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

But it does!

You seem to think that simply because it does not "establish" a particular religion -- that it is not establishing a religion.

But it clearly says that we are a "nation under god!"

That is the establishment of a religion -- a religion of a GOD.

The phrase ought not to be in there -- and anyone who cannot see that it goes against the spirit of what the founders were setting up simply is being selectively blind.




You are correct here. For a very long time, religion was used as a rationale for the institution of slavery. The god in the Bible used by most of the religious people during the formative years -- specifically granted permission for trafficking and keeping of slaves.

By why use that in your argument?




Because one of the reasons for the Constitution is to prevent the majority from unnecessarily and unjustifiably imposing their will on the minority.






Well, as I said, I think you are being selectively blind.

But we'll soon find out.




Yeah. I can just see you doing that!

A lot of folks put out the idea that "god," as a concept, does not exclude some religions. Folks who do the animatist thing or the ancestor worship thing (and so forth) would disagree. You could even make an argument that it excludes polytheism.

Then why insert it in the first place? I'd think that supporters of the inclusion of "under God" would be more upset with your position, Foxfyre, than with the position advocated by Newdow in the Supreme Court case. After all, Newdow took the reference to "God" seriously, which is what most of the supporters do as well. But it would seem that a trivial or meaningless reference to God should be more objectionable to those who truly believe that God is the supreme being than it would be if "God" were left out entirely.

To ask another question concerning the "under God" portion of the pledge,

Is it really that big an issue for any of you and/or do you think it is just a political ploy to distract people from focusing on what I consider bigger issues such as The War,terrorism,etc ?

Do any of you feel personally violated by the inclusion of the "under God" portion of the pledge ?

I guess that's 2 questions.

Joe writes:


I agree. Some would consider my views heresy and it wouldn't be the first time either.

At the time the phrase was added, it seemed like a good idea and, because a majority of Americans claimed to be God-fearing (whether they were or not), almost nobody objected. It was a harmless thing. Now the country is far more diverse in both religion and other ideology and more do object to the phrase. It also continues to have meaning for many.

The point I'm making is that any of us are free to make of it whatever we wish. The government does not dictate what we are or are not to think about it. Therefore, take it out as a courtesy to athiests and Druids, etc., or leave it in as a relic of religious history. I don't care one way or the other.

I just don't believe the phrase is the government 'establishing religion' and therefore I do not believe it is unconstitutional.

With regard to saying the Pledge in a public school- the law states that there must be a total separation of church and state. There are several court cases that have tested prayer, in school, at a football game, with coaches, ---- all of the cases rule against prayer (or even a forces moment of silence) in the public school.
Lemon test (named after the first court hearing)
1. Is the school promoting religion in any way
2. Does it appear that the school is supporting a particular religion
3. Does it appear that the school is overly involved in religious activities

When I was a high school student I had several students that practiced some type of Hindu religion. They expressed a lot of discomfort - after we were adults- at having to say the pledge. They honestly were offended to have to say it.
Now, as a teacher- I do feel that it promotes religion. I do not feel that under god should be a part of the pledge. I am eagerly looking forward to the outcome of this case.
Maybe then we can get the gods off of our monetary system.

In my state (PA) it is illegal for a public school teacher to wear a cross- because it can influence a student

Now THAT is unconstitutional, in my opinion. That goes against freedom of religion.

That's a tough one--people have the right not be exposed to religion from a governmental source, but they are also guaranteed the right of "free expression thereof" . . . hmmmm . . .

Everyone makes that statement when we are talking about christianity or judaism. If the teacher were wearing, say, a pentagram- you would have a different reaction. The same case is made for politics. I am not supposed to wear any type of political pin or tell my students my political stand on issues. My opionion does influence how they think about issues- it may give them a push in my political direction or the opposite may occur.

I can express myself when I am not working- I really believe that the law is just.

Under God should be removed from the Pledge.....
Sorry - I've never been known for being brief, so here is my take on the whole government/religion issue.....

Has anyone ever told you that YOU cannot pray? I hear you say "we aren't allowed to pray in school." Well, yes your are allowed - your teacher can't lead you, and the school cannot sanction it, but there is nothing preventing YOU from praying in school. I hear you say "we aren't allowed to pray before our school's sporting events." Well, yes you can - the school may not be allowed to organize a prayer, but there is nothing preventing YOU from praying before the game.

