DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

1892
“I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

1892 to 1923
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic that he represents: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

1923 to 1924
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

1924 to 1954
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

1954 to Present
"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.

I prefer the 1923 to 1924 version.

It's perfect just as it is now. I love the "under God" part.

I was just showing how saying "it's tradition" doesn't really work. I mean it's also tradition according to the 1892 to 1923 version to refer to the flag as male.

But is it suitable for all of America? Not everyone believes in God.

If they don't like it, then they can just remove "under God" part out themselves.

No they can't. There are jurisdictions that will penalize students who do so or who do not recite the pledge out of protest.

I thought that in the United States, public schools don't say it now. I went to a Catholic high school and of course it was mandatory, but I thought that in the United States, or at least in New York, it's illegal to make a student do that.

They do still say it and it is still mandatory in some places (with a few specific religious objections, but no atheistic objection is recognized as a valid excuse for not reciting it so far as I am aware).

Some people in this country do not believe in God so why should they say it? Would you have a problem if we said under "Allah"?

The phrase "Under God" is actually derived from Abraham Lincoln's Gettysberg Address where he stated "That this nation, under God, shall not perish".

For that one percent of Americans who do not believe in God, I say, shut up and sit down.

To those who want to praise Allah, I say, you had better duck.

For all others who profess to be Atheistic in your beliefs . . . Well, if you tell yourself the lie often enough then you just migt believe it.

Just my not-so-humble opinion.

Under God should be removed from the Pledge. As stated above by the poster "Andrew Clunn" our country ran fine without it. Not all of us believe in a catholic/christian god. There are other religions in the US. If people were to have a problem with it being removed, what would they think if it was "One nation, under Buddah."

It should be removed. It was only put in around 1954, as Andrew pointed out. It is not tradition. The pledge was better without the political-church marriage in there.

I have started leaving out the 'under God' part. (My mom won't say it period because it was written originally by a socialist, LOL)

If u don’t like it just move. We never asked you to immigrate here, why should we have to adjust to you, this is our country, and we will follow the traditions that have upheld this country since its birth.

I understand the whole “Allah” thing and encourage you that if you feel that strongly, please leave.

You see the problem with changing it “under buddah” is that america is simply primarily christian, and more importantly based on christianity just as much as isreal was based on judaism.

But the fact is that America is not 'primarily Christian', and the first amendment strictly forbids this type of one-religion mentality. We cannot impose one religion, whether that is as simple as putting something on our money.

The 'In God we Trust' or 'Under God' is not a 'tradition' at all, in any case. It was not instituted until the 1950's. Doesn't sound like a founding tradition, now does it?

ok, im not sure where you’re getting your statistics, but the U.S is primarily Christian. As for the tradition or not tradition im not sure when it was implented, but I don’t understand how it would offend anyone, as people in other countries are murdered for their religous beliefs, and your complaining about a line on a dollar bill.
I realize that this wasn’t the question, but shouldn’t we be concerned about those who are dieing for their faith as opposed to worrying about offending those that hate religion.

Yes, we are primarily 'Christian', if you define 'Christian' as anyone who believes in one god. I'll tell you when it was implemented- in the 1950's. It is not that it offends anyone. It is simply that it trespasses against the Constitution and its first-amendment clause.

I totally agree that we should be worrying about that, but lets face it, that isn't the government's problem. The state has NO place in religion, and when it does get involved (and when religion gets involved in the state) things go down hill. The state is supposed to represent the ENTIRETY of the population, not just one group.

I don’t understand where you came up with that definition for ‘Christian’, because most religions believe in one God, muslums believe Allah is god, catholics believe God is God, are they the same? dictionary.com says a “Christian” is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus.

I am pleased that you agree that we should be worrying about others who are dieing for their, and I agree that it is not the U.S government’s problem.

I realize that sometimes religion is too involved in the state, but I don’t think that this has been the case, this is just because some guy was whining about how his kid had to say this in the pledge of allegiance.

Let me ask you something Liberty, is their actually something wrong with using the words “Under God”, should people actually be offended by this, because thats what it comes down to, it offends people, otherwise this wouldn’t be a question.

I'm not saying that there's anything 'wrong', per se, with using those words. BUT, do we really want the name of God denigrated to nothing but a meaningless symbol that we recite by rote, barely giving thought to it? I'm assuming you're Christian, judging by your posts, so let me put it to you this way.

