One Nation...Follow

Under God?

Soon, a decision will be made on whether we remove "under God" from the pledge of allegiance. I for one would like to keep it there, even though it wasn't in the original pledge, and was added in June of 1954.

I think Docherty made a good statement when he said:

"This is a nation built on the principle that there is a God, but it doesn't define it. It could be the Christian God. It could be the Judeo God. It could be the Buddhan god, it could the Mohammedan God. But it's built on a vertical relationship with God."

In 1953 the Gallup organization conducted an anonymous poll: "It has been suggested that the words, "under God," should be added to the Oath of Allegiance to the flag so that it would read: "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." Would you favor or oppose this change?"

69% - yes

29% - no

10% - no opinion

± 3% Margin of Error

March 28, 1953,

Sample Size= 1,602

Were we in the middle of the cold war battling godless communism? Yes. Did it make a difference? Yes. Was it the only reason for adding the words, I don't think so. There is absolutely no reason to believe the people interviewed anonymously by this poll were responding out of the fear of being painted with the red brush and being linked to godless communism.

On the other hand, The First Amendment, which guarantees free speech as well as freedom of religion, clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Recognizing God in the Pledge is making a law respecting an establishment of religion. Therefore the phrase "Under God" should be removed. QED.

One of the reasons I feel I'm leaning towards keeping it is because I'm a creature of habit, I was taught it that way, I've recited it that way, and I've grown pride in my country through many years of reciting it.

What are your thoughts?

personally i think we should keep it, just like skeeter said it says "God" not "Christain God" we all know that the people who want it to be changed are the atheist, buddha, etc... so it can stand for any God, do i know that it stands for the christianty God? no idea but either way, keep it like it is. stop worrying about **** that doesnt matter people!

So you would be against adding it in the first place? I don't think there was anything "broken" about the pledge then either.

i can't even accurately give that an answer. I don't even have a clue what it was like to live in that time. If there was a mass barrage of people and courts forcing and driving random changes everywhere then i'd like to think i would say the same thing, but different circumstances drive different things in different people...so iono honestly.



I don't make it either and I think I believe on a pretty opposing spectrum as you. I just think politically the gov't needs to stop letting every tom, **** and larry force a change whenever they think one of our 39039580239570239 rights has been violated indirectly. especially in a time like this when half of us aren't even really sure WHAT page we are all on politically.

EDIT: heh...if your name is "d i c k" then you can't post your name. ever had one of those brain farts where something doesn't look right? is that really a used name or I spell it wrong?

Edited, Wed Mar 24 13:50:40 2004 by Empyre

/nod

/digs in his pockets to find the $0.73 it would take to purchase a palatial estate on the upper ganges.

Um. No it wasn't.

Um.. then why did they come over here? To get away from religious predjudice.. To live thier lives believing what ever they want.. Is that a bit more intelligible for you..... You cannot tell me they werent praying to thier gods to live in a "free" country.

nope. they came over mindless and relatively thoughtless. no belief in anything higher than life. the whole thing with the english persecuting them..well that was just a bit to make the story sound more interesting.

ok ok...i'll leave.

Check out how quick Katie jumps on the bandwagon now that the Queen has declared her to be second in line to the court jester position.

granted, it's a really easy wagon to jump on, given some of the things that come off of Empyre's keyboard, but it's a bandwagon, none the less.

Maybe I should be more clear, given all that "empty space" in Texas. The bandwagon in question here is the active participation in casual berating of fellow posters. Besides, when you may or may not have made your summary proclamations regarding the obsequious teen and the less than intellectually stunning religious zealot I was under my current impression of you and probably disregarded it as the ramblings of a wanton recepticle fawning for attention. That's just me though. :)

EDIT: I r teh win for speeling

Edited, Wed Mar 24 15:21:48 2004 by MoebiusLord

Well, that was an interesting "story," Empyre.

1. They were not mindless and thoughtless. They came in search of greater wealth, trade, freedom and adventure - to loosely define it. Your suggestion that they floated over here for the hell of it is completely inaccurate.

2. The first settlers of North America were very religious. In fact, many were missionaries. How can they have had "no belief in anything higher than life?"

3."The whole thing with the english persecuting them"....?? I don't even know what this means. The earliest settlers were English, French and Spanish...were the settlers persecuting themselves?

Well, exactly. You are talking about English persecution. I am suggesting that English settlers would not be persecuting themselves, would they? The other players probably felt the growth of the British Empire in other areas of settlement - India, Africa - but I hardly doubt that specific "persecution" by the English and mindless travel plans were the main motivators for landing in America.