Jack the Bodiless

Given the precedent of the SCOTUS ruling that prayers before football matches are in violation of the First Amendment, it's entirely possible that public recitation of the "under God" Pledge of Allegiance will likewise be deemed unconstitutional.

But we should be realistic and prepare for defeat on this issue. The Christian argument is that nobody is compelled to say the pledge, or to say "under God".

But, if everyone else is chanting "under God", I don't think it's right that atheists should simply shut up. Use "freedom of speech" for a specifically atheistic version at every opportunity!

"One nation, without a God, indivisible" is a possibility, but is it a sufficiently positive statement? I don't believe in cold fusion either, but I wouldn't say "one nation, without cold fusion, indivisible".

I hereby propose "one nation, free from gods, indivisible". This also has the advantage that "free from gods" has three syllables, like "under God", and therefore slots right into the rhythm of the chant.

Also, while the Christians are mumbling "under", the clear syllable of "freeee!" will soar above it, and can be as loud as the situation demands.

galiel

Here's a version I've begun circulating that has generated positive response from both reasonable believers and non-believers alike:

"I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America and to the principles for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Splat

Works for me, but I've been saying "Underdog" for years. Kinda hate to give it up.

Jack the Bodiless

There's also the "carefully detailed and pedantic" method.

"...one nation, believed my many to be under the protection of a God, indivisible..."

This, of course, totally breaks the rhythm of the chant, and you'll still be talking after everyone else is finished. Best used in small groups where you will be challenged afterwards.

Nobody can be offended by the actual content, but it's so out of synch with everybody else that THEY might suggest "OK, let's all skip the God part" in future.

Starboy

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> That is priceless.

Starboy

Philosoft

This whole thing is so simple. The pledge argument should go no further than this:

"...one nation, indivisible..." - obviously belief-inclusive of all US citizens

"...one nation, under God, indivisible..." - obviously non-inclusive; excludes at least one specific belief-group

I am simply exasperated that anything more than the above is needed to establish even a common sense position that "under God" doesn't belong.

I ate Pascal's Wafer

I agree with Philosoft. "One nation, indivisible" says it all. It includes everybody. Atheists and Fundys alike can recite the same pledge and can proudly stand next to each other as good citizens of a wonderful nation.

"One nation, free from gods" excludes a good majority of the population. If we do that, we would have to drop the "indivisible" part. It would only cause more division to say something like that. Just because many Christians do it doesn't mean we should stoop to intentionally lying in our pledge.

-Nick