Christians view God as holy. He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, all that. But what is His name put to? What are we saying when we jot off "I pledge allegiance to the flag, under God, yaddi yaddi…" because that's basically what many people do.

The Pledge is about the flag, about patriotism, and about our Republic. Not, if I may go that far, about God. If you want to say a quick prayer after or during the pledge to thank God for what he's given us, feel free. But the government should not, and cannot, give preference to a religion in that way.

Sorry, missed part of your comment.

No, I don't think they're the same. But, 'Christian' is a loose term. There are, I believe, about 50 different factions of 'Christianity'. There're Catholics, Mennonites, Mormons, JWs, Baptists, and that's just a few. They don't all believe the same, and some even have a completely different idea of God than I may have.

Besides, even if most of the population is 'Christian' (or claims to be so), how can we enforce our religion upon them in that way? Or, as I said in my other comment, do we really want them to derisively use God's name, or use it unwillingly because they must?

So your saying that the reason that we shouldn’t have the words “under God” is because, basically it gets old. This may be, but this is the same case as in the national anthem. Everytime you sing the star spangled banner do you feel the same patriotic fuzzy feeling. No, you probably don’t, it probably does lose its “umph” if you will. This is going to happen, its no reason to remove it.

I live in Canada. where the words “God keep our land, glorious and free” appear in our anthem. This seems to be the exact same situation as “Under God”, yet this has not seemed to be under any scrutiny. Do you feel that this is unfair to all the other religions, that we have to remove this because its “not fair”. This is the new “poltically correct” way of thinking. We can’t express ourselves because it may hurt someone elses feelings. Personally i find this too be very annoying, and hinders progress on any level be it federal decisions, to socializing in public

Ah. I sees.

My point is that the words 'under God' have been proclaimed a meaningless symbol by many. Do we really want the name of God to have no meaning? Do we want God's name brought down to the level of a status symbol?

Yes, but you did make other points that I was addressing.

So anyways, if the words “under God” were meaningless, it must have enough meaning to be removed then. Basically what you were saying before is that whole pledge is said meaninglessly, to use your words “jotted off”. So your arguement is that we should salvage the “under God” part from being meaningless? Well if you ask me the words “under God” seem to be the least meaningless, because it sends a message, it really jumps off the page. It’s says, our country loves God, and we intend to serve him (not neccesarily through the government, but through the way we live our lives).

But should we force the entirety of America to pay allegiance to a God they do not serve? That is what is at issue here. We are a nation of diversity, and that diversity means that not everyone believe what I believe. It is unethical and unconstitutional to force people into saying something they do not believe.

ok, smart move in changing your arguement. also smart move in not answering my previous questions.

But anyways I will answer again, why do we have to give up the freedoms of the majority because it offends the minority? Your never gong to please everyone, thats a fact.

Maybe try to answer some questions instead of saying “Ah I sees”.

I am sorry if I did not answer some of your questions, I did not mean to ignore them.

It is not that it ‘offends’ the minority- but the US was created with a very special clause in it’s Constitution- ‘The government shall make no law concerning an establishment of religion…’

Now by instituting a motto that says ‘Under God’, in our pledge or otherwise, we are basically establishing a religion.

We are not taking away freedoms or rights- you still have the right to say a quick prayer, out loud if you desire, but I do not see why the rights of the minority should be infringed merely because the majority think they can throw their weight around. That is not the way our system of government was set up, though it seems like it sometimes.

all mention of religion should be removed from our currency and oath, and any "thing" representing the government and country.

Wow, you have a problem, people have thier own beliefs, you need to calm down and let everyone believe what they want. I happen to be Atheist, so why don't you shut up, sit down, and listen to the facts. Read a book about evolution, it will rock you world.

I was born here, and i don't believe that "under god" should be in the pledge. The founding fathers meant for our government and the church to be separate.

It was really never intended to be in the pledge. papadawg, it wasn't even in the pledge when you were born was it?

Historically speaking there is no foundation for having "under god" in the pledge of allegiance.
There is no government sanctioned religion in America, nor also is there a specified American language.

ACB, If I didn’t let anyone believe what they wanted, I would be calling you sinners who need Christ. I don’t care what you believe, because you have the right to believe it, where do you see in any of my posts anything about not letting you believe what you want? Maybe you shouldn’t get offended so easily, just calm down and make an actual point instead of “sit down and shut up”.

