"Under God"

[Low-Budget-Superhero]

I'm sure you all have heard the story that most people do not want "Under God" to be kept in the pledge of alligence. I noticed at a Fourth of July festival near where I live, they played a recording of someone saying the pledge, and the two words got massive applause. This is from a state who actually hesitated to teach Darwin in schools, so I am not surprised. The truth is, there are many reasons to drop the two little words from the pledge.:

1) The religious conflict. There are some people who do not believe in God, thus the nation cannot be under something that doesn't exist. I could say our nation is under The Death Star, but that doesn't make it true.

1b) Most religions say that you aren't allowed to pledge alligence to anything but God, especially something under Him.

1c) Some might actually believe our nation is above God. "Our nation's bigger than Jesus!"

2) It's not like it's a major tradition or anything. "Under God" wasn't put in until the 1950's, and consider that our nation was founded in 1776, that disproves all the tradition bullshit you hear.

3) People should not be forced to say the pledge at all. This may not be really a reason to remove it, but it's still true. One girl got in trouble because she refused to say it. Her reasons were that our nation was corrupt. Smart girl. Pledging undying alligence to your country right or wrong? Don't they do that in Communist Cuba? Isn't that how Nazi Germany came about? Isn't that why Kamikaze pilots killed themselves in WWII? Do we really want to be like those countries?

I think I've said my fill. Comments?

[Commander-K25]

First, I'd like to say that the incident with the girl getting in trouble is an isolated incident. I know at my school, and every other one I've seen or been to, it is not required. You just don't have to say it. As simple as that. In fact, most of my classmates don't because they simply don't care.

As for the argument of imposing religion, in what does it do that? Does it specify a religion to follow? Does it even force you to follow one? Certainly not. If you're truly an atheist, then you shouldn't even care because you consider it all bogus anyway. Also, where in the constitution is it guaranteed? It says that the government shall not establish a religion and it hasn't done so.

Second, how far do we carry this? Those judges that decided to cut it out, they took their oath saying, "So help me god." If their own ruling is true, then they aren't even judges since they took an unconstitutional oath. Congress assembles saying, "God save this honorable court." Will this be cut out as well? And I guess we'll have to cut out the phrase "In God we trust," out of every coin or scrap of currency. This sort of revisionism and erasure of a nation's heritage is exactly what those such as Stalin and Mao-Tse-Tung did. Yes, the phrase "Under God" was added in the 1950's, but the concept itself is an integral part of this nation, passed down from it's founders.

BTW, what if I believe we were all created by giant pigeons? Will yourevise an entire nation to accomodate me? This is how special interests operate, changing things to try and accomodate everyone because it would be so horrible if someone disagreed and was not immediately catered to. They destroy individuality and uniqueness to create a "consensus" so that everone "agrees." Think about what's really being done here.

[dagger-happy]

At 7/11/02 03:27 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: BTW, what if I believe we were all created by giant pigeons? Will yourevise an entire nation to accomodate me? This is how special interests operate, changing things to try and accomodate everyone because it would be so horrible if someone disagreed and was not immediately catered to. They destroy individuality and uniqueness to create a "consensus" so that everone "agrees." Think about what's really being done here.

Christianity has persistently done far worse to stifle the individual and regiment society in the past, but we won't go into that...

"Under God" could easily be removed, returning the pledge to its original, true form, devoid of paranoid anti-Communism. I don't see how this small alteration would kill creativity and signal further decay of US morality - it would just make more sense, since the government is separate from the state. I agree that it's a petty grievance though, and it doesn't really affect people.

[Nicarchus]

This being my first post, none of you know me. However I regret to inform you, You will soon. =)

If we are going to bring up tradtion, it should be noted, That Several references were made to "GOD" in the Decleration of Independence. So, God has been a tradition of these States. Anyway, I think it is ignorant and irresponsible to even think about arguing for anything for sake of tradition... (You should all read "The Lottery", a short story by... Someone whose name has sliped my feeble mind... I'll get it by the end of the post... I hope... to see what I mean.)

I am of the belief that this the removal of the words "Under God" is just another pathetic attempt at P.C. It is a sorry excuse to say that "Under God" in some way infringes someones rights. As was posted above, those words are in no way oppresive to anyone. No religon is force upon another, No one is forced to believe anything. The Constitution, only states that the Government shall not run any church. (in a nut shell).

