Should the words "under god" be omitted in the Pledge of Allegiance?

[trekdude31415]

I contend yes.
It violates the establishment clause by positing the existence of a single god.
The establishment clause is just for many a reason developable upon umbrage.

[ciphersort]

Fuck the Pledge of Allegiance, but not before this thread.

The Children's Story (http://home.comcast.net/~llefler/clavell.htm) by James Clavell.

[md5fungi]

To be completely honest, I always felt like shit saying the Pledge of Allegiance when I was a kid, because of the word "God." I read something in the news awhile back about a girl who was forced to say the words "under God" in her school, even though she felt uncomfortable because of an Atheist upbringing. That's just wrong. Even though those two words may alienate a small minority of people, it still happens. It was confusing enough for me as a kid to understand why the other kids were brought up to believe in something I wasn't (this might have something to do with being brought up in a particularly non-diverse part of the country). In this day in age, we have to be mindful of all beliefs and traditions, and not impose a singularity (albeit majority) of faith.

[Chunes]

Having kids recite a pledge of allegiance to anything is downright creepy.

[Huston]

The pledge of allegiance itself should be omitted.

"TERRORISM"

[zserf]

The words "under god" weren't even originally in the pledge. They should just get rid of the entire pledge. Having kids constantly repeat it just dilutes the meaning a pledge should have. Also, the country isn't indivisible (as shown by the Civil War), doesn't have liberty for all (hence the whole gay marriage argument), and the justice system is flawed.

[Thirsty]

I whole-heartedly concur with the idea of abandoning the pledge...The goddamn kids in the schooling system don't take the pledge seriously, for one, rendering it pointless. If you're a parent, and make a scene infront of the school administration about the "under god" bit, they generally become more flexible. I was able to get away with not standing up for the pledge (let alone reciting it) throughout all of my public schooling. Complete waste of effort on the school system's part.

[HoneyCyclical]

I whole-heartedly concur with the idea of abandoning the pledge... I was able to get away with not standing up for the pledge (let alone reciting it) throughout all of my public schooling.

I was able to get away with it also. I was in the Department of Human Services custody during High School during which I never stood up, recited, or did the hand gestures...not because I was a rebel but because I did not believe it. As a state ran organization, legally DHS was required to be hands off about religion with the kids in it's custody. For me it was like heaven going from a nazi fundy 'you got the devil in you' ESXJ home environment to a no religion enforced environment. Once the teachers learned that I was one of those "group home kids" (which I never brought up unless issues like this were pushed) they dropped the issue of the pledge of allegiance altogether to avoid any repercussions on the State level.

[Architectonic]

Hell no.

[Harion]

why not just remove the pledge of allegiance altogether?

[bluebell]

In 1999, we had a referendum to add a preamble to the Australian constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999#Preamble_question). The first sentence of the proposed new preamble was:


With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good.

In one sentence, the Prime Minister managed to simultaneously piss off both atheists and Christians, which was quite an achievement. (For the record, the referendum returned a no vote for the preamble, never to be mentioned again.)

[C.J.Woolf]

Another thing that bugs me about the Pledge of Allegiance is that it's to the flag. Talk about confusing the symbol with what it symbolizes.

On the other hand, the US federal government has the best oath of office. "I solemnly swear (or affirm) to support and defend the Constitution of the United States..." Fuck yeah.

[bluebell]

On the other hand, the US federal government has the best oath of office. "I solemnly swear (or affirm) to support and defend the Constitution of the United States..." Fuck yeah.

I'm not big on patriotism or pledges, but that's an oath I could live with. (Well, if you change it to the Australian constitution. *grin*) Belief in the rule of law is one of my (very few) core beliefs.

[Trentham]

Fuck the fucking pledge of allegiance.

In a free society, individuals are not beholden to their government, or its goddamned flag.

That is all.

[Kazan]

I always thought it funny when I as a child that we were pledging allegance to a flag...not the country, constitution, laws, leader, etc. I seriously thought for a while that we were all working for this flag. (I used to think innanimate objects were sentient in kindergarden.) It used to creep me out that the flag was always watching you in every single classroom in a school. And on top of buildings...everywhere!

One time I explained my confusion to the teacher...and that's when she decided I was crazy.

[LongSilence]

Great Britain doesn't really worry too much about pledges though I guess we do crack out our National Anthem every once in a while. That does have God in it but basically just involves asking Him not to kill off our Head of State and a request they do well and stay happy.

The words "under God" do suggest there is a certain united subservience and rule going on by Him. But yeah, what should it be changed to? "One nation, with iPods"?

[md5fungi]

But yeah, what should it be changed to? "One nation, with iPods"?

