Is It Time To Remove Under God From The Pledge?

This would be true, if even in the animal kingdom of the greater primates, the Alpha Males weren't constantly being questioned by the Beta Males, trying up usurp power for themselves, or for thinking that they can protect the group much better.

Much like every election ever.

I think there's already been some court cases about the issue and they found it was no problem due to the ambiguous nature of the use of the word "god" as it doesn't necessarily mean just one. I still find that to be a short sided response in order to prevent mass riots, but hey.

You quoted me answering that, yet you still asked. I don't understand your confusion.

Exactly. If you read the wikipedia page that you linked, you would see that Deists believe in a Creator, IE - a god.

oldtimeislands.org calling it a public prayer does not make it a public prayer.

Bellamy, the author of our pledge, stated
The addition of "under God" by Louis A. Bowman actually fits Bellamy's ideology.

Now, the REQUIREMENT to say the pledge is a totally different story. Obviously there are some people out there that have no sense of patriotism and/or no love for this country or what it stands for (even though the same freedoms they hate give them the rights to be here). If they feel so strongly about it, it is (and should be) their right to not participate in saying it. The United States Flag Code establishes the rules for display and care of the flag, along with rules for the pledge and national anthem. However, there is no law to penalize people for not following that code.

How stupid are these plaintiffs? Did they get a letter from the government saying "we're not going to protect you as much because you don't say the pledge of allegiance" ??

The difference is merely philosophical. While humans tend to seek Alpha role for power and control, Primates seek the Alpha role for mating privileges. (And tell me if that isn't at least partially true in Humans too?)

In the words of Mel Brooks as Louis XIV in History of the World Part I: "It's good to be the king"

...one nation under dog...

Could you imagine the battle royale?!?

And yet heavy is the head that wears the crown.

I guess I'm on the side of defending the Pledge. I said the Pledge everyday during my K-5 years and I don't feel as though I've been brainwashed in any way, shape or form. In fact, I'm more critical of my country, it's government, and it's citizens now than ever before. You may attribute that to age, wisdom and knowledge. The Pledge has nothing to do with it. I don't feel that the words "under God" are inherently Christian or belonging to any religion specifically. As far as I'm concerned, "under God" just means under ANY God. If you're Christian, Buddhist, Scientologist, Spanish or Mon Calamari, it can apply to anyone or no one in particular. It sounds to me like Atheists like to get involved with anything having to do with religion and muck it up because they feel left out of everyone's reindeer games. At what point do Atheists start infringing on the rights of religious folks with all the hemming and hawing over anything having to do with God? Point is, not everyone is going to be happy at the same time, so just live and let live. Forget about all the petty Easter Bunny *** along with "happy holidays" and the Pledge for a minute and realize that none of that is dangerous, harmful or in anyway directed at anyone with the intent to offend.

This works perfectly on all levels!

Can we get the pledge with an American flag in the background as well?

idk if this has been brought up or not but "under god" wasn't in the original pledge.
"February 7 is a notable historical day for the acknowledgment of God in modern America: it is the day that a sermon was preached before President Dwight D. Eisenhower, suggesting that the words "under God" be added to the pledge. The sermon was preached by the Rev. George M. Docherty, pastor of New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, D. C."
"These resolutions were passed, and on June 14, 1954 (Flag Day), President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the bill into law, officially adding the words "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance"

it was a political move to help people get on the boat to destroy communism. anytime politics use religion to further their own agendas it's wrong. i don't see why "god" has any place in a nation that expresses it has freedom of religion.

Not all religions have a "god" at the top dude.

Mine has a giant chocolate egg.

Check page uno.

The 'under God' wasn't added for some pluralist desire to included Muslims, Hindus, Jews etc. It was added to advance one God above all others.

What about the pagans?

You worship the Wind Fish?

i can see a few points of view on this. The principle of separation of church and state would dictate that it be removed. But at the same time it does also seem a bit nit picking (right or wrong, not being judged).
Secondly, the pledge of allegiance in schools ultimately is worthless (with or without 'under god'). It changes nothing, it means nothing. Since kids in schools are taught at a young age the words to recite but are never taught the meaning or idea behind them, the kids have no real idea what they are saying anyway. So it rly means nothing to them.

What i do have a problem with however, is teachers trying to force the kids to recite it. And i mean force as in if you don't do it, you will be in trouble. When i deiced to no longer recite it in school, several of my teachers tried to force me to say it, and tried to punish me after i didn't. - Another example of teachers/school pushing personal will and agenda on kids. - Now that i have a problem with.

That's possible. Docherty was a preacher in a Christian church. Eisenhower became a Christian in 1953, the year before. Bellamy, the author of the original pledge, was a Baptist minister. It's very plausible. However, I'd encourage you to read what Bellamy and Eisenhower stated as their reasons, instead of conjecturing your own.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. In the past, spirituality in patriotism has had the opposite effect of what you claim. Not just in the United States.

There is nothing wrong with the pledge as it is. It's not infringing on anyone's rights as these plaintiffs claim. These atheists really just need to stfu and quit letting their panties get in a twist every time someone says the word "god."

This is going to end well.

I'm curious, if the roles were reversed and it said something like "under Odin" or "Under Science" or something like that, would everyone be okay with that since these words mean nothing and shouldn't be worried about?

Under Allah.

Can we remove 3D movies while we are at it ?

I understand you don't see a good reason to remove the words "under God."

I can't help but wonder if it falls into some confirmation bias you hold dear to such as " 'merica is going to the shitter!"

The one true God. My scimitar and suicide vest says so.

Were you promised 74 virgins also?

True, but who's desired perception is predominant at this point? People aren't just making a case that this needs to be changed to change our national perception but that it is indoctrinating our youth (ridiculous by all accounts).

This doesn't really have to do with a seperation of church and state and it isn't forcing kids to follow a religion or name a specific one. If you honestly think this is harmful then you're just being ridiculous. If you do just want it changed because you think it's the best choice for our nation then well we're getting somewhere.

(not speaking to you directly with these zero)