Do you believe the phrase "under God" should be preserved . . . .

[ConcernedCanuk]

.
.
.

Do you believe the phrase "under God" should be preserved in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Yes - 50% - 3298 votes

No - 50% - 3317 votes

Total: 6615 votes

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

[RapidCreek]

1. No

I believe that the original Pledge of Allegiance should be preserved....the one that doesn't abrogate the constitution.

RC

[GoneOffShore]

33. The real pledge

Francis Bellamy wrote, 'I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. And for the Republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
We seem to have forgotten the 'liberty and justice for all' part, if we ever really thought about.
Bellamy, who was a clergyman, left out the 'under God' bit. One wonders why. Was it because he knew that rather than add those divisive words, pledging to a secular republic would be far more inclusive?
As Rapid Creek says, let's not abrogate the Constitution.

[Sandpiper]

47. Actually, the original pledge said:

I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the phrase to the flag of the United States of America was added during the National Flag Conference of 1924, against the wishes of Francis Bellamy.

[boobooday]

2. Wow -- an even split

I just voted. I voted NO. A pledge of allegiance to a secular country shouldn't include a religious reference.

One nation, indivisible. That's the way it was written. Putting in Under God makes us exactly divisible. By religion.


http://www.wgoeshome.com

[LoZoccolo]

3. I would think that even the most rigorously religious...

...would say that it is individual people that are responsible to and under God, not entire nations, but it seems when it comes down to trying to get the government to do part of the job of convincing others of their faith, that idea is put aside.

[Faygo Kid]

4. No - but grew up in the '50s, and a certain nostalgia does come in.

Kindergarten, 1956, which I think was the first year for the "under God" insertion. Never really thought about it growing up. Still, it doesn't belong there, and wasn't there for 60 years before that. This is another cultural red herring, as Bush continues to destroy the New Deal, transfer wealth to the top 1%, and wage unprecedented and imperialistic war in the Mideast. A diversion. I vote no on it, but it is indeed a diversion.

[Union Thug]

5. Get rid of it..

..this 'mad distemper' called religion should be purged whereever it is found!

[LoZoccolo]

7. Actually a "no" vote can be a vote for the opposite reason too.

More of the people of faith of this nation should be convinced that the separation of church and state is as much there to protect their beliefs as much as keep them from using the government to impose them on other people.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. That's the kind of responsible post about religion

I've grown to expect.

[w4rma]

20. There won't be *any* purges of *any* type if I can help it.

I also support the original Pledge of Allegiance, not the 1950s revision.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. Posts like that

At least make their agenda quite clear.

[question everything]

6. Just voted No

As with public invocation - if one feels the need to pray or praise or whatever one's god, one can do this in private. Why do some people believe that their gods can hear them only when they are part of a crowd?

And, I suppose, these times may not be the best time to question the whole pledge of allegiance at the start of every session: city council meeting or school day. Why do we have to declare our allegiance to the nation and to the flag? If we do not recite it, with our hand on our chest, please - will the patriot police come and drag us to jail?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. The phrase "under God" should be preserved

in amber, like a bloodsucking insect from the stone age.

[Berserker]

11. I also grew up with it

and after thinking about it I feel it should be taken out. I do believe in the seperation of church and state.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. I decided on my own

sometime way back in elementary school or junior high, that I would just say the pledge but not say 'under god'.

[Kazak]

10. One nation, divided...

Need I say more?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. Yes, you probably should say more

it would be easy to interpret 'one nation, divided' in many different ways.

[Az]

17. One nation, under god. Only one of these can be true

For if it is One Nation then all must be included. Including atheists. If it is Under God, then we are a nation divided.

[Robbien]

14. And how many would vote this is a distraction issue?

The White House must have pushed this to the forefront now because is it a divisive issue to detract from the 911 commission.

Overload the public on the pledge and you may not notice Clarke risking everything for us.

[LiviaOlivia]

15. When there are people without jobs, food for their kids and health care

this a non-issue for many of us.

[GoneOffShore]

34. A total Distraction

issue, much like gay marriage.
The objective this year, is to defoliate the White House.
And to keep the elephants from running the zoo.

[Finch]

56. Very True...

...But look at the hate that some posters have poured on me... now if their's one way to alienate moderate "yellow dogs" into staying home its to basically say your a republican...or worse...