--- I got lost in my thoughts... so bare with me plz---

Since I lost my thought... heres another:

The same court that first banned, "Under God", has also passed a school curiculum that teaches Islam, (as well as other religions)... However, their whole base for this was it was seperation of church and state... -- (Not in school), yet here they are telling schools to teach religion...?

Can someone explain this to me?

---Welcome to the land of Minority Tyranny---

[Pecos]

I think 'Under god' has no business being in the pledge. I also think that 'In god we trust' has no business being on our currency. And separation of church and state should've eliminated those two issues. Yet, the majority of the population (sheep, all sheep!!) are religious in one way or another and believe there's nothing wrong with these things.

I don't think it's a huge deal, because those who don't want to say 'under god' don't have to say it. But how do you think it makes a kid feel when everyone else is saying it and he/she isn't? You can be damn sure that the child is ostracized from the rest at that point. So now we have a person who is persecuted for religious differences.

[Nicarchus]

At 7/12/02 08:27 AM, Pecos wrote: I think 'Under god' has no business being in the pledge. I also think that 'In god we trust' has no business being on our currency. And separation of church and state should've eliminated those two issues. Yet, the majority of the population (sheep, all sheep!!) are religious in one way or another and believe there's nothing wrong with these things.

I don't think it's a huge deal, because those who don't want to say 'under god' don't have to say it. But how do you think it makes a kid feel when everyone else is saying it and he/she isn't? You can be damn sure that the child is ostracized from the rest at that point. So now we have a person who is persecuted for religious differences.

[Nicarchus]

BAH! wtf... MEH!

What I said, or was suopse to say...

The constitution only stops the gov. from running/setting up a SINGLE religion, and making it greater then any other religon.

Did you care about the kid when his parents brought him up to think a certain way, made him follow a certain religon? How does that kid have a choice not to be the religon thats his parents are? Most people don't really care how the kids feel, they are just using them to front their case. So unless you are going to stand up everytime a kid is denied a right, or forced to believe something... (which would mean you're agaisnt school in general) I don't think you have the right to use them as your front.

[dagger-happy]

At 7/11/02 11:48 PM, Nicarchus wrote: The same court that first banned, "Under God", has also passed a school curiculum that teaches Islam, (as well as other religions)... However, their whole base for this was it was seperation of church and state... -- (Not in school), yet here they are telling schools to teach religion...?

Can someone explain this to me?

If they are teaching just Christianity and demanding kids to pray etc then this is wrong, but the very fact that they are teaching multiple religions shows that religion has been separated from the state. They are not forcing the children to worship Islam - they are merely educating them about it and the other religions in the world, as they already do with Christianity. Surely it is better to teach about all the different theologies and beliefs of humanity, or would you rather keep them ignorant? Education is supposed to broaden our perspectives, not regiment it into one, dogmatic school of thought. They teach subjects covering Marx and Communism in school, but this does not mean that the school preaches a radical, left-wing philosophy.

[Nicarchus]

They are not forcing the children to worship Islam - they are merely educating them about it and the other religions in the world, as they already do with Christianity.

You tell me: Dreesing up like a Muslum, Taking an Islamic name, Then reading the Koran... Is that teaching or practicing?

[Kaoru-Saga]

At 7/11/02 03:08 AM, GameboyCC wrote: I'm sure you all have heard the story that most people do not want "Under God" to be kept in the pledge of alligence. I noticed at a Fourth of July festival near where I live, they played a recording of someone saying the pledge, and the two words got massive applause. This is from a state who actually hesitated to teach Darwin in schools, so I am not surprised. The truth is, there are many reasons to drop the two little words from the pledge.:

1) The religious conflict. There are some people who do not believe in God, thus the nation cannot be under something that doesn't exist. I could say our nation is under The Death Star, but that doesn't make it true.

1b) Most religions say that you aren't allowed to pledge alligence to anything but God, especially something under Him.

1c) Some might actually believe our nation is above God. "Our nation's bigger than Jesus!"