Maybe just omit "under God"... it still sounds fine to me. "With iPods" might be more appropriate, though.

[Unapplied Knowledge]

Eliminate the pledge. The government serves the man, not the other way around. Not to mention it's a verbal contract in which the government breaks its end of the deal on a daily basis (that whole 'one nation ... with liberty and justice for all' part).

[euterpenc]

I, too, think the pledge should be done away with altogether. When I was younger I hated it and thought it was stupid to pledge my allegiance to a flag. Of course, I was against pledging allegiance to anything anyway...

[Lee]

I say no.

It's a harmless American tradition.

But I do object to the words "one nation." The U.S.A. is a federation of states and not a nation. That is why the U.S.A. has a federal government, i.e. a government of a federation, and not a national government. The word "state" used to be, and still is in much of the English speaking world, synonymous with "nation" -- The U.S.A. could rightly be called the United Nations of America. Therefore, the pledge of allegiance wrongly refers to the U.S.A. as a nation, and misleads people into attributing to the Federal Government powers that are reserved for national governments, i.e. the states. Unsurprising, when you consider that the pledge of allegiance was penned by a socialist.

By the way, I am an English atheist, and have never said the pledge of allegiance, but saying "under God" wouldn't bother me any.

[Rossabo]

If the words "Under God" were in the pledge since the foundation of our country, I would not mind it as much. But the fact that it was slipped in by Christians exploiting the communist scare during the mid 1950's, left in and is vehemently argued as "part of our history" is frustrating. I'm against the pledge, as well as most nationalistic tendencies and customs.

[nonperson]

Fuck the fucking pledge of allegiance.

In a free society, individuals are not beholden to their government, or its goddamned flag.

That is all.

It is only free because someone got up and fought for it.

As I have said several times here you exercise your free speech and protest against an evil government, an evil army, an evil commercial system. Yet without these evil things you life would be a lot less free.

Try spouting anti-government crap in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and so on and see how far you get.

[A Schnitzel]

Where is the "I'm not a 'merican but I enjoy voting in polls" option?

[Trentham]

It is only free because someone got up and fought for it.
*Yawn*

Freedom ain't free, yeah, heard that one already.


Try spouting anti-government crap in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and so on and see how far you get.

Irrelevant.

[trekdude31415]

*Yawn*

Freedom ain't free, yeah, heard that one already.



Irrelevant.

this

[nonperson]

*Yawn*

Freedom ain't free, yeah, heard that one already.

Irrelevant.

Really? You remind me of those spoilt middle class kids I have to suffer at uni'. Spend a hour discussing the rights and wrongs of war before pissing off for a burger, a video game session, or a shag. While the kids from social housing are running around A-stan getting their limbs blown off.

How do you and they get by with such a simplistic, closeted view of the world?
Or is ignorance truly bliss?

[Trentham]

Really? You remind me of those spoilt middle class kids I have to suffer at uni'. Spend a hour discussing the rights and wrongs of war before pissing off for a burger, a video game session, or a shag. While the kids from social housing are running around A-stan getting their limbs blown off.

How do you and they get by with such a simplistic, closeted view of the world?
Or is ignorance truly bliss?

Nothing simplistic or closed-minded about my view of the world, thanks.

I just don't believe that when people die in war, it means that everyone else owes fealty and allegiance to the government body that sent them there.

By your reasoning, those who go off and fight in war are entitled to greater privileges and freedoms, right? So what the fuck are you doing in Oregon, posting pictures of cheerleaders on the Intrawebs? Go over there and fight for the cause, soldier!

[Arcturus]

Don't Americans have "In God We Trust" on their money, too? That would also seem to violate the First Amendment.

I know a guy from another forum, fierce atheist and he takes the time to scratch out that part on all his bills.

Oh, those crazy 'murricans.

[euterpenc]

Like I said above, I thought it was ridiculous to worship the flag, an inanimate object. Ironically, we do just that in our capitalist society. Maybe it is historical foreshadowing. :mellow:

[pangolin]

I always thought it funny when I as a child that we were pledging allegance to a flag...not the country, constitution, laws, leader, etc. I seriously thought for a while that we were all working for this flag. (I used to think innanimate objects were sentient in kindergarden.) It used to creep me out that the flag was always watching you in every single classroom in a school. And on top of buildings...everywhere!

One time I explained my confusion to the teacher...and that's when she decided I was crazy.

To be sure, it does say "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the country, for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, under god"

so it just starts with "to the flag"

I voted for removing the pledge however. Though I could possibly support a constitutional pledge, which would require the contents of the Constitution be taught from kindergarten on, which is not a bad idea.