[Bandit]

65. Exactly what is a "Moderate Yellow Dog Democrat"?

A yellow dog Democrat is someone who would vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for anything other than a Democrat. There is absolutely nothing moderate in that approach. Maybe you are confused with the Blue Dog Democrats that are mostly Democrat in name only because they don't vote for any Democratic principles.

[shrike]

68. Amen, if you'll excuse the terminology

It's emotional, it's divisive, and it's just the kind of thing the fundies want to wrap their arms around.

[evil_orange_cat]

16. Repukes have found another wedge issue...

sigh... this one might be more effective than gay marriage.

[hansberrym]

18. Yes it should be preserved.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is not at odds with the current Pledge of Allegiance, Memorial and Remonstrance, A Virginia Bill for Religious Freedom, or the Declaration of Independence.

It is the absurdly broad interpretation of the Establishment Clause urged by Mr. Newdou that is at odds with the texts and historical facts.





http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
Thomas Jefferson, 1786

Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power...


{b](Here is a mind experiment:

Suppose next month the legislature of the State of VIrginia were to pass Thomas Jefferson's "Virginia Bill for Religious Freedom" in its original language. Would the courts would rule it unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause? Suppose the same were done with Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance?



http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/remon.html


James Madison

Memorial and Remonstrance -1785
*** Quote ***

To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia
A Memorial and Remonstrance

We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,


1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.....



Mike

[RapidCreek]

22. If I am a citizen of this country born in this country who

does not believe in god or religion...doesn't this then invalidate any pledge of allegiance to a nation Under God that I make? Of course, it does.


RC

[hansberrym]

41. Yes, and citizens who would prefer a purer democratic government

over a republic might also feel slighted. Also those would feel that the claim to "liberty and justice for all" is a sham might also feel put upon on hearing that phrase recited in public each day.


I do not think it is possible to have a statement of shared values that is actually embraced by 100% of the people. But that does not mean that we can not put into law a statement of values that are shared by most.

[RapidCreek]

42. So you compare the

abrogation of the Constitution with personal opinions about the constructs of the Demnocracy which it defines....My how logical.

RC

[hansberrym]

45. No, I compared your non-belief in god or religion, to any other ...

person's non-belief in any of the other sentiments expressed in the pledge. You are not alone in not accepting all of the sentiments expressed in the pledge. But in a nation of near 300 million persons from various backgrounds, it is not at all suprising that there is not 100% agreement.

In reply to my post you said:
"If I am a citizen of this country born in this country who
does not believe in god or religion...doesn't this then invalidate any pledge of allegiance to a nation Under God that I make? Of course, it does."

And quite logically I replied to THAT statement.


As to the constitutionality of the words "under god" in the pledge, I made my point on that in my initial post.

[RapidCreek]

50. Uh huh

well the constitution does not protect me from the expression of loyalty to my country and the Democratic principles upon which it was founded...it does however protect me from forcibly aquiescing to someone elses religious idieology on my dime.

For one to participate in a Democratic Republic one must be loyal to the precepts of Democracy....one does not however have to express loyalty to a religious ideology to participate in a Democracy.

Would you have a problem if the Pledge were changed from it's original wording ....the one without "under god", to include under Ala or Satan or Vishnu? Just curious.

RC

[hansberrym]

51. You do not have to acquiesce to anything,

You do not have to believe anything, or say any oath.
You do not have to believe in the existence of a higher power, or that
the rebublican form of government is the best and should be maintained.


As to your second point, the word "god" is among the most generic phrasing available. The framer's of our government, and of the Establishment Clause, did not identify God by name (i.e. Jesus, Ala, Vishnu, or the Holy Trinity), but they did use generic references such as Almighty God, the Creator, Nature's God, etc. So if Congress attempted to replace the generic "God" with a specific (Jesus, Ala, etc.), then I would agree with you that it crosses the line.

The argument made by Mr. Newdou, that "under god" is a reference to specific monotheistic Judeo/Christian deity, and therefor crosses the line, just does not wash with the fact that the word god is used generically and in fact was used by Jefferson in his "A Virginia Bill For Religious Freedom" which forbade the Establishment of Religion. Jefferson and Madison both argued against singling out Christianity as the established religion, and yet they cited god as the source of our rights in the same legislative acts that forbade religious establishments.

[RapidCreek]

53. I want to say the oath....

Why when saying it must I acknowledge your religion or any religion for that matter? I fought for this country and I fought for my right to be free from your religion.