2) It's not like it's a major tradition or anything. "Under God" wasn't put in until the 1950's, and consider that our nation was founded in 1776, that disproves all the tradition bullshit you hear.

3) People should not be forced to say the pledge at all. This may not be really a reason to remove it, but it's still true. One girl got in trouble because she refused to say it. Her reasons were that our nation was corrupt. Smart girl. Pledging undying alligence to your country right or wrong? Don't they do that in Communist Cuba? Isn't that how Nazi Germany came about? Isn't that why Kamikaze pilots killed themselves in WWII? Do we really want to be like those countries?

I think I've said my fill. Comments?

You are right. That girl was right. THE UNITED STATES IS CORRUPT!!! Besides, saying the pledge of allegiance is disgusting in my opinion. I do not resign myself to any nation nor do I pledge allegiance to any country, especially one so corrupt like America! To say the pledge is to kneel before America, and I kneel to NO ONE!

[Necromancer31362]

lol
yes amerika is corrupt... im not @ all surprised people are saying that. i believe it sometimes...
also, for their being separation of church and state..... lol that is kind of up there with commercial free MTV (btw i hate that u know) and world peace... its just not happening.

[Low-Budget-Superhero]

At 7/12/02 10:34 PM, Necromancer31362 wrote: lol
yes amerika is corrupt... im not @ all surprised people are saying that. i believe it sometimes...
also, for their being separation of church and state..... lol that is kind of up there with commercial free MTV (btw i hate that u know) and world peace... its just not happening.

I hate MTV as well. And you're right about seperation of church and state: while it should be, as long as people want to ennforce their beliefs on other, it will be challenged.

[Adam-Z]

The guy who started the whole "under God" thing with his daughter is a complete crackpot. The daughter willingly recites the pledge, her father is just some crackpot satanist.

This whole argument is just plain stupid, why the hell do athiests get so upset about saying "Under God" why don't you get a life and argue about something important.

[P-Chan]

At 7/12/02 07:08 PM, Nicarchus wrote:

They are not forcing the children to worship Islam - they are merely educating them about it and the other religions in the world, as they already do with Christianity.

You tell me: Dreesing up like a Muslum, Taking an Islamic name, Then reading the Koran... Is that teaching or practicing?

While I wasn't personally there to observe what they were doing, I'd be doubtful that there was any kind of practicing going on.

The activities you're mentioned above could simply be for enrichment purposes. To say that you're practicing a religion by simply doing those activities, is to make religions seem flaky and shallow. (At least in my opinion).

Kids dress up as shit all the time. Right? Dressing up as a devil as halloween, doesn't make you a satanist. So dressing up in ethnic garbs for a presentations shouldn't make you a muslim. Would giving one of my relatives from China an english name like "Chris" make him christian? I doubt it. And reading the Koran? Come on! I've been forced to read more bible quotes than I can care to stand here on newgrounds, and I can honestly say I wasn't practicing Christianity! ^_^

However, the teacher *could* have potentially gone overboard. But I'd be pretty shocked if the teacher told these kids to go home and pray to Allah or anything as extreme as that.

Telling the kids that they must believe that Muhammad is the prophet = Really Bad.

Getting kids immersed into another culture for a little while as part of a school project = Worthwhile.

---------------------------

On a related note, I do think that the whole "under god" thing is a little overblown. I mean, even in the Canadian Anthem, there is a reference to god. (And Canadians aren't known for there religiousness). I've never heard of anyone up here fighting to have the song changed. You have the option of not singing the anthem if you didn't want to, and frequently none of us did.

There are far more worthy (and meaningful) fights out there to be won, than just getting the amthem to be changed.

[Stormwarden]

I've said before that religion can go screw as far as I care.

That said, I must point out that combined, the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution hardly, if ever, even bother mentioning God, so that arguement is pure baloney!

Now, perhaps people would find the original Pledge more agreeable.

"One Nation, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All."

No "under God." That part was added by (you guessed it) Joe "the Jackass" McCarthy in the 1950's.

One more reason for religion to go screw itself!

[P-Chan]

---------------------------

On a related note, I do think that the whole "under god" thing is a little overblown. I mean, even in the Canadian Anthem, there is a reference to god. (And Canadians aren't known for there religiousness). I've never heard of anyone up here fighting to have the song changed. You have the option of not singing the anthem if you didn't want to, and frequently none of us did.