[trekdude31415]

By the way, I am an English atheist, and have never said the pledge of allegiance, but saying "under God" wouldn't bother me any.

explains why you don't understand federalism.

[HoneyCyclical]

Laurie Anderson-National Anthem

[nonperson]

Nothing simplistic or closed-minded about my view of the world, thanks.

I just don't believe that when people die in war, it means that everyone else owes fealty and allegiance to the government body that sent them there.

By your reasoning, those who go off and fight in war are entitled to greater privileges and freedoms, right? So what the fuck are you doing in Oregon, posting pictures of cheerleaders on the Intrawebs? Go over there and fight for the cause, soldier!

They wouldn't let me in my 20s due to my eyesight. I support service charities.

Perhaps you should leave the US as you don't seem grateful for the society you live in?

[avolkiteshvara]

Keep it. Its historical.

Maybe add some clause or something saying you can add whatever deity you wish.

[cafe]

I guess I don't care one way or the other as long as students are allowed to sit it out if they want to. I'm a theist, but I'm not in favor of keeping religious references as a formal part public life, except in the case where an historical monument or building would be defaced by the removal.

[Trentham]

Perhaps you should leave the US as you don't seem grateful for the society you live in?

Nope, I believe I'll stay. Thanks just the same. :happpy:

[Etherealsage]

Personally, the issue about god just seems trivial to me. I think the greater problem to me is a.) forcing children to pledge allegiance to the country, b.) before they understand what they're saying, c.) daily so that the pledge is brainwashed into their brains.

[nonperson]

Personally, the issue about god just seems trivial to me. I think the greater problem to me is a.) forcing children to pledge allegiance to the country, b.) before they understand what they're saying, c.) daily so that the pledge is brainwashed into their brains.

A lot of adults don't understand the difference between nation and state so how much children are being inculcated is open to question.

What other parts of the curriculum would you axe because children are too young understand? At what point do they understand stuff? Do we scupper Darwinism and creationism? In art classes do we not allow abstract work because of their lack of understanding of art?

One thing children do understand is belonging (and exclusion.)

[nonperson]

Nope, I believe I'll stay. Thanks just the same. :happpy:

:)

[egregious cerebrum]

I remember that in elementary school, I would always lip sync the words, I would never say them. I remember being especially uncomfortable with the "under God" part, but I know that I was generally disconcerted with the whole idea of pledging en masse in a droning and meaningless fashion.

Why did I not say them?
Because I did not agree with the pressure of the establishment, the pressure to recite said words that I did not fully understand.

Why did I lip sync those words, as opposed to not moving my mouth at all?
Because I felt pressured to fit in, for fear of rejection and admonishment.

When I was in first grade, my teacher noticed I was lip syncing, and she called me out. Bitch.

[Etherealsage]

A lot of adults don't understand the difference between nation and state so how much children are being inculcated is open to question.

What other parts of the curriculum would you axe because children are too young understand? At what point do they understand stuff? Do we scupper Darwinism and creationism? In art classes do we not allow abstract work because of their lack of understanding of art?

One thing children do understand is belonging (and exclusion.)
You misunderstand what I am taking offense to. Think about it, pledge of allegiance, a promise of loyalty and adherence to governmental authority. If someone's going to swear fealty, they really should know what they're swearing and take it seriously. I, for one, simply take my promises seriously, and mislike that I'd been forced into this promise before I even understood what I was swearing to. Should we not be allowed to come to our own decision as to whether we want to make that promise, and if we make it when we decide we want to, would it not mean all the more? I think forcing children to do it cheapens its meaning and is a belittlement of the people who were forced into swearing their allegiance. Most people simply see it as "something we all had to do when we were little," and think little of it, but recall the words (we all can) and think about exactly what they mean for a minute.

[nonperson]

You misunderstand what I am taking offense to.

The thing is society isn't composed of beings like you and me. I do grasp what you are saying.

Before you can disagree with something you need another something with which to compare.

Elementary school kids (the majority of them) know no better. The minority might have some gut feeling. And only an infinitesimal percentage will have cognition and reasoning to have real opposition. Hopefully the latter two groups will grow as children grow. You must factor in youthful rebellion, but most return to societal norms (the easy path) as the pressure of real life begins to tell.

The Oath of Allegiance/US school system are the shared American experiences.

[Etherealsage]

The thing is society isn't composed of beings like you and me. I do grasp what you are saying.

Before you can disagree with something you need another something with which to compare.

Elementary school kids (the majority of them) know no better. The minority might have some gut feeling. And only an infinitesimal percentage will have cognition and reasoning to have real opposition. Hopefully the latter two groups will grow as children grow. You must factor in youthful rebellion, but most return to societal norms (the easy path) as the pressure of real life begins to tell.

