I guess It's normal to try to reinvent the wheel.
Sometimes we need something to protect us from the tyranny of the MINORITY.
The gradual taking out of God and religion out of the public square poses a
problem. And again, I’m not discriminating among the various Gods of the
various religions. I speak of most major religions whose teachings preach of
peace and love for fellow men.The problem is that taking God out of
public life leaves a void of goodness, virtue, integrity, and humility (among
other things). They are cast on the same garbage heap as the truth of the
reality of God. These are replaced by man’s philosophies, which have not
stood the test of time in other civilizations. For instance, in all this talk
of diversity, where is the age-old proven principle of unity, all pulling
together for a common cause? With talk of pride, where has humility gone?I find it interesting that this nation does not disobey the Supreme
Being unknowingly. We are well aware of what we are doing when we support
abortion, gay marriage, etc. There are plenty enough good sources to teach us
good from bad such that we have no excuse whatsoever.
Whether you believe it or not, the Pledge, as it stands, is actually accurate.
We are (hopefully) one nation. And we do exist UNDER GOD. He reigns supreme
over ALL nations. I don't think this nation's leaders have very often
dictated which God, but *under God*? Yes. It's clear that the Founding
Fathers believed in the Supreme Being. And I most strongly suspect it was a
given for most of them that we were (and are) subordinate to a higher Power.
@ RanchHand,Your assertion that the Christian God will someday
be taught as a myth is pure speculation. I assert that the God of the
Christians will ultimately triumph. In fact, the war has been already won. The
only thing in question is . . . . whose side we will personally choose.
Maybe the anonymous atheist couple is anonymous because they remember the death
threats that Michael Newdow received from self-proclaimed patriotic followers of
God when he tried to do the same thing. Once this blatant overstep
is overturned, believers will still be free, as they have always been, to take
their children to church, read scripture together, pray together, have religious
conversations, etc. Some Americans believe in deity and some do not.
DEAL WITH IT! Just be HONEST about the fact that we atheists and agnostics
EXIST! We are just as American. Go ahead and feel morally superior if you
want. Just ACKNOWLEDGE that we CAN NOT be a Christian nation or a nation of
believers when a significant amount of us is Jewish or Muslim or Agnostic or
Atheist or WHATEVER. To say otherwise is to intentionally try to minimize or
ignore our existence! If people here don't understand why that is
offensive, I just haven't the slightest idea how to explain it. I really
just am at a loss. To me it is just so obvious. If you want to be
surrounded by people who are all religious, that's what church is for!
@Beverlyand so because some guys who "claimed" to believe in God
(but obviously weren't close to living any of His Commandments) you are
insinuating that all people who believe in God are bad? Wow....that's a stretch that even Lindbergh couldn't cross.Historian Robert Soucy states Hitler believed Christian and Nazi beliefs were
incompatible and intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of
warrior paganism". Additionally, biographer Alan Bullock wrote
that, though raised Catholic, Hitler was a rationalist and materialist, who saw
Christianity as a religion "fit for slaves", and against the natural law
of selection and survival of the fittest. Many closest to Hitler say
that he had a long-held general covert plan to destroy Christianity within the
Reich and replace it's Jewish roots and teachings with Nazi philosophies.
He clearly wasn't a believer in God or any religion.So, using
your rationale the opposite must be true too. (ex) If Hitler was decidedly not a
believer and he did immensely evil things, then all people who are not believers
therefore must also be counted in the same vein as him and we should no longer
tolerate them in society?
May it please the moderators: Perhaps we can recite the pledge as we have
for the last 60 years and when it comes to the "under god" part, those
who wish to use this lovely verbiage can quietly step out into the hall to utter
those two words and we will all pause respectfully and wait for them to come
back so that the rest of the pledge can resume. This seems like the kind of
compromise that would not offend any reasonably thinking person. I would
not want the hall steppers to feel conspicuous or out of place for any reason.