Your suggestion that the word God is generic...is quite frankly narrow sighted bull shit. It might be to you...but it isn't to me. Whether or not you are correct in your assertion that God is a generic term is really inconsiquential. God is religion, is it not?

When did Mr. Newdou state that "under god" is a referance to specific monotheistic Judeo Christian deity? Give me the quote. Let's entertain the notion that he did say such a thing. God is singular is it not? As in one. As in monotheistic.

As to Jefferson...he fucked his slaves...does that mean we should own slaves? Does that mean we should use them as cum recepticals?

RC

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Az]

64. People and tendencies

When someone believes someone else is oppressing them they tend to take a dim view of their actions. You may see this as a minor issue over some words. But we see it as a continuing oppression of our freedom.

We choose the phrase Under God to remove because it seems to us a clear violation and relatively innocuous phrase to remove. As some insist, its just two words. If its so minor then why the struggle to retain them.

In truth there are a host of issues we would love to see addressed. But we know such hopes are beyond this nation at this time. We choose the battles that we hope may have some chance. Our battle is not to turn this into an atheist nation. It is to make it a nation where all can live together without being oppressed or treated as a second class citizen. We have a lot of work to do.

[hansberrym]

70. A clear violation of what?

"We choose the phrase Under God to remove because it seems to us a clear violation and relatively innocuous phrase to remove. As some insist, its just two words. If its so minor then why the struggle to retain them."

[Az]

72. Church and State

The seperation of Church and State is necissary for people's minds to be free. There is much dancing and avoidance of the simple fact that when god is mentioned it invokes religious ideas. The government is partaking in expressing a religious concept. This presses upon its citizens right to freedom of thought.

[hansberrym]

75. Ah, we have come full circle. So I will ask again...

Do you suppose that the "Separation of Church and State" is a renouncement of the Declaration of Independence, Memorial And Remonstrance, and A Virginia Bill for Religious Freedom? These were all government acts and each declared that our rights come from god.




If so, what evidence leads you to that astounding conclusion?

[Az]

79. Scrap the past

We live now. The understanding of the issues change. We can play minutia with the past forever. The simple fact is under god places a burden on some of us. It definately makes the rest of the pledge untrue. The nation cannot be one nation, indivisible and under god.

On edit: This is not about what we can get away with within the law. This is about what is the right thing to do for this country. Are we an inclusive nation or an exclusive one. You decide because apparently my voice and millions others do not seem to matter.

[hansberrym]

74. Here is the link to Newdou's brief.

"When did Mr. Newdou state that "under god" is a referance to specific monotheistic Judeo Christian deity? Give me the quote. Let's entertain the notion that he did say such a thing. God is singular is it not? As in one. As in monotheistic."



http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-1624/02-1624.mer.resp.pdf


This “text, legislative history, and implementation of the
statute” demonstrates an unquestionable violation of the
endorsement test. “Under God” was intruded into the Pledge
to affirmatively proclaim that Americans, as a people,
actively believe in God. Congress, therefore, not only made a
law “respecting an establishment of religion,” it made a law
establishing religion – namely, Monotheism – in a country
with millions of Atheistic16 citizens.

(3) “Under God” in the Pledge fails the Lemon test
The Pledge had been serving its patriotic and unifying
purposes for sixty-two years when Congress passed its Act
of 1954.17 Thus, it was neither a desire for patriotism nor for
unity that instigated the intrusion of “under God” into that
previously secular passage. Rather, the ostensible purpose
was to distinguish us from the Soviet Union. Congress did
that in an unconstitutional manner. (endquote)


Do you suppose that Memorial and Remonstrance and A Virginia Bill For Religious Freedom also fail the Lemon Test? How about the Declaration of Independence?

[WillParkinson]

59. Actually, a 'generic god' would be spelled with a small G.

Only the 'christian god' is referred to with a capital G.

[hansberrym]

71. Is "Nature's God" a reference to christianity? How about Providence?

How about the Creator?

[Bandit]

69. If God is not a religious reference then why not replace it with Plastic

One Nation "Under Plastic". Your arguement is silly because just because a Specific God is not named it is still God and that is a religious description and we are supposed to be a Secular Nation. If you truly believe the reference to be generic then why not say Gods and really be Generic. My Gods believe your God to be Jealous of them. In fact your God says He is a "Jealous God" also a "God of War" My Gods don't wish to be associated with a God filled with jealousy and rage. Why should my children have to pledge to him?

[hansberrym]

76. They don't have to take the Pledge, and no one is forced to believe anyth

The "wall of Separation" doctrine has served us well in preventing an intermingling of religion with government.

That said, the "Wall of Separation" metaphor can only be stretched so far. It is absurd to say that the Establishment Clause forbids an acknoledgement that our rights come from god, when the authors of the Establishment Clause themselves said that repeatedly, even in those legilative acts that forbade the establishment of religion.

Is it your opinion that the "Wall of Separation" doctrine is a renouncement of the Declaration? Of Memorial and Remonstrance? Of
A Virginia Bill for Religious Freedom?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

25. Mike ..."under God" was never in the original version added due to the red

scare in 1956...and i am a christian and i think it should NOT be in the pledge!

[hansberrym]

40. Yes that is true, but similar expressions have been part of

our nation's history from the beginning. So just because it was added in the 50's to make a political statement concerning our form of government versus Communism does not detract from its legitimacy.

I would prefer that it stay there as a reminder to those in government that they are not the be and end all.

If it is removed due to public opinion then that would be ok with me.
However, the argument made by Mr. Newdou does not hold water, and the court should not force the removal of the phrase "under god".

[debsianben]

27. How about intentions?

Forget the constitutional issues with forcing public employees (teachers) to lead students in reciting a loyalty oath to the deity of one particular religion (J-C monotheism). Forget the stigma of forcing non-believers to be marked off from their peers and highlighted at 8 years old. Forget all that.

How about honoring the intentions of the author? Reverend Bellamy (a clergman, but also a socialist who believed in the separation of church and state), who did NOT include it in the original wording and would have been apalled by its insertion in a wave of anti-communist hysteria in the 1950s, in brazen violation of both his politics and the rythmic cadence?

Actually, an even greater irony is that of neo-Confederate creeps like Ashcroft rushing to its defense, given that "under God" was not included in the original wording, but "indivisible" was included as an intentional slam against the slave-holding rebels who had washed the country in blood within living memory at the time the pledge was written.

[Bandit]

66. "yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either,"

What does this phrase mean to you? When you institute a religious being into a secular nation you are being coercive. IMHO

[hansberrym]

77. Was Jefferson being coercive in "A Virginia Bill For Religious

Freedom" when he cited Almight God as the source of our rights?



Are you inferring that Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists
was a renunciation of the Declaration, Memorial and Remostrance, and A Virginia Bill For Religious Freedom?

[Az]

19. An observation

How can we possibly consider this an oathe if 50% of the people do not agree with it. Even if it were 40%, 30%, or 20% what sort of national oathe is it if it is not inclusive.

[Finch]

58. Its an Internet poll!

the margin of error on these things can be 50%-100%!... who feels strongly about this "secularists"... most religious nuts don't even watch CNN, they probably watch FOX... added to that the majority don't care and you have still in a situation which should favor secularist it comes up 50-50... remember that some Internet polls give John Kerry 85% support and we know that is untrue... the poll has little or no relevance... would you accept Internet polls on Bill O'Reilly's site?... or Rush Limbaugh's?

[OneBlueSky]

21. I don't like it, but I'm not gonna invest time or energy fighting it . . .

there are just too many far more important issues to be concerned with . . . there will come a time when "under God" will be removed, but it won't be in my lifetime or yours . . . so I'm content to just let it ride and focus on issues that actually affect people's lives . . . like war and the environment and stuff . . . as for the pledge -- sorry, but I just don't care . . .

[Adelante]

23. I'm an atheist

But this is one of those things I see no dire harm in, as long as the Pledge doesn't say Christian God, specifically. Most people do have a spiritual side and "under God" covers it more or less. I feel no burning need to deprive the nation of this expression, since people who don't want to say it don't have to say it.

What worries me is having this as a wedge issue in this election year. This is more dangerous than allowing people to say "under God," since it could result in four more years under Bush.

[PassingFair]

35. OK,

I'll bite, then let's just substitute the word "Allah" for God. It means the same thing....one gawd. But why stop there? One Nation, under Ganesh, under Buddha, under Cthulthu..........

[Nobody]

44. In that case...

How about we add the word "a" in front of the word "god", since we're talking about a generic, not a specific. That is, if you believe those who claim that the pledge isn't about a specific deity.