The Oath of Allegiance/US school system are the shared American experiences.
This seems a bit of a brave new world argument that they know no better and only a small percentage might have a gut feeling. And you should factor in that youthful rebellion tends to occur mostly when there is a reason to rebel (even if what they rebel against can be misguided). And you seem to mark it as a good thing that most people become complacent and passive. Are you playing devil's advocate or do we simply have radically different values? 'Cause if it's the latter, there's no point carrying on; we simply will not agree. Your entire argument consists of what I consider symptoms of the problem I outlined.

And what makes us "American" isn't our shared experiences or where we're born. It'd be our mutual support for the nation we live in and its people, assuming we both supported them of course.

[nonperson]

Are you playing devil's advocate or do we simply have radically different values?

I spend my time at uni' trying to understand the nation state. I can't make my mind up whether it is passive (unquestioning) acceptance, shared identity, force of personality, or a combination of all these (and few I have missed out.)

By nature I am an outsider and even my own society is a foreign land. But without the unthinking masses going to work, breeding, obey laws, dying (sadly) etc. my life would be extremely difficult. I am dependent (up to a point) on society, the nation, the state being cohesive.

Advocating free thought is good. But most people aren't free thinkers. They may have moments of lucidity but mostly they are on auto-pilot.

So I neither agree or disagree with you. And I am certainly not going out of my way to upset you. This is an internet forum. At this moment somewhere else I am discussing tactical approaches to Afghani mud brick walls. And somewhere else XFCE. This is just a bar room chat not the floor of the union debate hall. I appreciate your thoughts.

I just wish some of my fellow free thinkers would acknowledge that which allows them to flourish and transmit their ideas........

Anyway I am off to watch Chuck.....:banana:

[Etherealsage]

I spend my time at uni' trying to understand the nation state. I can't make my mind up whether it is passive (unquestioning) acceptance, shared identity, force of personality, or a combination of all these (and few I have missed out.)

By nature I am an outsider and even my own society is a foreign land. But without the unthinking masses going to work, breeding, obey laws, dying (sadly) etc. my life would be extremely difficult. I am dependent (up to a point) on society, the nation, the state being cohesive.

Advocating free thought is good. But most people aren't free thinkers. They may have moments of lucidity but mostly they are on auto-pilot.

So I neither agree or disagree with you. And I am certainly not going out of my way to upset you. This is an internet forum. At this moment somewhere else I am discussing tactical approaches to Afghani mud brick walls. And somewhere else XFCE. This is just a bar room chat not the floor of the union debate hall. I appreciate your thoughts.

I just wish some of my fellow free thinkers would acknowledge that which allows them to flourish and transmit their ideas........

Anyway I am off to watch Chuck.....:banana:
Well, benefits aside, I consider this to be a small example of a wider-scale problem. For example, how politicians regularly make a pack of asses out of all of us because so few people realy think about what they're voting for (it is also what lead to a polarization of powerful parties rather than having a host of different ones to choose from). It is true that, to a point, the way we live now is based largely on the state the nation is, be it good or bad. Regardless of the position of lacking advantage it would put some of us in if all the world was full of free thinkers, I do think that it would be a net good if more of the world was more thoughtful. I also think this type of complacency and indoctrination begins early, and the pledge of allegiance is a good example of it. One of my biggest problems with it is that I have had the pleasure of teaching one of my friend's kids once. He was 5, and there was some he didn't understand, but there was a lot he did learn and a lot he wanted to understand. It's been my experience that kids are free thinkers for the most part. So why and where does it change? Bad experience with education? Is it an attitude that is taught? It has never struck me as a natural attitude when every young child I have ever known sought understanding. Something else that I've noted (that frustrates me) is that people who seem to hate knowledge still channel their curiosity into things, just into the extreme for one or two things. The dumbest motherfuckers I've known still managed to have encyclopedic knowledge of music, and for others, sports. So they still get excited over learning new things, just very few new things. Why? Why just those things? What meaning do those things have for them that everything else does not? What I'd really like to do is run a sociological experiment where all this bullshit that I've seen as a problem is removed and a more free-thinking style is implemented and see what they grow up and become.

[/ramble]

Haha, sorry about that, anyway, enjoy Chuck. xP

[nonperson]

Well, benefits aside, I consider this to be a small example of a wider-scale problem. .....

I agree with what you say. If we could come up with a definitive model for how society worked (or doesn't) we would be Nobel prizewinners. I don't think I will ever get even a compromise with which I am happy. Next week the common will probably surprise me and I will be filled with hope.



Haha, sorry about that, anyway, enjoy Chuck. xP

Who doesn't enjoy Chuck?????????????????????????