mark9950

Should be taken out of the pledge of allegience to the flag,because there is no undisbutable proof that this God really does exist.

The ones who do believe,just believe out of tradition being instilled into them by brainwashing from their parents and friends.

Very few ever question the God character and if you do question you become into trouble with your church,I did.

I pledge allegience to the flag only with one nation under freedom and liberty not a god.

contracycle

Better not to pledge allegiance to bits of cloth OR books, if you ask me.

Jet Grind

"One nation under God" should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance because a state endorsement of religion is consitutionally illegal. Not because there is no evidence that he/she/it exists.

Vylo

My father is a deputy knight of the Knights of Columbus, the organization that had that put into the pledge.

One interesting thing is how they say the pledge now:

"I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under god , with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn .

I they currently say an edited version of the pledge, why can't they also include the "under god" part as part of their unique pledge? I feel the italics words above should be removed from the official pledge, but that certianly people should be allowed to give appropriate religious respects to their individual pledge (i.e. "under Allah", "under Brahman"). As long as you include all the standard words that are free of religious bias, it is still a proclimation of your loyalty to the nation.

Buffman

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled3.htm

(Extract)

Federal bill signed into law:

A bill to reaffirm "In God We Trust" as the national motto, and the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was passed with a 99% vote in the House, and unanimously in the Senate. Rep. Todd Akin, (R-MO) voted for the measure. Apparently he is unaware that the "Under God" phrase is a relatively recent addition to the Pledge. He said: "I think the Congress was expressing the fact that they support the recitation of the pledge as it has always been supported. I think they're further saying that there isn't any problem with the First Amendment." Historian David Barton, president of WallBuilders, said: "This bill has no effect on the 'Under God' controversies, because we have seen in a number of cases that when Congress does something, the Supreme Court almost feels compelled to tell them to back off and leave them alone." 9
(End extract)

Does the Constitution-Bill of Rights permit the government to legislate a mandatory belief in a supernatural entity? (Using David Barton as a reference source for federal legislative action merely highlights the level of historical ignorance of those legislators.)

john_v_h

No, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, at least in the case of a supernatural god. So no "under God" in school-led recitations in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, regardless of what the "official" pledge or the pious resolutions of Congress may say. It will take a reversal by the Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment to undo the Circuit Court's ruling.

Buffman

john_v_h

My bad! That was a facetious rhetorical question. (Note my membership date.)

Radcliffe Emerson

The phrase didn't exist in the Pledge until McCarthyism and the paranoid 50s.

CJD

Fine by me, I don't recite the damned thing anyway.

Yes, and no. What does this have to do with the pledge of allegiance?

Therefore, it must be so.

CJD

Vylo

Yep. Main reason the KoC put it in their was to counter communist influence. Or at least that is the reason they gave.