Then the pledge would read "...and to the republic, under a god, with liberty and justice for all"

And I can still go on skipping those words referencing a deity.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

24. voted NO...i had to re-learn the pledge in 3rd grade when they added

"under god" ....just watched the Bing Crosby Ingrid Bergman flick "the bells of st mary's" on TCM (the classic Movie channel) last month...the catholic school kids recite the pledge the way i learned it withpout the "under god"

[ConcernedCanuk]

28. Yes - 50% . No - 50% - Total: 11469 votes

[DinahMoeHum]

29. No. My mom/dad's generation won WW II without it.

n/t

:kick:

[smirkymonkey]

30. Am I the only one who sees the pledge of

allegiance as vaguely nazi-esqe?? It's a little too nationalistic for me, so I just don't say it.

I'm not into pledging allegiance to anything, really. And I think there is something creepy about indoctrinating children in this practice.

[CityZen-X]

31. This So Called Govt. Actions Declare...

that we are one nation over God! Where the Fundi's say God created man in His image. I say this vile, odious, usury system of a so called govt., returned the favor.
The G.O.D. has nothing to do with this government. Try dialing 666 and you will get an answer.

[jsw_81]

32. No

Hearing "under God" in the pledge is a slap in the face for atheists, agnostic, polytheists and many others. The fundamentalist Republicans had no right to insert the phrase into the pledge back in the 1950's and it's about time it was removed.

[PassingFair]

36. Be interestin....

to have our own lil' poll about this issue...

[The Rock]

37. Yes...

Taking out "under God" in the pledge is a slap in the face for Christians, Muslims, and Jewish people, as well as many others. I think it needs to stay.

[Woodstock]

39. It's not a slap in the face to this Christian

The Jesus I believe in says do unto others... that means if someone doesn't believe in God, I have no right to force it on them. The government is for EVERYONE.

[jsw_81]

43. Too bad

They had no right to insert the phrase in the first place. By doing so they told millions of Americans (myself included) that we're second-class citizens because we don't believe in a god; that's unacceptable.

If you want to live in a theocracy where non-believers are treated like trash, I suggest you move to Iran.

[Woodstock]

38. It never should have gone in in the first place

The author - who was a minister - didn't put it in. Wise man.

Only later did a bunch of self-righteous unChristian bullies who should have known better decide to force it on the not just the whole country, but on the GOVERNMENT.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's. When you pray, pray in a closet. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Oh, well, they didn't listen to Jesus, why should they listen to me?

[scottxyz]

46. How about "under Satan"?

Wouldn't be fair to bash the Satan-worshippers.

[hansberrym]

49. The UN has that one trademarked (n/t)

[Sandpiper]

48. Why the nostalgia for a phrase

That was added in 1954 as a knee jerk reaction to the "godless communists."

[JVS]

52. One nation under Wotan!

[0007]

54. NO

[Piperay]

55. I don't really care one way or the other

there are more important things than having the smokescreen of "under God" taking up media time and attention. :argh:

[Speed8098]

60. Who freakin cares?!?!?!?!

We have more important things to focus on at the moment.

Say it, don't say it, who cares.

Let's concentrate on getting these buffoons out of our government and try to get back to something that even resembles normalcy.

IMHO, I believe if you want to say, "Under God" in the pledge, fine.
If you don't, that's fine too.

Freedon, what a wonderful concept.

[Cat Atomic]

67. I agree. It's a wedge issue and we should ignore it.

Explain to others that it's a wedge issue. The aristocrats are playing "divide and conquer" once again, and we shouldn't let them.

[Neoplatonist]

61. No--God isn't over, under, left, nor right of anything.

(Elements, p. 13), "All that exists proceeds from a single first cause (prop. 11). For otherwise all things are uncaused; or else the sum of existence is limited, and there is a circuit of causation within the sum; or else there will be regress to infinity, cause lying behind cause, so that the positing of prior causes will never cease."

--Proclus

[supernova]

62. Remove "Under God" from the Pledge

it violates the church and state concept that we so cherish and has saved us a world of hurt that plagues other countries with religious hatred and violence.

I do not want the deity I cherish to be sullied by the connection to McCarthyite tactics. God, I'm nauseated just typing that.

I have no problem with a civic pledge, especially since the US isn't united by culture, or language, or ethnicity. Even better we restore civics to our curriculum so that kids grow up with a well-grounded sense of goverment history, its purpose and its misuse. When we do that, then people will know what they mean when they say the Pledge.

Restore the Pledge to its original form, now!

[JM]

73. I agree with Robin WIlliams

One nation under Canada, above Mexico...

Later,
JM

[snappydresser]

78. It should be preserved in a reliquary.

x