There are far more worthy (and meaningful) fights out there to be won, than just getting the amthem to be changed.

On further inspection of this thread, I've come to the conclusion that I am a dumbass. For four reasons.

1) I didn't know that "Under God" was actually a McCarthy creation back in the 1950's. I instead thought it was something from way back whenever. I agree with Stormwarden, "One Nation, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All" does sound a lot cleaner.

2) I wrote the post when I was really tired and thus didn't check or read the thread clearly.

3) I equated the US pledge of allegiance to a National Anthem, which I shouldn't have. I'm certain that a "Pledge of Allegiance" has a significance to its recital that an Anthem, which simply praises your country, wouldn't have.

4) I spelled Anthem wrong.

In realizing my mistakes, I will now be in favour of changing the pledge, but will still maintain the view that it isn't all that harmful.

[Nicarchus]

At 7/13/02 03:48 AM, Adam_Z wrote: The guy who started the whole "under God" thing with his daughter is a complete crackpot. The daughter willingly recites the pledge, her father is just some crackpot satanist.

atheist doesn't mean satanist... It's P.I. to say that :P

This whole argument is just plain stupid, why the hell do athiests get so upset about saying "Under God" why don't you get a life and argue about something important.

It's their right to cmplain, but they haven't presented a great case... Being as they still can't read the constitution correctly.

--

[Nicarchus]

At 7/13/02 05:25 AM, P-Chan wrote:
Kids dress up as shit all the time. Right? Dressing up as a devil as halloween, doesn't make you a satanist. So dressing up in ethnic garbs for a presentations shouldn't make you a muslim. Would giving one of my relatives from China an english name like "Chris" make him christian? I doubt it. And reading the Koran? Come on! I've been forced to read more bible quotes than I can care to stand here on newgrounds, and I can honestly say I wasn't practicing Christianity! ^_^

--So does saying Under God make you practice a religon?

There are far more worthy (and meaningful) fights out there to be won, than just getting the amthem to be changed.

Here Here!

---

BtW... this was started because some guy wanted to throw his political veiws at evryone else. He is a disgrace of a man... Not for the views he has, but for how he presented him. IMHO, its sad that this went this far.

(If you don't know what I mean..
This guy used his daughter to promote his views. He used her to promote ides, that had nothing to do with her. She infact wanted to say the pledge. Its also amazing how this guy is atheist... yet he celbrates Passover.. :-/ .. Maybe I missed something...

[FreedomSlave]

This whole argument is just plain stupid, why the hell do athiests get so upset about saying "Under God" why don't you get a life and argue about something important.

I'd imagine that the atheists are getting upset about it being there for the same reasons that the christians are getting so uppity about keeping it in.
I'm an atheist but i'm also british so I dont give a twat :)

[dagger-happy]

At 7/15/02 11:22 AM, Reaper-n wrote: I'm an atheist but i'm also british so I dont give a twat :)

"GOD, save the Queen"?

[Nanashi]

Well Christians. Lets put this in prospective. Lets replace the words God, in god we trust, under god and so forth with something like there is no god. Or I hate god.

“ I pledge allegens to the flag, of the united states of America, and to witch it stands, I hate god,…”

Then it is offensive to you hu? Well wouldn’t you want it changed back, or if need be, to not be there at all?

When I was in 3rd grade, I was sent to the office for not saying the pledge. My friends reminded me of that through out high school, I have been confronted with what you would call Christian radicalists who did not like my disbelief of god. They where quickly silenced. But that’s beside the point. What If I was a weakling? I could have gotten my ass kicked! To be persecuted. The point is, THIS CONTRY IS ABOUT FREEDOME of religion. It SHOULD not be lenient towards one or another. Its like saying, in Zeus we trust! Its called having a favorite. Do you pay property taxes? I do. Muslim places of warship do. The church dose not. Religion has enough grip on power already, it would be nice to return some to the people. Example. The pope, the most powerful person on earth seeing how almost everyone is Christian. He could walk in to the white house and say, I want to live here. He would get it. All he has to say is, GOD TOLD ME TO! Or it is to better talk with god! Besides, I’m sure bush is a Christian.