And I would no sooner mock a person for wanting to step out into the hall and
say "under God" than I would mock somebody for believing in magic
stones, Noah's ark, or any other magical concepts. I would prefer,
however, that the aforementioned concepts not be promoted to my strong confident
moral atheist children with the use of tax dollars.
I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands one
nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. It's ironic
that the addition of two words during the cold war has divided our nation quite
a bit. I don't know where any government official gets the right to
modify a person's creative work in any official capacity. (Didn't
Cleanflix get in trouble for that?) But if it can be done, it can surely be
undone. This horse pucky wouldn't stand for one minute in the year
2013.That God's name is inserted in "the pledge" and on our
money is not evidence that we are a nation of believers. It is evidence that
overzealous believers, if not kept in check, can overstep quite readily.It's not too difficult to derive meaning from the statement:
"From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily
proclaim [character limit] the dedication of our nation and our people to the
Almighty."Unfortunately, Mr. Eisenhower, the aforementioned
children and people are not "yours" to speak for. I am a strong,
confident, moral atheist and my children will be reared as such.
The term "anonymous atheist couple" says it all for me. If one is making
such a public spectacle over this, they should have the courage to come out and
identify with the cause for which they are fighting.
Given the current state of this country's affairs, I'm not sure if God
would want his name attached to it.
@my4boys – “Freedom in this great country was founded upon the
belief in a higher being-"God".Actually it was founded on
the belief that “We The People” could be free to govern ourselves.
And the Founders looked almost exclusively to the Roman Republic as a model on
which to base our Constitution (the world’s 1st purely secular governing
charter, by the way) and Republic. @Craig Clark – “Here
is the original version of the Pledge as written in 1892.”"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic forwhich it stands;
one nation indivisible, with libertyand Justice for all."Why can’t we just go back to this? It might help restore some much
needed civic virtue in this country in a manner that our Founders would surely
approve of, given most of them were Deists (which is what agnostics &
atheists called themselves back then).
I not only believe that God exists, I know he does. I have seen his hand
blessing my life in countless experiences. I believe that he inspired and led
the founders of this great nation to seek their independence from Great Britain
and establish a country where men could be free. Our freedom doesn't mean
we all get 100% of what we want. But it does give us the freedom to choose and
make our own decisions. This doesn't not mean making decisions for others
or forcing our opinions on others.I thank God that I can live in
this country. I am ashamed of the way people are treating Him as though he does
not exist. God bless America!
DGDENTON,"....Their is no question our centralized government
was intended to be subservient to the state governments...."______________________________If that were the case, the Founders
wasted good ink and paper writing the Constitution. They more easily could have
stuck with the Articles of Confederation without risking a strong central
government that subordinates the autonomy of the individual states. Please read
Article VI of the Constitution (the Supremacy Clause) to see who the Founders
intended to be “the supreme law of the land.”It’s
true that the proper balance between Federal and state government was a murky
issue that vexed every anti-bellum President starting with George Washington. It
took the Civil War to crystallize national thought on the precise nature of our
Federalism. We may still disagree today on where the line is between state and
Federal jurisdiction in specific cases. When we do, it’s the Federal
Courts who acts as final arbiter.
@Politico"Our nation has probably never been more divided. "1861.@DGDENTON"In our quest for equality, we are
instead falling into the trap of trying to make everyone identical."At minimum your side is no better since you're imposing the
Judeo-Christian God on everyone in the pledge as if it applies to everyone.
@vdubbin"how can you, with a straight face, imply that we should enjoy
freedom of speech but be unable to praise God on a daily basis? "You can do it all you want. Heck, there's two guys yelling on campus
about how Christ will save us (based on the muttered comments from people around
me, their tactics are not very effective) right now. All we're saying is to
keep it out of gov't just like you all (and myself) would want Sharia law
out of the gov't.
@DGDENTON;You have that backwards. We're trying to stop YOU
from imposing your religion on the rest of us.
Craig Clark; Their is no question our centralized government was intended to be
subservient to the state governments. This set up was designed to keep a
balance of power between the states and the Federal government. When the South
lost the War, we also lost this balance of power. As a result, we now have a
powerful Federal government which is boarding on a monarchy. In this concept the
Confederacy has been vindicated. The definition of "Federal" was
changed when the budding United States was formed. Until that time
"Federal" was an agreement among several independent governments. Of
course, this concept was reflected in the the language. Prior to the War, The
United States was following by the verb "are" implying the plural nature
of the bond. After the War, the verb usage changed to "is" implying a
unified group of states subservient to the Federal Government.
In our quest for equality, we are instead falling into the trap of trying to
make everyone identical. The concept deprives us of our individuality. I
recall, I believe, in the 1980s when a major liberal weekly magazine declared
the most startling scientific discovery that men and women's brains were
hard wired differently. One young thing in the employee's lounge
questioned which brain was superior and which was inferior. To her if something
was different, then it was unequal. We can be individuals and still be equal
before the law. We are moving toward the impossible "equality" by
making everyone identical. If someone does not desire to pledge allegiance to
the flag, they don't have to. Their choice is their own. Frivolous
lawsuits such as this one is designed to cause contention and to disrupt the
cultural values. The atheists among us are not content to stand on their belief
system. They want to impose their values on the rest of us.
Here is the original version of the Pledge as written in 1892."I
pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic forwhich it stands; one
nation indivisible, with libertyand Justice for all."In
1924, “my flag” was changed to “the flag” which was even
more emphatically clarified by adding “of the United States of
America.” Apparently, there were still diehard Confederates resisting the
idea of the U.S. as one nation.Even today, we hear in Tea Party
rhetoric a remnant of resistance to the Federalism that emerged triumphant from
the Civil War. The Institute on the Constitution is one example of a right wing
group trying to rewrite history if not the Constitution itself by arguing that
the Founding Fathers were more influenced by Protestant theology than by the Age
of Enlightenment. It just goes to show that you can interpret history to make it
prove whatever you want to believe.
We live in a nation unlike almost every nation ever since the world began with
billions of people living at one time. We are fortunate to have had this land
saved for a people that came to be away from oppressive governments of kings,
monarchs and the influence of despots. Our form of government came
through much thought and planning by those founding fathers and inspired by
goodness to all men and women who live here.It wasn't by chance
and that would have been the luck of the draw of bad monarchial rule.Hopefully, judges will make a good decision in this country with apparent law
and order instead of a despots hand that changes daily.
We should simply do away with the Pledge of Allegiance. We are certainly not
one nation or undivided anyways. Our nation has probably never been more
divided. We are a nation of warring ideologies and public vitriol. Our
Founding Fathers would never have conceived of such a practice as the pledge.
They established this land as a Republic of 'Free and Independent
States', not a 'Nation, Indivisible'. The Founders largely
wanted a limited Federal Government and co-equal States. Now we have a bloated
Federal Government which tramples the rights of states with aplomb. And a
Federally backed pledge of allegiance to said government which indoctrinates our
youth with thoughts of hyper-nationalism. If we truly still had a functioning
Republic, as the Pledge suggests, then our States would have a seat at the
table. As it stands the Pledge is at best empty rhetoric, and at worst Statist
CORRECTIONI misstated on my previous post. The phrase "under
God" was inserted between the phrase "one nation" and the word
indivisible. Sorry for gaffe.
Group recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom is an American
tradition that became controversial when Congress amended the Pledge by
inserting the phrase “under God” between the word indivisible and
the phrase “with liberty and justice for all.”In
hindsight, we can now see what a huge mistake it was to tamper with the wording.
There was nothing wrong with the Pledge as it was and the 1954 change was not an
improvement. Now we find ourselves wondering whether we can fix it or whether
the time has come for us to let go of a proud American tradition that we seem to
want to hang on to.
@ vdubbin: Where, pray tell, did I state you do not have the right to utter
whatever you would like? How does allowing these children not to have to say
something infringe on your right to say it? Are public schools the only venue
you have in which to offer your daily praise of God? And how is the Pledge of
Allegiance praising God anyway - especially when those who are so anxious to
keep God in it insist it is the lower-case historical/political figure being
referred to and not the Divine Being?
Being a senior citizen, I have to note that I have trouble remembering to say
"under God" in the Pledge. You see, those words were added to the Pledge
in 1954 after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic
organization....By 1954, I had completed my schooling and was serving the nation
as a United States Marine. I had proudly said the pledge through years of
schooling without the words "under God"...especially during WW II and
Korea.I still remember the mixed feelings I had about this addition when I
first heard about it....Where I love my God, I saw the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag of the United States of America as just that....a pledge of allegiance
to a flag.....I wondered what was the point in trying to make a prayer out of
it?Being a Marine at the time, I still pledged my allegiance to that
flag....a flag which still flies proudly in my front yard, but I confided my
praying to areas where I shared my God with nothing else....no flag....no
@ Bubble: how can you, with a straight face, imply that we should enjoy freedom
of speech but be unable to praise God on a daily basis? Unfortunately you seem
to be laboring under the common misapprehension that doing away with God is your
right, but that we, for some inexplicable reason, don't have the right to
have him in our lives. I've never understood the liberal argument that
"we have the right to x, your rights are not mutually compatible with our
rights, and your rights are invalid". I wish I could understand. In any
event, slowly but surely God will be removed from daily life, our ability to
defend ourselves will be nullified, and our nation will look like Russia circa
1940. That's not hyperbole; that's a prediction based on historical
evidence. I wonder if the liberal, God-hating crowd will be happy when
they get their way. I hope so, but I don't have high hopes for a happy
Sorry for the typos. The second and third lines should read: "He IS our
Creator and gave us agency to choose for ourselves. Anyone objecting to the
words, "under God," has his or HER agency to skip over that part."
Someday, the Christian god is going to be taught in the same manner as the Greek
Gods, the Roman Gods, the Norse Gods, etc. As mythology.When I
recite the pledge of allegiance, I use the phrase "on nation under
I am wondering how many believers and non-believers in God profane his name in
vain when they become angry or use His name in every day conversation to express
their feelings? He his our Creator and gave us agency to choose for ourselves.
Anyone objecting to the words, "under God," has his or agency to skip
over that part.
Sooo will this couple and others like them stop using currency? It states on
the very monetary system in place "In God we Trust"! These minorities
should stop wasting the time of the courts and just teach their children to
abstain from the pledge if they so desire. Surely that can be worked out with
consultation of their school principal?I am so sick of the
"minority" as "Serenity" said, ruling the majority in a
"free country" like the U.S.!! Maybe every time someone appeals against
references to God a counter appeal should be launched?! That would place the
courts in gridlock but I bet God would win! Grow up people - there are far more
important things to worry about than a an anonymous couple. They just want
their 15 minutes of fame but not brave enough to use their real names. Oh, let
me guess, because they don't want the back lash!God is
referenced all through this country's founding documents - if they
don't like that why are they here? Check out somewhere else to live on
earth where God is not apparently referenced in legal documentation!Good Grief!!!!!
I am very saddened by those here who feel that uttering the words under God
signifies something great. To me it is tragic. Why?
I do not feel innocent children should be indoctrinated with this.
The last thing their young minds need is to be filled with things
that they can learn outside of school. I have no objection to
church and religion outside of school, government, and the workplace. Build all the churches you like, worship as you see fit, and teach your
children to be decent and God-fearing. Just please respect my right
not to believe in God, as I respect your right to worship freely. I
simply want to be treated the same for my beliefs that there is no God, just as
someone else wants to be respected for their belief in God. Is that
too much to ask? I hope not. Let us not bring our children into
this fight. Just as we would make efforts to save a marriage where children are
involved, let us make all efforts to save a civil fight in which our children
have become the pawns. Do not allow religious extremists to hijack
the Pledge of Allegiance.
People should do a little research. The Pledge of Allegiance was
written by Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist. It was written to run as a
sales pitch in 1892 by Youth's Companion Magazine in conjunction to get
schools to buy flags for every school room. Yes, our patriotic and sacred
pledge is really a commercial written by a socialist to sell flags. It is quite
possibly the most American thing we have going. Having the word,
"God" is of course, one of four changes to the pledge since its
The 9/11 terrorist firmly believed in God. Warren Jeffs, David Koresh, Jim
Jones, etc., etc, all firmly believed in God. From leading people to kill
themselves to treating women horribly, people use "god" to manipulate
weak thinkers. America is outgrowing this nonsense, and hopefully, the U.S.
Supreme Court will support the State of Massachusetts.
Better to be under God than under the boot to the throat by oppressive
All the defenses of keeping the "under God" reference in the Pledge only
reinforce the argument of the atheist plaintiffs, you persist in telling those
who do not believe in a god that they are at best second class citizens, or at
worst are unworthy and unpatriotic and should leave - "There are other
countries that don't have this beautiful privilege, so maybe one of those
would be a better choice for a home."Those are hostile
sentiments that deny non-believing US citizens equal treatment, and it is
directly tied to the divisive religious wording in the Pledge.You
prove the point! In spades!As for the supposed role of a deity in
the granting and preservation of rights, Bubble is correct. The Declaration is
not the Supreme Law of the Land" and has no legal force as regards rights
and liberties, as does the Constitution (and Bill of Rights).The
Declaration isn't law, nor has it ever been, it is what it purports to be,
a declaration of intent to justify Americans declaring their independence from
Great Britain.Religionists need to cease and desist from hijacking
this secular government and nation and its history.
One anonymous couple is suing to have their civil rights protected? I strongly
object. I feel my civil rights are being violated because I, and my family feel
that the Pledge should stand as it is. I also feel that we are with the
majority in the United States according to many poles taken. Since this is a
Democratic society, the majority rules. So, why should the majority of the
people be so very violated by One couple who decided that their rights were
violated? What about the rights of the rest of us? I have my civil rights too.
This whole thing is ludicrous. The fact that it made it to the Massachusetts
supreme court is completely unfair. Who is protecting my civil rights? I feel
I and a majority of the country are completely without representation and our
rights are being very violated. Those children of the atheist couple do not
have to accept the pledge and it is their parents rights to teach them that. If
they can't teach their children what to believe, why should the rest of us
suffer with our rights being seriously violated?
Massachusetts has its priorities and principles all backwards. Instead of
creating laws that protect or strengthen communities and society. Attorneys and
government at tax-payers expense are lauded for destroying them. As a past
resident of Massachusetts I can attest that it is becoming less and less family
value friendly. Massachusetts should be looking at and debating
ways to reduce its higher than average crime rate. In Boston, violent crime is
twice the national average. Massachusetts courts ought to be looking at ways to
reduce its higher than average crime rate There are so many critical areas that
need attention and are neglected for the attention, or notion that
someone's rights are violated with the mere mention of deity.
You just answered your own question Bubble? I wonder what God would say?
@bubble,You are thinking of the Declaration of Independence -
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
@ my4boys: Please state where in the US Constitution there is any reference to
a higher being who gave us our rights and freedoms.As for the
"privilege" of saying "under God" in school everyday - many
theocracies have similar requirements of a daily acknowledgement of God - and
those are some of the least free countries in the world.How can you,
with a straight face, claim freedom of speech and a privilege of worshipping God
as you see fit and then follow it with the statement that if people want similar
freedoms for themselves they should go to a different country?
Freedom in this great country was founded upon the belief in a higher
being-"God". It's quite a remarkable thing to live where for the
most part, we are safe to speak our minds, and leave our homes without much
concern of being harmed. If we are more aware of how we treat our neighbors, and
are thoughtful in our words and actions, I believe this type of conversation
doesn't need to take place. We can be respectful of those few who wish to
have this beautiful verbiage taken out of the Pledge, buy allowing their
children to step out of the class without drawing attention to them as they do
so. I would hope this is already taking place. There are other countries that
don't have this beautiful privilege, so maybe one of those would be a
better choice for a home.