Has anyone ever said that you cannot worship YOUR god? No. The Constitution guarantees the Christians' right to worship their god. It also guarantees the Muslims' right to worship their god. It also guarantees the Satanists' right to worship their god. It also guarantees people the right to not worship any gods.

The Constitution guarantees that no single group (say, a majority) can force its beliefs upon another group (a minority). The Constitution was written to specifically avoid this - based upon lessons from history. The guys who drafted the Constitution were indeed wise. Have you noticed how they specifically did not mention ANY religions? We often hear people espouse that the Constitution was based on Christian principles. These people have obviously not read the Constitution. The document is simply a blueprint for government. It does not mention religion or any god, except in reference to the date - based on the Christian calendar. Don't you think, that if the founding fathers wanted our government to acknowledge any god or religion, that they would have done this in the blueprint for our government?

Okay - here's the part where you bring up the Declaration of Independence and the fact that God is mentioned in it. The title of the paper is the "Declaration of Independence" - it's the piece of paper we sent to England to tell them we weren't going to take any more of their guff. It IS NOT the document that dictates how the government of the United States is to be run - that would be the aforementioned Constitution.

So here's the big question. Should the US government (US, as in all of us) just go ahead and ratify a religious doctrine (e.g., the Christian Bible, the Muslim Koran, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, etc.) as law, forcibly convert or expel all of the non-believers, and expect people to adhere to a belief system that they may not believe in? Check your history books folks - it's happened before. The writers of the Constitution had seen it happen and were determined not to let it happen again.

To put it simply, they showed by example that the government should stay out of religion, and that religion should stay out of government.

And that seems to be where people have a real problem. They cannot separate their religion (i.e., their belief system) from their country (where they live). It's as if they can not decide which of the two deserves higher precedence, so they decide to melt them together - god and country. The fact is they can co-exist without placing one above the other, or putting both of them together.

What is the point of a government acknowledging a god? Do you believe that this will make the particular god like our country more than another? Government acknowledgment of any god will not change what people believe - don't you think a god would know that? Conversely, what is the harm in a government not acknowledging a god? Will the god be angry with the country because the government did not acknowledge it? Seems to me any god would know what resides in your heart. Would any god punish you because your neighbor does not believe what you believe?

These are questions that need to be answered by each of us, within ourselves - personally. It is not the government's place to endorse what I believe (or not), just as it is not their place to tell me what I can or cannot believe. In a free society, the government must be sterile when it comes to endorsing or condemning religion. It's simply not their job.

Please, please take the time to read the Constitution. It's actually not bad reading and it won't take as long as you might think.

Sparky, welcome to a2k. Good points, but some people will never admit that the sole purpose for adding "under God" to the Pledge was to unconstitutionally establish a national religion. :wink:

I have read all the arguments here both pro and con. And I think I will reply with my take on this whole argument. First, since I am new here, I will warn you that I am a Bible believing, Christ following Christian, so am obviously in the minority here. I will address two points that have been made.

The first point is the topic of this discussion. Are the words "under God" in the Pledge an infringement of my constitutional rights? I must tend to agree with Foxfyre on this in that the constitution only says government cannot make any law regarding the establishment of religion. Our disagreement here in this forum really comes down to what establishment means. The founders did not want government involved in creating a "state" religion such as they had in England. That is the reason religion was even mentioned in the constitution. As pointed out in a previous post, the constitution is a blueprint for government and so had no other need to talk about religion other than to say that the government would leave it alone. By inserting the words "under God", did congress "establish" a religion? I don't see that they did. That is my opinion regardless of what the 9th circuit court says.

Now for the second point which some seem to be making is that by reciting the pledge as is, we are indoctrinating our children into believing in a God. I don't believe it should be mandatory for anyone (child or adult) to say the pledge. But to say we are indoctrinating impressionable children by saying the pledge each day with the words "under God" is stretching it. Did any of you embrace any particular religion after being forced to recite the pledge in school your entire life? Not from the sound of it. So the argument that the government is forcing religion on children just does not hold much water.

