I'm not american but I think it should be religion-neutral.
So yes, get rid of it.
A country shouldn't have a pledge any way.
[QUOTE=Splarg!;32398158]I go to a choir college. We have choir four times a week, and 80% of the material we sing is religious/spiritual because that's what composers wrote about. The school is filled with agnostics and atheists and gays. Nobody gives a fuck.[/QUOTE]
Well Christianity has always affected the arts that way and it's a part of history but that part of the pledge is just placed their to influence children and it was only recently conceived.
[QUOTE=ntzu;32384121]Not really, im pretty sure that line was put in at a time where an atheist was such a rare find, that the whole christian thing really was appropriate.[/QUOTE]
and?
the fact that we're making children swear allegiance to their country and a god of our choosing before they even understand what they're saying is so archaic and such blatant brainwashing i'm really surprised it isn't done away with yet.
under god should definitely be removed from the pledge, and the pledge has no place being recited on a daily basis until highschool, when the kids are actually intelligent and aware enough to understand the words that they're saying.
[QUOTE=ntzu;32384121]Not really, im pretty sure that line was put in at a time where an atheist was such a rare find, that the whole christian thing really was appropriate.[/QUOTE]
It was added in the 1950s under Eisenhower, because people were afraid of evil godless communism.
They added it to the Texas Pledge a few years ago under Rick Perry.
wow. The pledge. My school doesnt even do that (private school)
I havent heard, or said the pledge in at least 5 years.
[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;32400189]The government guarantees protection of religion, not protection from religion.
I don't think those two words in the pledge are harming anyone, it seems pointless to remove them.[/QUOTE]
When non christians (especially young children who aren't old enough to have developed their own beliefs yet) are being forced to acknowledge the existence of the christian god (or any god) every day in school, its far from pointless/harmless. Religion of any sort has no place in public schools.
I don't really mind; being an atheist my self and having and reciting it everyday when I was in school. I like to think of it as part of the nations history now, they should just teach kids why they say "under god" in it in the first place.
[QUOTE=rosar0980;32401953]Attention Facepunch Posters. A smart person has entered the forum. I say again, a smart person has entered the forum.[/QUOTE]
The first amendment most certainly protects people from religion, as interpreted by numerous Supreme Court cases.
Engel v Vitale for example
[quote]Government-directed prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and students may remain silent or be excused from the classroom during its recitation.[/quote]
[editline]22nd September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=TropicalV2;32385382]what the first amendment states is important, but how the courts interpret what the first amendment states is even more important. in engel v. vitale the supreme court declared that mandated school prayers violated the establishment clause, but in elk grove unified school district v. newdow the supreme court declared that "under god" served a secular purpose as a part of our pledge and thus didn't violate the establishment clause.
the two cases pertain to different issues, but the newdow case contains the ruling relevant to this thread. as much as I disagree with the idea of ceremonial deism being touted by the government, it isn't unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]
Newdow didn't rule on the constitutionality of the words "under God", it just ruled that a non-custodial parent couldn't challenge it as he wasn't responsible for the child's education.
[quote]In an opinion authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court found that Newdow did not have standing to bring suit because he did not have sufficient custody over his daughter. "When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Justice Stevens wrote. Because it found that Newdow did not have standing, the Court failed to reach the constitutional question[/quote]
I don't think it necessarily needs to be taken out. People have an option to say the pledge in the first place, and if they want to say it but don't believe in God then they can skip that part. Also, "God" doesn't always mean "Father of Jesus, God". Plenty of other countries and ethnicities believe in some form of "God". It wouldn't really effect me if it was taken out though.
To people saying "it's not a big deal, it's optional to say it."
It's an official pledge represented by the government.
Optional, or not, it's official.
A more exaggerated tense would be like putting the Star of David on the American flag.
You don't HAVE to display the flag.
The government endorses the pledge, thus the government endorses religion, which breaks the first amendment. It doesn't matter if you ignore it, they're still doing it.
We shouldn't have a pledge of allegiance in the first place. In all honestly the government is not an entity which can or should demand the allegiance of it's people, instead the people should demand allegiance and loyalty from the government.
The idea that citizens give themselves over to their leaders is hardly befitting of a Republic.
A government belongs to it's people, not the other way about.
But... if we were to keep the pledge as we almost surely will I can safely say they should remove "Under God", as the entire purpose of the pledge is to demand secular loyalty to the state and not some vague notion of a higher power.