Actually, my whole class had to say the pledge, and I got suspended for 3 days because I didn't say Under god. It sucks

Pusty, the mindset that you have, saying "why do we have to give up the freedoms of the majority because it offends the minority? Your never gong to please everyone" I've seen as a common thought among advocates of the retaining of "God". Yet, this thinking is akin to saying "Hey, lets make the new kid stand on his head. He wont like it, but we all get a laugh." And sure, you wont please everyone, but using that as an excuse is just lazy. I've lived here all my life, does that give me any less right to do as i believe.

However, removing it might be difficult. So untill then, just have the option of refusal. Sure, people might label you as unpatriotic, but stick and stone guys, sticks and stones.

Your statement is wrong. 1954 was when under God was added, and why can’t u people leave history alone?

Only thing that i have to say is that GOD can be interpreted differently for anybody because a god in general is a supreme being that you worship and so on. So for some when they read under God could be under allah, under this, under that, when people see the word God they immediately think oh there trying to violate the 1st amendment when in actuality you can interpret it in any fashion you see fitting. So suck it up it not hurting anybody and if you don't like then don't say it not threatening your right get a grip.

Pledge phrase "under God" was inserted in the 1950s not as an acknowledgment of Christianity but to provide a further bulwark against "godless" Communists. It has little to do with people who "hate religion" and more to do with the not-so-subtle implication of disloyalty by those who do.

There's also the issue of religious people who feel, with some justification, that the mixing of church and state in this way demeans the powers of god and the authority of their church as the connection they have with that god. As I understand it, this was a popular, and indeed probably the foremost, reason for the establishment clause within the freedom of religion segments of the Constitution as it was understood that most people were religious and most Americans further were Christian of some denomination but that the exercise of conscience would be most freely practiced and most ably enforced if the state had no power to compel people to abide by certain practices that they did not share in as a consequence of their own religious views.

The percentage of Americans who do not believe in God is much higher than 1%. If you include agnostics and atheists as a collection, it's roughly 10-15%, depending on the poll and the definitions of both.

If you further accept that varieties of religious belief that remove the notion of a "personal god" (deists) as plausible with the atheistic spectrum, you're looking at closer to a third of the country, a large majority of scientists and academics, as well as a significant portion of the writers of the Constitution itself.

Also not sure why you would insist on deliberately parsing out the Muslims. Not only are they a relatively tiny minority in the US, it's the same Abrahamic traditions that define their monotheistic faith. The only difference is the more Arabian peninsula cultural vibe as opposed to the Jordan river valley flavor of Judeo-Christianity to govern the methods of worship and daily practices or rituals that are acceptable and required.

It is tradition but it needs to be changed. The words "under God" imply a religion which is against the first amendment. Also it is divisive towards our country as Americans. We should not have patriotic and faithful Americans feeling as if they cannot say one of our most honored and secular symbols, the pledge, just because of a couple words

It didn't rock my world.

Which one did you read? "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" is sort of long and in that Dickensian/Victorian style of tediousness for the modern reader to get through. So I wouldn't doubt it's pretty bland for people who lack a great deal of interest in scientific history or the discourse surrounding theories.

SJ Gould has a pretty good essay on male nipples that might be more up the modern consumer's alley.

That's really disappointing to hear. The district ruling said that no one can be can be punished for not participating or be forced to participate. Who were they bull****ting if actions like this happen?

it is not as simple as just asking people to leave the country, for it was not them, but for many of them, they're ancestors who made the journey over here. The majority of us were born right here in the good ol' USA as citizens, regardless of what religion we may follow. The US was simply built up for the spread of diversification. It's as if it was a purpose so that we all may learn to accept other people's cultures and ethnic backgrounds, and that clearly includes religion.

Now having said this, as a Christian myself, I DO believe that the phrase should remain in it's rightful spot, so as to reflect OUR beliefs like other religions reflect theirs.

Pusty, we immigrated to this country. Remember that. It wasn't our's originally. Also, did you know that 'Allah' simply means 'one god'? Yeahhh. Their religion isn't really that different from ours. They worship the same god, just a different prophet than 'Jesus'.

It's not tradition, though. it was added many years later and should be taken out then by your standards. The traditional way is without "under god."