Now I will surprise you with my final thoughts. As a Christian, I actually would have no objection to the words "under God" being removed from the pledge. My allegiance to this country has little bearing on my faith. I will always support this country and its laws. My faith may force me to disagree with some of the laws, but Christ tells me to obey them (ie work thru the legal system to change them). My faith in God and this country will not change simply by removing the words "under God" from the pledge. Just don't use the constitution to effect that removal, because at least in my opinion there is no constitutional issue here.

Hope all that did not come across as sounding all high and mighty. If I did, sorry. We all have a right to our opinions about religion. I would not try to force my opinions about God on anyone. And I am not trying to here in this case. I just don't see this as a constitutional issue until someone is forced to recite the pledge. Then it is. For more reasons than just the "under God" wording.

Hi CoastalRat,

You state your case well, and I appreciate that. I happen to disagree with you on some of your points (as you can probably see from my previous posts). However, it's a pleasure to see a well thought out and well stated argument for something, even if I don't agree with it all.

Welcom to A2K

Best Regards,

To CoastalRat,

You are the first person I have heard (including senators, congress-people and my mother) that has actually made a rational, thought-out statement as to why 'under God' should be left in the pledge. I don't agree with your point, but it is really great to see someone making an argument regarding the issue instead of simply saying that the courts are radical or that the idea of taking the phrase out is just plain stupid.

I do believe that by allowing 'under God' to be in the pledge, Congress did make a law respecting the establishment of religion. I'm interpreting the word 'establishment' as an 'institution' as defined by Merriam-Webster as opposed to the government trying to establish a religion. I guess it's all in the interpretation - which is what the Supreme Court will have to decide.

Sincerely,
Sparky

truth
Coastarat, I would be very worried if Rosborne disagreed with me--very often. I think that "under God" is just another way of having our cake and eating it. Since the Founding Fathers we have had the official wisdom of establishing a Wall between Church and State. Theocracies are not what our historical experience has led us to desire, on the whole. Nevertheless, it seems that virtually all societies have sought to ground official authority in absolutist and, often, supernaturalist, terms. Kings are coronated by Cardinals, and many rulers have claimed descent from the Sun, a Volcano, any "sacred" source of authority. We use "under God" as a supplementary ratification for the sacred authority of our Constitution. That wonderfully successful document is at least semi-sacred because it was signed (ratified) by The Founding Fathers, veritable sacred figures of our mythological history (all societies have mythological foundations). Why is the Constitution "sacred"? Because it was signed by the Founding Fathers. Why are the Founding Fathers "sacred"? Because their signatures are on the Constitution. A perfect example of theocratic tautology.

And therein lies the question that has plagued our country for many years now. How do we interpret the establishment of religion clause. I don't think we will ever know what the founding fathers really intended. I do think their major concern in regards to religion was this country getting a state sponsored religion. We know the problems that can cause by just looking at the Middle East today and their repressive religious-based governments. I don't think the intention was to eliminate all traces of religion from public life or else Mr. Washington would not have taken the oath of office with his hand on a Bible.

In any regard, I think it could be a very interesting court decision. Personally, I think the court will take the easy way out and claim that the father does not have legal standing to bring the case, thus reversing the 9th circuit decision. I would rather see them rule one way or the other on the merits of the case so we could put this behind us.

It may not directly violate the letter of the constitution, but it does violate the spirit of it. Another example of something that the country would simply not permit would be if the pledge included "And I will keep my opinions to myself." It does not violate the constitution, but it violates constitutional values. There would be an uproar among parents if they knew their children were being taught that they weren't allowed to express their opinions on the government, or even teachers or other educational material. It would obviously not be allowed in the pledge, even though it is only indirectly unconstitutional. The only difference I see between the two issues, is that the one being discussed on this thread is consistent with majority opinion. Both concepts are equally, albeit indirectly, unconstitutional.

New Girl - english report
Hello,

I am a new girl here. First time ever on the site. I am doing an english persuasive essay on 'under God' being in our pledge. After reading most of your posting, I don't know how much help I will receive here , however...


I need some factual type information on why 'Under God' SHOULD be left in our pledge.

Please and thanks