Yes, parents do influence there children with the intent of passing the Religious virus on to the next generation (I call it that because it has killed more people then all other forms of death combined) Luckily I could see through the shit. Where every hole is filled with the fraise “Just have Faith” and every time some thing bad happens, “god had a plan” (BTW, I guess god wanted to build a mountain where the twin towers where so he rammed a plane into them)

[FreedomSlave]

At 7/15/02 04:08 PM, dagger_happy wrote:

At 7/15/02 11:22 AM, Reaper-n wrote: I'm an atheist but i'm also british so I dont give a twat :)

"GOD, save the Queen"?

hmm true. However I believe that has always been a part of our national anthem which is not a pledge as such. I think the real issure on this is that it was put in very recently. If it was always part of the pledge then that's fair enough. But it wasn't.

[Low-Budget-Superhero]

At 7/15/02 11:11 AM, Nicarchus wrote:

At 7/13/02 05:25 AM, P-Chan wrote:
Kids dress up as shit all the time. Right? Dressing up as a devil as halloween, doesn't make you a satanist. So dressing up in ethnic garbs for a presentations shouldn't make you a muslim. Would giving one of my relatives from China an english name like "Chris" make him christian? I doubt it. And reading the Koran? Come on! I've been forced to read more bible quotes than I can care to stand here on newgrounds, and I can honestly say I wasn't practicing Christianity! ^_^

--So does saying Under God make you practice a religon?

It makes you acknowledge that there is a God, and only one God.

There are far more worthy (and meaningful) fights out there to be won, than just getting the amthem to be changed.

Here Here!

---

BtW... this was started because some guy wanted to throw his political veiws at evryone else. He is a disgrace of a man... Not for the views he has, but for how he presented him. IMHO, its sad that this went this far.

(If you don't know what I mean..
This guy used his daughter to promote his views. He used her to promote ides, that had nothing to do with her. She infact wanted to say the pledge. Its also amazing how this guy is atheist... yet he celbrates Passover.. :-/ .. Maybe I missed something...

I have to agree with you... while I agree with his views, he is practically whoring his daughter (I said "practically").

[P-Chan]

At 7/15/02 11:11 AM, Nicarchus wrote:

At 7/13/02 05:25 AM, P-Chan wrote:
Kids dress up as shit all the time. Right? Dressing up as a devil as halloween, doesn't make you a satanist. So dressing up in ethnic garbs for a presentations shouldn't make you a muslim. Would giving one of my relatives from China an english name like "Chris" make him christian? I doubt it. And reading the Koran? Come on! I've been forced to read more bible quotes than I can care to stand here on newgrounds, and I can honestly say I wasn't practicing Christianity! ^_^

--So does saying Under God make you practice a religon?

I'd say no, but it's similar. This is a "Pledge of Allegience" so it's closer to praying to Allah than it is to just reading the Koran.

I'd be pretty shocked if teachers had those kids say "One Nation under Allah" every morning as part of their Islam school projects. I'm sure you would be too.

[PsychobillyClock]

Heh. I remember in elementary school we said that pledge every day. Everybody said it because we didn't know what was good or bad about it. We said "Under God" because it was like the rest of the pledge. Now those kids can't say it. My opinion is, who cares?

Like it was said, there's no tradition in it. There's no reason we have to say it. Yet all the parents are soooo pissed off Billy Yank 'cause he can't say under god. Ask Billy Yank if he cares.

Kids don't want to do jack shit. They don't want to be associated with some ritual. They could care less if they didn't have to say the pledge. I said it so I wouldn't get in trouble and could go to recess. Kids shouldn't be religiously offended at the age of 8. They probably can't because they don't understand the concept. Give kids a choice if they want to say it. If they don't, they can get around to important matters, like learning.

[PsychobillyClock]

Oh yeah, forgot to ask. Our nation's corrupt, right? Yeah, without a doubt, no shit. Well then, which nation ISN'T corrupt? Can you answer that? Well than, who's the lesser of two evils? It's a sad world when alliance comes to that.

Corruption is unavoidable. There's not much you can do to change that. Chances are in this world that you will become corrupt, no matter what form of civilization you choose to live in. Power = Corruption, Government = Power. I think to be free of corruption, you must rid yourself of power and dominion. If you want to be anybody in this lifetime, that's impossible.

