. I could give two shits about what Athiests do, or what Catholics do. Fux 'em all. I live for what I beleive in and dont concern myself with what other individuals beleive in. If it bothers someone that much then leave, why screw it for the people that beleive in it. If I felt that opressed by words then I would go insane.
Lets take your original sample, of the spanish channels, we simply want the Spanish channels out of the cable and make them a unique subscription. (If I have the right idea of what cable TV is)
Cant do it, I tried. It is a block package or nothing. *sighs*
I don't know whether I should laugh or cry....
2006-12-28 06:40:41
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6783|Connecticut
Ive deen both....feel free to do either.
Malloy must go
2006-12-28 06:40:53
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7048|Argentina

deeznutz1245 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

I am not a religous man. I honestly believe that organized religions are elaborate businesses that just cluster fuck everyone else trying to co-exist. But that is my opinion and holds no value because it is just an opinion. What my point is, there are MANY religious people who are very peaceful and kind. Wouldnt taking away their right to say it be equally offensive to them? If something is not apprehensive or threatening then dont do it. Leve it be and dont participate. I am a heterosexual, should I try and make gay people illegal? Every month when I pay my cable bill I am being FORCED to pay for the 2 fucking Spanish channels that I do not want. I could opt to not get cable (thats not happening) but I dont. That is money that I have labored to earn making it more offensive than anything to me.
But it's the same for non religious persons who want to promise their loyalty to their country.  What about them?  If you don't include the words "under God", everyone can say it.  If the religious persons want to acknowledge God, they are free to go to church or wherever they go.  But putting the loyalty to your country with your religious beliefs together is wrong.
In the Marine Corps Hymn (which you are forced so sing if you are a US Marine) the last verse says: " If the  Army and the Navy, ever look on Heavens scenes, they find the streets are guarded, by United States Marines". Should we change that too?
That's different.  You join the Corps because you want to, but your country will always be your country, and you should be able to promise loyalty beyond any religious belief.
2006-12-28 06:44:19
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6736|The Land of Scott Walker
I would like to know where this "right" to be offended came from all the sudden.  If anyone does not want to say something, don't say it.  Quit trying to tell everyone else who wants to say it that they cannot.  Freedom of speech anyone?
2006-12-28 06:44:55
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6783|Connecticut
But let me ask this. Where is the perfect medium for EVERYONE? When do you offend nobody? There are much more things, at least for me, to become offended by. But that is me, not you. We are individuals with things in common Im sure, as well as vast differences. At what point should we just say "whatever" and show comprimise for fellow humans.?
Malloy must go

 

Pages: 1 2 3 … 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard