Opinions?
First off, to all the people who will come here and bash Christians, save your finger’s strength. I’m agnostic, and I think the under god should stay in, to remind us of our heritage, if nothing else.
So, what are y’all’s opinions? Is the bill good or bad? Should the “under God” be taken out?
Opinions on that?
i think that this whole “under god” thing is really overrated. its really just meaningless slogan. it all depends on the way you interpret it. a christian, jew, or muslim could interpret it literally to mean “god” or an athiest could interpret it as a metaphor for hoping to always be on the good side of any argument.
the pledge of allegiance is really insignificant, but the money thing is slightly more important, but its really still insignificant. there are much bigger issure to be debating, and small things like this are between atheism and theism, which are debates will never end because either side has no evidence, and is so audacious that neither will ever admit defeat.
therefore, i conclude that this bill is a waste of time and our precious taxpayer money, chasing votes for congressmen in november.
If you mean it should stay there because that’s the way it has always been, then you are a bit mistaken. That phrase was added in 1954 (I think that’s the year).
I’d like to see it taken out and put back how it was before, I think it was only changed to remind us that we are different than those ‘Godless commies’ anyway.
Besides, I think it’s a little odd that some government funded schools require the students to pledge allegiance to a nation under god.
Before I was a born again Christian, I never cared about saying “under God.” Now, because I am a Christian, it does have a meaning.
Rather they keep it or not, I never cared about. I really think it was overrated, the fact that you say a phrase, doesnt mean you have to beleive what you just said. Or, if it bothers the people so much, they can just not even say it. I know a lot of people, that will jsut stand there for the pledge, and not say it or anything.
Yeah, I know…and the 4th of July wasn’t a federal holiday until 1870.
There’s a difference between acknowledging the past and dwelling on it…
No non-Christian student that I’ve ever spoken to has ever cared about the ‘under God’ part.
I don’t really care that much about it, I just thought I’d point out the opposing view. 
When I was in grade school I never knew what it meant anyway, and when it finally dawned on me what it was implying i just didn’t say the pledge anymore because it felt weird.
Congress violated the first amendment when they passed the law that added “under god” to the pledge. That’s just a fact…the pledge, as it now is codified in law, is unconstitutional. Whether or not the courts will accept this fact is iffy.
The new law is also unconstitutional, and is only a pre-election publicity stunt.
Most Americans don’t fully accept the implications of the first amendment. They feel that “majority rules” on issues of religion, and don’t understand the importance of the FA in protecting THEM.
I don’t expect things to get better any time soon.
Yes it was 1954. The McCarthy era and the Cold War. God is on our side and all that. I have an old documentary that’s a series of educational films intended for U.S. soldiers being trained in the late stages of WWII. It shows a room full of cute kids reciting the pledge in its original version. It sounds fine.
Taking religous statements out of our government stuff doesn’t mean we’re taking away our religion. A big fat “DUH!” to all the ninnies to continue to claim that. The “under God” part did bother me when I was a kid, but not that much. I can accept it as a “traditional” thing, even though it has already been edited, like the mention of God on all of our money. That doesn’t make it right though.
I think the “safe” way to interpret instances of “God” on government stuff is to assume it is used in the most generic form possible; to cover any diety(s) you may believe in, or to be ignored if you don’t happen to have one.
This, to me, is like suggesting that you ignore the bullet that’s just been shot into your head if you choose to.
Covering any deities does not provide an option for those who do not have one.
My daughter solved this dilemma on her own in the fourth grade. She stopped saying “under God”.
I would suggest that rather than taking out “under God” the pledge be changed to read:
I pledge Allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God or not, indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all.
That provides an option for everyone I can think of.
I for one have no use for the ritual of a pledge. Certainly not for the flag, a bit of cloth, and not always for a nation, an entity whose interests almost by definition may not be in accord with the best interests of the good of humanity or the planet.
The expression is “Think globally, act locally” not “Think nationally, act locally”.
Oh, and as for the House of Representatives, what a bunch of douchebags.
to see if it should be left in, change it to “allah” or “vishnu” or “oden” or any other god you don’t believe in. i think it’s a shoddy remnant from the McCarthy era to separate ourselves from the “godless commies” and should be removed.
I love it!
Apparently.
First off I could care less if it is in there or not. It isn’t a first ammendment issue, since there is nothing about the statement that establishes a national religion.
Second, I am sure none of you have any problem spending the money that has “In God We Trust” on it.
Third, Replacing “GOD” with any other name would be establishing a religion. The word God is a generic reference that can mean anything that you believe to be a god. That may not have been the intention of those that put it there, but it only has the meaning you put to it. Words are like that.
Chad, you’re a butthead. 
There is something about the law that put the statement in there, that did intend to establish a national religion. Read up on it.
It’s only words…but words can make a big difference in how we live.
What’s wrong with just not saying it? JJuggle’s daughter figured it out for herself in 4th grade…
In grade school, one of my sons didn’t stand up for the pledge…he had to stand out in the hall instead.
Apparently the teacher thought it was indeed a big deal.
Actually, the Courts decide what is and what is not Constitutional. IF it’s there, it’s Constitutional, though people may have the opinion it’s not.
If it means so little, try to introduce a bill cahnging the words to “under Satan” and see if it still means so little. Or try sityting in a class where all your classmates are pledging their allegiance to something that your son/daughter is not.
maybe we could open each Unicycle convention with a pledge of allegiance to the Master of MUni.
Is that the pledge’s fault or the teacher’s fault? The teacher shouldn’t have done that, but just because the teacher overreacted, just doesn’t make thepledge faulty.
The teacher would have had nothing to overreact to if the pledge had not been changed.
The sad fact is that most Americans have little respect for our constititution, and want to force their religious beliefs on everyone else. Look at our national motto…it’s an outright lie, because “we” means all Americans in the context of a national motto. Yet millions of Americans do not “trust in god”. Does it bother you that our national motto is a lie? It apparently doesn’t bother most Americans, who value their religious beliefs far more than they value honesty.
In that context, yes it bothers me, but as far as the pledge goes, I think it’s more of a tolerance issue for me. To some people, it just doesn’t matter…I’m one of them…if it bothers you, there’s nothing wrong with you trying to change it, I’m just saying I probably won’t be helping