[Chen-Baiwan]

At 7/17/02 01:47 AM, P-Chan wrote:

I'd say no, but it's similar. This is a "Pledge of Allegience" so it's closer to praying to Allah than it is to just reading the Koran.

I'd be pretty shocked if teachers had those kids say "One Nation under Allah" every morning as part of their Islam school projects. I'm sure you would be too.

YOU FOOL!!!! DON'T YOU KNOW THAT ALLAH IS JUST ANOTHER NAME FOR GOD??? BOTH CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM BRANCHED OFF FROM JUDAISM! WHY DO YOU THINK JESUS WAS A PROPHET IN ISLAM??? I KNOW MY SOURCES! I HAVE BOTH SOURCES FROM SCHOOL AND EVEN MORE FROM CHRUCH!!!!

[ZombieLennon]

Ignorand is Bliss.
It's so completely idiotic to still have "Under God" in the pledge of allegance. The phrase "Under God" was installed into the pledge during a time when America was paranoid because there was an entity just as powerful as it. Under God was just a way to root out and blacklist the atheistic communists from the christian (and I be so bold to add, "perfect") american society. It SERVES NO PURPOSE. It's like still issuing a 50 year old grenade to marines in the 25th century. By pledging allegance to a nation under "GOD", you're being brainwashed by a system created to root out people we should never have been afraid of in the purpose; a dark age of america when it was either "you are with us or against us" (sound familar?).

The religious zealots (Basically all of the senate) are the morons who offer NO PROGRESS whatsoever in society just as religion has really done nothing for society in all it's history. The pledge of allegance should seriously be changed to "One nation under liberty" or whatever. It makes a lot more fucking sense than "one nation under our God" or "Under our ALLAH" or "under our BUDDHA" or "under Zeus". Learn about Agnosticism or Atheism before you bash them. And yes, they are "religions".

[P-Chan]

At 7/20/02 06:33 AM, Baiwan_Fuong wrote:

At 7/17/02 01:47 AM, P-Chan wrote:

I'd say no, but it's similar. This is a "Pledge of Allegience" so it's closer to praying to Allah than it is to just reading the Koran.

I'd be pretty shocked if teachers had those kids say "One Nation under Allah" every morning as part of their Islam school projects. I'm sure you would be too.

YOU FOOL!!!! DON'T YOU KNOW THAT ALLAH IS JUST ANOTHER NAME FOR GOD??? BOTH CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM BRANCHED OFF FROM JUDAISM! WHY DO YOU THINK JESUS WAS A PROPHET IN ISLAM??? I KNOW MY SOURCES! I HAVE BOTH SOURCES FROM SCHOOL AND EVEN MORE FROM CHRUCH!!!!

I'm very aware of that fact. However, I don't think you could say the terms were identical, as "God" and "Allah" imply specific religions in our media and culture. As well, I doubt Christianity and Islam have identical views and practices pertaining to their god figures. If both terms were truely interchangable, then Southern Baptists in the US would have no problem with congress passing a bill to say "Allah" instead of "God". But I'm sure they would.

[P-Chan]

At 7/20/02 12:46 PM, P-Chan wrote:

At 7/20/02 06:33 AM, Baiwan_Fuong wrote:
YOU FOOL!!!! DON'T YOU KNOW THAT ALLAH IS JUST ANOTHER NAME FOR GOD??? BOTH CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM BRANCHED OFF FROM JUDAISM! WHY DO YOU THINK JESUS WAS A PROPHET IN ISLAM??? I KNOW MY SOURCES! I HAVE BOTH SOURCES FROM SCHOOL AND EVEN MORE FROM CHRUCH!!!!

I'm very aware of that fact. However, I don't think you could say the terms were identical, as "God" and "Allah" imply specific religions in our media and culture. As well, I doubt Christianity and Islam have identical views and practices pertaining to their god figures. If both terms were truely interchangable, then Southern Baptists in the US would have no problem with congress passing a bill to say "Allah" instead of "God". But I'm sure they would.

As well I'm fairly certian that McCarthy was refering to Christianity rather than Islam when he created that little addition.