[QUOTE=Saxon;32429938]I don't really mind; being an atheist my self and having and reciting it everyday when I was in school. I like to think of it as part of the nations history now, they should just teach kids why they say "under god" in it in the first place.[/QUOTE]
When the reason is "it was put in because of the nation's fear of atheistic communists," why should it remain in? Why should it still be repeated as a matter of course by most every child in school?
Considering it was added by some republican derphead during the red scare (AKA, conservative retards thinking that all communists were clones of Stalin who wanted totalitarian shit in government (AKA, present day US government) I believe it should be removed.
The other people who live in the US might have a hard time removing it from when they say it, having lived in the US their entire lives, but as someone who has only lived in it for 6 months and never actually said or recited it, I don't think I would have a hard time removing it.
(Should definitely be replaced with "under oil")
Fuck no it's part of their history
[QUOTE=killover;32467853]Fuck no it's part of their history[/QUOTE]
So is this:
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
It really isn't religion specific, it's the same thing as saying "under Allah" or "under Buddha" whatever you believe in. God is just a word for a superior intelligence or supreme being usually associated with monotheistic religions. Fight all you want, I'm just saying that it is not biased towards Christianity.
[QUOTE=GravyKing;32473989]It really isn't religion specific, it's the same thing as saying "under Allah" or "under Buddha" whatever you believe in. God is just a word for a superior intelligence or supreme being usually associated with monotheistic religions. Fight all you want, I'm just saying that it is not biased towards Christianity.[/QUOTE]
What about those who don't believe in any gods like myself?
When it comes on somewhere I look at a flag or whatever and place my hand over my chest. I don't believe the crap, but it's a patriotic thing.
I stay silent because it doesn't really effect me and I don't mind it if I'm not forced to say anything.
It doesn't really matter if it's removed or not because a lot of places will still have the lyrics in.
Saying the pledge shouldn't be mandatory so I see no reason why it has to be removed.
[QUOTE=GravyKing;32473989]It really isn't religion specific, it's the same thing as saying "under Allah" or "under Buddha" whatever you believe in. God is just a word for a superior intelligence or supreme being usually associated with monotheistic religions. Fight all you want, I'm just saying that it is not biased towards Christianity.[/QUOTE]
It's ironic that you say it's not like saying "under Allah" (which means the same thing as "under God" in the language where Allah is used) and "under Buddha" when Buddha isn't seen to be a god by most in that faith.
It also rules out pagan-style worship of nature, the various religions that don't invoke the supernatural, religions that worship many gods, and of course plain atheism.
[QUOTE=Kurtzund;32475577]Saying the pledge shouldn't be mandatory so I see no reason why it has to be removed.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;32432433]To people saying "it's not a big deal, it's optional to say it."
It's an official pledge represented by the government.
Optional, or not, it's official.
A more exaggerated tense would be like putting the Star of David on the American flag.
You don't HAVE to display the flag.[/QUOTE]
Population of Christians > Population of Atheists
It won't be removed because it would cause more drama
[QUOTE=SmashBrosFan11;32478762]Population of Christians > Population of Atheists
It won't be removed because it would cause more drama[/QUOTE]
Ah because no one gives a fuck about minorities.
Well there is that whole separation of church and state thing, so yeah.
[QUOTE=SmashBrosFan11;32478762]Population of Christians > Population of Atheists
It won't be removed because it would cause more drama[/QUOTE]It should be removed because it's the AMERICAN pledge of allegiance, not the Christian pledge of allegiance. God can fuck off. He has no business there!
it pretty much implies that if you're not christian, you're not American. I bet it was a republican that thought putting that in was a great idea.
[editline]26th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=certified;32467772]
(Should definitely be replaced with "under oil")[/QUOTE]"One nation under massively manipulative, powerhungry theocrats" sounds closer to reality some times.
[QUOTE=SmashBrosFan11;32478762]Population of Christians > Population of Atheists
It won't be removed because it would cause more drama[/QUOTE]
this kind of thing is equivalent to racism
wasn't this country founded on the premise of equality? i mean ok stuff like trying to get works of art that are of religious nature or religious centers is kind of bullshit because that violates THEIR right to equality but under god implies that everyone believes in a monotheistic religion when there are a small number of people who are hindu or wiccan or other religions which are polytheistic and there are a larger amount of people who believe in no god and that's discrimination against them in a passive sort of way but it's like the elephant in the room and it needs to be addressed officially by the government soon
I've been out of the US for a while now and so I don't know what the current policy is, but I think they should just make a version with under god omitted, perhaps with something else in it's place, that people can opt to say instead.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.