One Nation "Under God"
 

Here we go again. Not sure how I feel about the issue, more where it will lead. What's next, we have to move God off money? Course that can't happen, because it's impossible, so I think that leaves other possibilities open.

I think it was a mistake to add "under God", but now that's it's there, tough call. I guess soon when we get to that part of the pledge it will be
"insert your God here".

Not sure how we totally seperate church and state, should we or do we leave options open, you don't want to say it, don't. Anyway, legally, I don't see how a school official can lead anything with God in it.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...eme-court?lite

http://oldtimeislands.org/pledge/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust

It used to be back in the day..
E pluribus unum. Out of many,one that was the founding ideal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pluribus_unum

The "one nation under God" and the changing of the national motto are holdovers from the hyper-nationalism of the Cold War, where it was considered super important to distinguish ourselves from the godless communists. It was silly, unconstitutional and archaic then, and it is silly, unconstitutional and archaic now. So we want people to be happy, proud Americans. Super. Keep the Pledge, lose the under God. Problem solved.

As for In God We Trust on the currency, that was the result of a petition from Reverend M. R. Watkinson shortly after the start of the American Civil War, where he thought it was super important for the Union to recognize Almighty God on it's currency, regardless of the separation of church and state. Frankly, it should never have been put there in the first place. Take it off too.

Think about all the fun you collectors will have. Stuff will be worth a fortune. Frankly, I'll probably save some too.

I go further than that. I think the pledge itself is unAmerican. We swear an oath when we take public office or commit ourselves to military service, but swearing an oath just because we're Americans? I was happy to see this, as I wasn't aware of this case:

Complementing Steelhead:

LINK: Knights of Columbus

Symbols are payed too much attention to, they are not the thing they should just point at, but many take them as the only point, centering their lives on it and wanting to make or even force others doing so, too. Religion is one such example, and that is why it was wise by the founding fathers to to keep it separate and not declare the state to be in duty towards any religion there is. That religious lobbies do not like this and tried - sometimes successfully - to change this, comes without saying.

I am with Steve. Having a mandatory pledge of allegiance, in my opinion belongs to the toolkit of totalitarian regimes with according cults. I cannot bring it into conformity with the highly valuable ideals of the founding era of America.

The bigger problem with the currency than just having some theistic magical formula on it, is that it is not a value-currency, not a "covered" currency, but is an uncovered paper token only. That has far greater problems than atheists like me having to touch banknotes with the word "God" on them.

Give us back real money. If that would happen, some atheists may even feel tempted to start believing in the magical formula printed on it. :)

Isn't the song "Proud to be an American", Lee Greenwood, the national anthem? One would think at M and T stadium. :doh:

Hmmm, the interaction between finance and religion, I'm sure that there was something in the bible about this...

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/20...ne-d4xw5j2.jpg

Personally i think the "under god" thing is making a mountain out of a mole hill. I recited the pledge as it is every day as a kid in school and it didn't bother me at all. The only time it bothered me was after I was living in California as an adult and i became acutely aware and angry at evangelical Christians for ramrodding their crap down my throat. If it were not for evangelicals, things like "under god" wouldn't have bothered me in the least.

Now, while my views on evangelicals hasn't changed, what has changed for me in recent years is my level of tolerance. Living in Utah, the happy land of the LDS church (aka Mormons), I've become quite a bit more tolerant. But that's probably due more to the fact that Mormons are not evengelicals. They don't seem to have this obession for smearing Jesus feces in your face and raising ancient world capital punishment devices everywhere ( aka crucifixes ). But I digress...

Anyway, I think there are FAR FAR more important things to worry about in this day and age. But if i were to make a stand on the issue, I'm inclined to leave it as is, and furthermore to have it recited in school every day just like when I was a kid if it currently is not. I think this not because I think any better of evangelicals and bible thumping in general, but because I think there is an issue of moral decay in this country.

Why do I think moral decay? I just sat here for a few minutes asking myself that same question. I think this because I'm in a situation where I can compare and contrast. I've noticed that here in Utah (where morals are held very high), kids here can play, and do things just like when I was a kid in California. They don't have to worry too much about being kidnapped, drive by shootings, gangs, etc. Contrast this to today's California (the progressive utopia), and you have to worry about all manner of things. Kids there, cannot go out and play like kids in Utah. I noticed this very quickly after moving here. While I know this sounds like a political dig, its not really meant to be. But in my mind, the difference between a place where moral values are held and maintained and a place where they are not, is quite stark.

I also believe that while I am of strong enough character to where I don't need the "Jesus crutch" to tell me whats right and wrong in life, many people however, do. I think there are far too many people who are far too malleable. So i'd argue that religion actually plays an important part in society in keeping these people from acting like complete jackwagons.

It was silly for what reason? Silly for who?

Ducimus:
This should be interesting.

(I do agree Ducimus.)

Two words come to mind that make both arguments moot...

FREE WILL

Any attempts to nullify those two words are tantamount to brainwashing and dictatorship. A flag is a symbol for the symbol minded. A graven image. A false idol.
I pledge my allegiance to the people of my country, not its flag or the republic for which it stands.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America." Isn't the united states comprised of people who live there? The flag represents the people of the states that are united or just the land?

I would think that the silliness mentioned in the second sentence would be evident for the reasons mentioned in the first sentence.

Willful obtuseness aside, it is all part of the slow march of the right. One of their major pet projects over the last century or so is the dissolution of the barrier between church and state. The changing of the national motto, the altering of the Pledge of Allegiance, the assault on education and learning, the insistence that creation be taught alongside evolution, the redrafting of history to portray the United States as a Christian nation, the governmental financing of religious institutions; these are all signs of a singular, concerted effort. It is one of the reasons that these are dangerous, dangerous people. They're by and large out of power, at least for now. However, they'll get back into office someday. They always do. And then it starts again.

I would think it was not silly at that particular time the change was made.

And willful obtuseness aside, where does the march of the left fit in? There are no dangerous, dangerous people in this group?

Takeda
According to who?

Possibly the U.S. should adopt the British approach. Have an official State Religion. Then ignore it entirely...