Do we need to pledge of alliegence in the U.S? Should it be modified?

[MobBoss]

So we just don't count? That's just plain mean spirited. What portion of the nation's population do we need to comprise before we're worthy of respect?

I suppose when you can get enough votes to change things your way.

Bottom line, if you dont like it, dont say it. No one is forcing you anyway.

 

[MjM]

The pledge should stay.

 

[mdwh]

And you dont have to say under God if you dont want, to no one is forcing you to.

Would you be okay with "There is no God" being inserted into the pledge, since you don't have to say the words?

 

[mdwh]

No, but majority rules. That's, unfortunately for those in the minority, life. Do you think I am happy seeing Democrats in charge of Congress? Heck no, but that's the way the ball bounces and I accept that things are going to go ways I will not like for as long as they are in power.

This isn't about a majority. Yes, we use a majority system for voting people, but at the same time, it would be false to say that "Everyone voted for Democrats" merely because a majority of people here.

Saying that something should be in the pledge because a majority of people want it is a plausible argument. But stating that the nation believes in God because 80% of people do - well that's another thing entirely, and is basically ignoring the 20% who don't. A correct statement would be that the nation mostly believes in God.

 

[Perfection]

I suppose when you can get enough votes to change things your way.

Respect is contigent on voting power? That's mean spirited. My government should respect my opinions even if they are in the minority.

Bottom line, if you dont like it, dont say it. No one is forcing you anyway.

I don't like my loyalty questioned because I'm an atheist. The national pledge of alegiance should be a pledge of national allegiance not a statement of religious belef. National allegiance does not require religious belief, and as such it's idiotic to include it in the pledge.

 

[Perfection]

This isn't about a majority. Yes, we use a majority system for voting people, but at the same time, it would be false to say that "Everyone voted for Democrats" merely because a majority of people here.

Saying that something should be in the pledge because a majority of people want it is a plausible argument. But stating that the nation believes in God because 80% of people do - well that's another thing entirely, and is basically ignoring the 20% who don't. A correct statement would be that the nation mostly believes in God.

Well the bigger thing is national allegiance doesn't have anything to do with God so it really should go. 90% of American's might find chocolate delicous, but that shouldn't be in the pledge for the same reason, liking chocolate has nothing to do with being a loyal American and by doing so you're needlessly excluding 10% of of folk.

 

[Che Guava]

Well the bigger thing is national allegiance doesn't have anything to do with God so it really should go. 90% of American's might find chocolate delicous, but that shouldn't be in the pledge for the same reason, liking chocolate has nothing to do with being a loyal American and by doing so you're needlessly excluding 10% of of folk.

I pledge allegiance to the delicious chocolat flag of the United States of America, and to the honey-roasted Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, kentucky-fried, with liberal portions and justice for good tippers.

mmmmmmmmmmh......

 

[Bill3000]

No, but majority rules. That's, unfortunately for those in the minority, life. Do you think I am happy seeing Democrats in charge of Congress? Heck no, but that's the way the ball bounces and I accept that things are going to go ways I will not like for as long as they are in power.

The United States was never based on majority rule. We have checks on the government which prevent it, and protection on the tyranny of the majority is a core part of our government. The Supreme Court is probably the best example of this.

By your logic, we should have not banned segregation because that wasn't majority rule which banned it at the time.

 

[skadistic]

I suppose when you can get enough votes to change things your way.

Was it voted on when they illegaly added on those two words to the original pledge?

 

[Che Guava]

Was it voted on when they illegaly added on those two words to the original pledge?

Of course not: voting republican automatically means you support adding 'god' to as many gov't doc's as possible...

Of course I'm speaking out my bum, it very well cold have been a democratic president/congress that did it...who's responsibility is it anyway?

 

[Pokurcz]

It looks like a cheap indoctrinal trick.

Having little children reciting it smells of totalitarianism.

In the army when you finish training or something or maybe when you become a citizen, sure, but definetly without God.

 

[MobBoss]

Would you be okay with "There is no God" being inserted into the pledge, since you don't have to say the words?

Considering that about 80-90% of the USA claims to be Christian, do you think that has any basis in reality? No.

But as for myself, if the pledge did indeed include those words, I wouldnt say them.

 

[MobBoss]

Respect is contigent on voting power? That's mean spirited. My government should respect my opinions even if they are in the minority.

