- NEW!
by six2dfax on January 8th, 2007
Leave it be. God is a euphemism for higher power, it's use can have numerous connotations.
When is primary election day?
by Answerbag Staff on February 27th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Instead of abolishing religious freedoms piecemeal, why doesn't Obama follow his communist ideology and just ban it all at once?
by More2Be on February 11th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
How can Obama claim to know about prosperity & job creation when the companies he has propped with tax dollars are all cratering?
by More2Be on February 9th, 2012
| 2 people like this
With the unrest in the Middle East, North Africa and Europe,Is it time for the world to get rid of its governments and Heads of state.
by jamesross19 on February 11th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
Do you think monkeys will rule the world after world war 3?
by LoverOfSophia on February 10th, 2012
| 3 people like this
You're reading Do you want "under God" out of our pledge?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Thank you. I wish that the people who want the words removed would see it your way. :)
by EarthAngel on January 9th, 2007
I disagree. "God" is a religious term no matter how hard you try to spin it. There's a separation of church and state and theoretically it should have never been inserted. And it won't go away until the people shout long enough through votes, letters to Congressmen, and/or protests. But I'd like to keep Congressmen busy on other matters.
by Aristocles on January 19th, 2007
Separation of Church/State, adt_33, has to do with the State forcing citizens to believe a certain way, which is what the Founders wrote, based on the established State-Churches of some of the Colonies which forced people to obey or get out. The Founders presumed a Divine Authority, not necessarily the Christian God, most of them were not practical believers, but they caled Him/It "The Creator" which, as noted is "God" as in "One nation Under God" Who/Which can be interpreted any way one desires.
That phrase is NOT "establishing" Religion by any stretch, except for the left-leaning judges in CA who took it out of the schools, and atheists etc. Practically it does not matter, because our self-styled born-again President is doing lots of things MY GOD objects to, and some atheists are more "God-fearing" and "Christian-"acting than MANY self-styled ones are. I prefer divine-like citizenship and genuine religious conduct from all of us but I want the phrase left alone!
by barjacob on January 20th, 2007
No, you're wrong. The phrase came from Jefferson referring not to, as you say, the state using force to establish religion. He used it literally: separation. As in, "not included, not within, no advocating religion."
And secondly, I say again that the pledge's "under God" was added in an Anti-Communist 1954. I doubt Congress was considering the term "God" to be flexible and liberal, as those characteristcs seemed to be in accord with McCarthy's "Communists among us."
by Aristocles on January 21st, 2007
adt_33, note that the phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. What you are referring to is the opinion of a single man. Yes, he was very influential, but he was just one man. I can provide quotes from other founding fathers where they express the opinion that religion is necessary for a moral society and they fear would would happen if religion is completely banned from government. (Washington's farewell address being one such example.) Then I would also point to an act of the very same Congress that wrote the Bill of Rights that shows that they never envisioned a complete separation between state and government. That act is that both houses established the position of Chaplain for their respective bodies. If they wanted a complete separation, then why did they establish such overtly religions positions to be paid for by the government?
by Glenn Blaylock on January 21st, 2007
Amen to both barjacob and Glenn Blaylock. If our forefathers wanted what Aristocles wanted then God would not have been in so much of the times. In God we trust is on most if not all of the Federal buildings, State buildings; most of these were built in their times or shortly after. Just reading their quotes lets you know that what they wanted was not to be seperated from God, but not to be forced how to worship Him. It's very clear if you take the simplist of American History courses and of course read quotes attributed to these great men who signed our Constitution and Bill of Rights. They worshipped/loved God and knew that without His blessings we could not become the great nation they knew we could and did become. <:))))<><
by sleeppro on March 18th, 2007
Sorry but you do not see how much better a nation it is becoming do you? The god thing was just to feel good about something. What is now going on is the enhanced freedom in this country and the world. We can now do what we want whenever we want without having a conscious bother us. It is real freedom and it will be more and more free very soon. So everybody should be so happy. History is just that...history. You can tell what the people really want just by seeing the recent elections. The gays are finally able to do what they want and now it is ok. Soon alot of people with preferences will be just as free everywhere. The government just needs taxes and they will then let everybody do just about anything. This is a great historic time for the world!
by Freedom120 on June 13th, 2007
I think it's clear enough: Congress shall Make NO Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion
Nor will they bar it.
Putting "god" on money, into public pledges, paying chaplains... all are respecting religion. Away with them all.
by 23Skidoo on August 4th, 2008
Yes, it is clear enough IF you have studied your history. An "Establishment of Religion" is a state sponsored religion. An example of such a religion is the Church of England. In Great Britain, Everyone pays taxes specifically to support that church, even if they are not members of it. Additionally, the government actually has a say in how the religion is run and what doctrines it can teach. Any changes that the ecclesiastical leaders might want to have to make must be approved by the parliament and the monarch.
-
This is what the righters of the first amendment were prohibiting, the wholesale control of religion by the government or one religion in complete control of the government. They were not trying to cut religion completely out of public life or prevent it from having any influence on government or society.
by Glenn Blaylock on August 4th, 2008
I think we put way too much stock in what the founding fathers thought. One thing the certainly wanted was for the Constitution to be reinterpreted in order to keep it relevant. They didn't want it to become a dogma. Today with lots of religions practiced in the US, as well as plenty of those who practice none, freedom of religion needs to include freedom from it. In that light those magic words, "...shall make no law respecting..." are the key ones.
-
By eliminating government sponsored religion all it does is free those who don't want to pay taxes to "respect" one and it frees school children and soldiers from the implied government encouragement. It does nothing to prevent those who wish to follow their gods. And that is how it should be.
by 23Skidoo on August 4th, 2008
If you think we should down play what they thought then? Plus the the many religions here in America is exactly why there was a separation. It was to protect the Judea christian foundation of this country.
by Johnny on October 24th, 2008
I would also point out something. Note 23Skidoo was all for a strict interpretation of that one phrase of the Constitution until he found out that it does not mean what he thought it does. Then he wants to reinterpret what it means to suit his purposes. No, I don't agree that the founding fathers wanted the constitution to be "reinterpreted" to fit the times. The men who wrote it were very well educated men who knew the English language much better than most people today know it. They knew exactly what they were saying when they wrote the various clauses of the Constitution and meant for it to be interpreted just that way. This is why they also include a provision for amending the Constitution. If it was determined that some clause of the constitution needed a new meaning then the proper way to deal with that was to pass an amendment that would institute that change. The proper way to change it is not to "reinterpret" it to suit our preferences. When we allow...
by Glenn Blaylock on October 24th, 2008
...the constitution so simply be reinterpreted, then we give a small group of people (judges), who are not accountable to anyone, the power to impose their will on us rather than having that power rest in the hands of the people themselves. This is, in my mind, why they added the Tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of the government. It is not there to limit the power of the people to exercise their religion however or wherever they may wish nor was it meant to keep people's religious view from influencing their decisions when acting as parts of the government.
by Glenn Blaylock on October 24th, 2008
good answer six. +4
by Countess Crapula on February 25th, 2009