Should "under God" be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance

Yes, the pledge should be restored to its original wording so that it does not violate Article VI of the Constitution "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

In any case, it is ridiculous to demand that children pledge their "allegiance" to anything until they are old enough to vote, serve in the military, and enter into binding contracts.

The Pledge should only be made by adults who wish to accept the responsibilities as well as the privileges of US citizenship.

I think we ought to say the Pledge and then an Our Father and a couple of Hail Mary's.

or

I think we should stop using the Pledge because of the waxy buildup and switch to saying the Endust.

because the Endust justifies the meanies.

Wait. Maybe I should stop thinking about this.

Yes. that feels better.


Joe

I might sound like a cornball, but when I'm at the stadium and The National Anthem is played, I get a lump in my throat. I don't know if years of saying the pledge every morning in school is the reason I have an emotional response to that song or if it's because I love my country and the freedom's I enjoy because I was lucky enough to have been born here.

There have been a lot of arguments put forth for why the pledge shouldn't be said or should be changed back but this one is the weakest I've ever seen. There is no way the pledge could be seen as any sort of "religious test" nor is anyone bound by law to recite it as a condition of office.

I think they should remove the "under God" part of the pledge and return it to its original form. I'm not enthusiastic about children being encouraged to make any "pledges" at that age, but I'm less annoyed by that bit of indoctrination (to support their country) than I am about the other (to acknowledge the concept of God as part of their world view).

The "under God" part was added for a reason, and that reason is unconstitutional (in my opinion).

We'll have to see what the opinion of the Supreme Court is, but at the moment, they seem skeptical that the phrase "under God" is sufficiently pointed as to warrant removal on the ground of unconstitutionality.

The Court has asked why the phrase "Under God" is any different from "In God we Trust" on our currency, but to me the difference is obvious given that it's contained in a "pledge", and even more so because it's a pledge which is encouraged to be a part of every child's upbringing. I can think of no greater method of coersion than to expose young children to a solemn pledge like this when they are at such a crucial age for acquiring new ideas. And I'm sure this effect is not lost on those who placed those words there in the first place.

I read the opinion of the 9th court some time back, and I thought it was well stated. Mabye I can find a copy of that opinion online somewhere....

Joe, this is great!

I'm with the "no pledge at all" contingent, very strongly. To me, once I was aware of stuff (dunno, around 10 years, I guess), I stopped saying the pledge altogether, so whether or not it had "under God" was immaterial to me.

Just as a sideline: my sister's mother-in-law is adamantly opposed to the pledge of allegiance. She's about 70 years old and German, if that sheds any light on the picture.

Lotsa' links right here (scroll down the page to March 24: the case is Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Michael Newdow)

Some of my family members know Newdow, for the record, and regard him as an unbelievable pain in the arse -- and it ain't politics: our family crest is pink going on red...

I got the impression from seeing Mrs. Newdow on a TV interview about a year ago that Mr. Newdow's case is really nothing more than a custody dispute and a judgement that didn't go his way. Newdow's motiviation is just to piss his ex wife off and be a pain in her arse.

Personal (Newdow) motivations aside, I think his issue is valid.

The supreme court may actually rule that his personal situation does not allow him to even bring this case, thus avoiding having to rule on the issue itself.

I couldn't care less about his motives -- I'm just surprised someone hasn't challenged this bit of bullshit before.

I love my country -- and I have no problem pledging my allegience to it or its flag -- but I goddam resent having to include that pathetic bit of brown nosing drivel in my pledge.

And this is not confined, as some seem to think, to school classrooms. I am ( or use to be) a regular attendee at township council sessions -- and each one starts with the pledge.

I've occasionally stirred up a bit of trouble by rather loudly using the words "...under Zeus..." at the appropriate moment.

Boy, does that make you popular!

By the way....Joe Nation...

...as usual, that post of yours was clever and humorous beyond words.

I aggree that the "under God" should be taken out. However, I believe that the Pledge should remain in schools.

If you don't want your child saying it, he/she doesn't have to. You also have the option of sending your child to a private school if the public education doesn't suit your needs.

My child can say it if he/she wants. But if someone compels him/her to participate, you can bet I'll be raising hell. Pledge allegiance to humanity, sure. But a flag is a symbol, and allegiance to symbols is, in my humble, silly at best and dangerous at worst.

Not all of the PUBIC believe in god.

Under God
When I was 14, having been forced &/or cojoled to go to church since I was 7, I one day realized that this god that I had been indoctrinated to was said to be a jealous god and a dictator. I told my parents that and that I would not go to church again.

I stayed away for years until my wife asked me to go. I did for her sake a several of times to baptize our children and then never have gone since. In spite of my brainwashing I just cannot accept that there is a male being knowing my every thought and able to punish me for transgressions at any moment.

I don't like dictators, &/or kings and won't accept a god that expects me to be a slave. I cannot believe that a god controls events here on this planet ie. causes floods, tornadoes, etc, saves some and alllows others to be tortured &/or killed.

I don't want to be "under God" and I don't think that the USA should allow schools or other public places to brainwash children &/or adults to the concept.

Okay, here's my idea and I know some of you will think I'm kidding but I'm not.
Every school year on the first day of school, instead of the usual 'what I did last summer' piece, each student will be asked to write an answer to this question:
"What does the Pledge of allegiance mean to you?"

Any student who turns in a cogent, coherent and reasonably sound explanation for what the Pledge means will be ALLOWED to say it at the start of classes each day. Turn in a lousy piece or something like "The Pledge is very, very important and awful, awful meaningful to me." must wait a full year before again trying to receive permission to pledge. They will not be allowed to participate in saying the Pledge.

My guess is that fifth graders might have a shot at making some sense of it all. That is, if they have as good a set of teachers as I had. Some more would get it by junior high, some by high school, some, if I've been reading right on this forum, will never understand.
==
I would also like to reverse the wording so that we first pledge allegiance to our nation and then, sort of redundantly, to the flag, or leave it out completely. I have never understood how one could pledge to be allied to an object. Thus:

I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, this nation made of people from all nations, our country, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

Joe Nation

The new end should say "With liberty and justice for most." I mean, ideally it would extend to all, but have you ever watched Judge Judy?

Or we can drop the 'with' and replace it with 'and someday'.