Why? You dont respect the opinions of the majority. So quid pro quo.

I don't like my loyalty questioned because I'm an atheist.

Who is questioning your loyalty?

The national pledge of alegiance should be a pledge of national allegiance not a statement of religious belef.

Sorry, but its just a fact that the USA and religion are joined at the hip in just too many ways to ignore. Even as an atheist, you have 'god given inalienable rights'.....does that mean you want to waive your rights since they are perceived as being 'god given'?

National allegiance does not require religious belief, and as such it's idiotic to include it in the pledge.

Not at all. Listen you want to create your own version of an atheist plymouth rock somewhere go right ahead. Draw up your constitution and bill of rights utterly devoid of God what-so-ever and be happy. But thats not what happened here. So please, stop trying to change my country...I like it the way it is.

 

[Che Guava]

Why? You dont respect the opinions of the majority. So quid pro quo.

Oy! You have to admit, there's a difference between your individual right to disagree with others and the goverment's responibility to listen to and respect it's entire constituency!

Sorry, but its just a fact that the USA and religion are joined at the hip in just too many ways to ignore. Even as an atheist, you have 'god given inalienable rights'.....does that mean you want to waive your rights since they are perceived as being 'god given'?

I completely respect the roots of your republic and your citizen's commitment to it. Having said that, I don't know if keeping the christian roots within your state is going to be compatible with the multi-faith community that america is on the way to becoming.

 

[MobBoss]

Was it voted on when they illegaly added on those two words to the original pledge?

Oh so now it was illegal to do so? By all means run that up the SCOTUS flag pole and see who salutes it.

 

[IglooDame]

Not at all. Listen you want to create your own version of an atheist plymouth rock somewhere go right ahead. Draw up your constitution and bill of rights utterly devoid of God what-so-ever and be happy. But thats not what happened here. So please, stop trying to change my country...I like it the way it is.

Psst - the US Constitution is utterly devoid of God what-so-ever.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nope, no higher power(s) there...

 

[MobBoss]

Oy! You have to admit, there's a difference between your individual right to disagree with others and the goverment's responibility to listen to and respect it's entire constituency!

Bottom line, you cant make everyone happy. There will always be some fringe who is upset over this or that. Thats why we only guarentee the pursuit of happiness...not the guarentee of it.

So, what is smarter? Pissing off 80-90% of your population over a couple of little words or the very small section of activist atheists? You figure it out.

I completely respect the roots of your republic and your citizen's commitment to it. Having said that, I don't know if keeping the christian roots within your state is going to be compatible with the multi-faith community that america is on the way to becoming.

American has always been a multi-faith community, just primarily a christian one.

 

[MobBoss]

Psst - the US Constitution is utterly devoid of God what-so-ever.

Psst. It is in such documents like the 'declaration of independence' and other very important documents in the formation of our country.

Trying to ignore that fact is just silly.

 

[MobBoss]

The United States was never based on majority rule. We have checks on the government which prevent it, and protection on the tyranny of the majority is a core part of our government. The Supreme Court is probably the best example of this.

The USA has ever been based on 'tyranny of the majority'. Even the SCOTUS makes rulings based on its own small majority.

By your logic, we should have not banned segregation because that wasn't majority rule which banned it at the time.

Incorrect. A majority of the USA wanted segregation banned. Only a few states in the South disagreed with that. They most certainly were not a majority.

 

[Che Guava]

Bottom line, you cant make everyone happy. There will always be some fringe who is upset over this or that. Thats why we only guarentee the pursuit of happiness...not the guarentee of it.

You don't have to follow everyone's advice, just give them the proper forum to discuss ideas in. I am of the opinion that keeping religious references within important state documents gives more weight, or at least more credibility, to those who follow that faith. I find that unfair. (I know I know, life isn't fair )

So, what is smarter? Pissing off 80-90% of your population over a couple of little words or the very small section of activist atheists? You figure it out.

Bottom line here is that christians shouldn't be upset about it: separation of church and state should guarantee that state institutions are secular, or at least blind to differences in faith. I don't think it's reasonable to keep in something potentially important because a large segment of society has an unreasonable expectation of thier government to preserve something of this nature. Again, this is only how I feel, and life isn't fair

American has always been a multi-faith community, just primarily a christian one.

But that might be changing. Can the current status quo handle the possibility of an america where christinas are not an overwhelming majority?