I think that it should be removed, I am a Christian and I believe in God, but I also firmly believe that religion should not interfere with the law. And right there, in our Pledge of Allegiance, is His name. Although it doesn't affect anyone directly, it is symbolic of all the other examples of religion interfering with law.

Excuse me Jared, but your completely repulsive comment has been bothering me for quite the time. Just because people don't believe in the same thing as you, doesn't mean that they should be banished form your country. People like you is what makes or country what others think of it, ignorant and belittling.

Need I remind you, he sent his only son to die for you. Woul you do the same? I dont think so…Think about that one…

I applaud your post! =)

Everything i have spoken is true. I don't lie. If you don't agree with me then look around, we live in a world of religion! SO WAKE UP ATHEISTS! Your religious whether you like it or not!

America was established on Christianity and/or Catholicism so this nation sits on the foundation of religion. The atheists should just keep their mouths shut like other religions are so we can get on with our lives.

You'll find plenty of Christians who find the pledge offensive to their beliefs if you ask around.

I'm not sure why this is therefore materially useful evidence to be using as a result. It reads more like a screed against atheists rather than a defence of the pledge.

As far as the "Catholicism" business, America was strongly anti-Catholic right up until the mid 1960s (post-JFK). Even during JFK's presidency it was a major issue. It was a very considerable issue behind Prohibition, various immigration restrictions, and nativist sentiments which were enormous in the nineteenth century (go look at the treatment of the Irish or Italians). PD's even posted sometimes some virulent anti-Catholic rants still today. So …. if it was somehow founded upon Catholicism, we have a strange way of showing it.

The rest of your history is also suspect, though not as blatantly revisionist and flatly wrong as this. You're kind of ignoring Thomas Paine and Jefferson. (also, she's not an atheist, so your reply seems a little out of place here).

Does it matter?
America is quickly becoming a Godless country and the Muslims will do their best as they are now to fill that spiritual gap one nation Allah.
This happens regardless – it’s preordained by God the Father and you cant throw a monkey wrench into his works.
Christians understand this and pray not for a better future “Under God” but pray Lord come quickly.

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's…" I always thought that conflating religion with money was a disservice to both.

But there are still Christians in this country that dont want to see the words "Under God" be deleted from the pledge. Saying the words "Under God" has never harmed anyone and it never will so why act like its a crime to say it? Every time an atheist hears the words "Under God" they take it to court and make it seem like its a murder. Atheists should stay in their own business, and if someone doesnt want to say "Under God" in the pledge then they shouldnt have to because they arent being forced to. But to not say the pledge is just being unpatriotic and they might aswell get out and leave the country because they dont seem to care.

Several problems
1) So you are comfortable accusing fellow Christians who do not recite the pledge as unpatriotic and to call for their deportation or at least to insist that they should move?
2) "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" – If we cannot submit our representatives to oaths of religiousity, why must our citizens be subject to determination of their religious status, especially in so far as it accords to only your specific views? Would you find that where your views are a minority, that you should be compelled by the majority to abandon your home on the notion that somehow your views should not be worthy of the same respect and legal protection?
3) I am troubled that you are calling for the separation and inequality of legal status of some of your fellow citizens, namely, that they should have to either deny a belief in god as is their legal right, but be subject to a perception of disloyalty, or that they should LIE and accord themselves in good standing to you and others like you, despite the fact that they are now dishonest persons who do not hold particular beliefs. This also extends to other reasons for a person to fail to recite a pledge or oath of allegiance to this country to your satisfaction (namely, non-religious motivations like protests of political policies for example).
4) You are advocating a troubling moral and legal arrangement for one, but you are also advocating a conflated view of nationalism, or national idolatry, and patriotism. Where a country is provided with the love and endearment of its citizens, and that they should wish for its betterment and improvement, and should be free to voice their proposed improvements or courses of action, we are all better for it, even where they should disagree with the majority and its duly enacted policies. Where a people are blind, and propose that whatever its country does is right, and is without failure or error, we are doomed to a course that places us at the mercy of masters beyond our control (tyranny of the majority, or at least, a tyranny of the fearful, afraid to question anything the country does). While you may wish for the swift departure of all those who disagree with you and yours, I do not.

I dont know why a christian wouldnt say the pledge (or stand up for it), unless they are a High schooler and do not understand (or care) why we say the pledge. Im in High school still and i have seen many students that dont stand for the pledge. I sometimes want to tell them how unpatriotic they are being, it makes me mad. I might have been a little hard about the not saying the pledge thing. If people could understand why we say it then im shure they would stand for the pledge.

….and why do we say it then? As is demonstrated above
1) It's not a constitutional requirement for anyone, other than perhaps elected officials and military units, to declare their loyalty to this country. I don't see how not saying it therefore is
"unpatriotic", it is simply not a required duty of citizens. Even this oath itself did not emerge until the late 19th century.
2) the amended oath specifically includes the controversial phrase because of communism and the (erroneous) implication that only atheists are communists (and vice versa). Which is odd because the originator of the pledge was himself a socialist. Since communism is not, generally speaking, a grave existential threat to this country at present, it seems odd and out-dated to retain the amended version.

You are still conflating patriotism with nationalism. If someone disagrees with our federal public policies, not saying a pledge is often an appropriate means of protest. This is not "unpatriotic", it is simply not blindly patriotic (or otherwise known as: nationalistic).

This argument is the exact reason this subject has been going on. Its to complicated for the Government to end in one decission. There is no real answer to this debate.

Then why do you feel a desire to dismiss the people who do not abide by your preferred methods?

How is that desire justified in the face of a claim that "there is no real answer"?

Why has this been an ongoing argunment for the last x amount of years? There are two answers to this argument and they strike at one another with equal force as if they were enemies in a battle. Like America and Russia in the cold war, no one had more power then the other. The Government cannot come to a solid answer because they are afraid of what the people will do so they continue to debate about this argument. And why would a christian not stand up for the pledge? I do every time i hear it.

I led the pigeons to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for witches’ dance, One nation underdog indivisible with liver tea and jugs of wine for owls.

Sigh… my patience with your ignorance runs low, since you clearly don't bother reading what I write… My points..
1) If it is an unsettled argument in your estimation, why do you feel that you are correct enough to desire the expunging or call for the removal of the people who disagree with you? I don't think your opponents make this demand for you to be removed or ask you to leave the country (I do not). Why do you?

2) I already listed reasons a christian (or any American) might not want to say the pledge, but here goes again. a) they see it as superseding their loyalty to christ, which is in their mind, foremost and risks division of loyalty to pledge allegiance to a nation instead of their faith. Alternatively, they may see it as arrogant nonsense to presume a divine nature of a country established and run by men for men, b) they disagree strongly with national policies, often relating to the military and foreign aggressions undertaken by us, and wish to register a point of protest.

You apparently do not like these reasons, but they are protected exercises of free speech and freedom of conscience.

I think that certain people should leave the country if they dont stand for the pledge because they dont realize how good tehy have it in this country. I heard someone say "This country sucks!" I wanted to yell at him. Those are the kind of people that should be kicked from the country but they have freedom of speech so they can say what they want.

If he could have articulated in what way he feels this country sucks, would you still wish him removed from this country?

Many such people are not complaining so much about "how good they have it" so much as concerned how others our government deals with have it (foreign countries and their citizens or the impoverished of this country).

I probably still would have kept my desicion about what he said. When i think about how good we have it here, i compare it to the lives of other countries. North Korea for instance, Their governemt lies to them and says that while they have a stable and strong economy/country. Saying that they are lucky because while they are getting 2 rations of food a day, the rest of the world is starving and getting less. Children in North Korea feel sorry for Children in America because they think that America is a poor country. Then i think about Sudan and Darfur. Thats why i believe we have it good in this country.

That does not at all respond to the contention I was raising. That is, regardless of standards of living or public policies here, people can see or seek out ways to improve their own country and use means of protest, such as refusal to stand for a pledge, to give voice their interests or demands. Whether or not we have a great or greater country than some/most others seems to be incidental to whether or not we should be required to pledge an oath of loyalty and allegiance to it, either out of some nationalistic interest or in order to prove unequivocally that we are loyal and patriotic citizens. Going to church does not make one into a good Christian by default in the same manner that an accurate presumption of loyalty and patriotic fervor and by extension good citizenship could be reasonably discerned from mouthing a few words.

Additionally, it would seem the premise of the pledge was to deal with immigration and to satisfy nativist fears and demands that say, hordes of Eastern Europeans or Catholics had dual allegiances. Why would then the native born people need to pledge their affirmative loyalty to their country under this premise?