McDermott omits 'God' from Pledge

Originally posted by acludem
I do not say the words under God when I recite the pledge of allegience. You know why? Because I don't believe in God, and I don't believe we are one nation under God, and I don't like to tell lies when I am reciting an oath. Rep. McDermott has absolutely every right not to say "Under God" if he's not comfortable doing so. Pete Sessions should shut his pie hole and mind his own damn business.
I agree.

This is not now, nor has this ever been a "Christian Nation."

WAY WRONG ANSWER. There IS proof you know.

It is a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Agnostics, Atheists, Wiccaans, and every other religion you think of. In colonial times there were already Catholics, Protestants, Jews and even Muslims in this country.

NOW it is a nation of all of these, but back then Cristians were accounting for nearly ALL of the populace, and those who were NOT Christian overwhelmingly believed in the Biblical principals of morality which defines our nation's founding documents.

-And catholics were near non-existent here. (I threw that bit in for you to TRY to disagree with it on PURPOSE).
 
Originally posted by acludem
I do not say the words under God when I recite the pledge of allegience. You know why? Because I don't believe in God, and I don't believe we are one nation under God, and I don't like to tell lies when I am reciting an oath. Rep. McDermott has absolutely every right not to say "Under God" if he's not comfortable doing so. Pete Sessions should shut his pie hole and mind his own damn business.

You all talk about taking the words out of the pledge, problem is they weren't there when it was written. The person who wrote it, a Baptist Minister no less, would've been furious about the words being put in, according to his family. "Under God" was put in the 1950s by Dwight Eisenhower because we didn't want to be "Godless Commies". That's a fact. This is not now, nor has this ever been a "Christian Nation." It is a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Agnostics, Atheists, Wiccaans, and every other religion you think of. In colonial times there were already Catholics, Protestants, Jews and even Muslims in this country.

As for whether or not the majority of the founders were abolitionists, I'd say it was about evenly divided. Most from the north opposed slavery, most from the south supported it. Then you had Madison and Jefferson who both hated slavery yet owned slaves. Jefferson said that slavery "was like holding a wolf by the ears, you didn't like it, but you didn't dare let go"


acludem

Can you document the fact that there were muslims here in colonial times? A few catholics I believe but muslims no.
 
Oh yeah! For the record?


McDermott is a Fuck-Stick.

McDermott is an ass-hat.

McDermott is a waste. :(
 
Originally posted by dmp
Oh yeah! For the record?


McDermott is a Fuck-Stick.

McDermott is an ass-hat.

McDermott is a waste. :(

You hate it when people don't stick to the topic, huh? :p: ;)
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
If I should move to an Islamic country, would it be fair for me to ask them to remove references to Allah from anything similar to the pledge?

If you go to an Islamic country they aren't going to have a democracy... therefore there won't be freedom of religion or separation of church and state. You can't compare a democracy to an Islamic country when it comes to religious freedoms. The two have completely opposite ideals.
 
Originally posted by megsand247
If you go to an Islamic country they aren't going to have a democracy... therefore there won't be freedom of religion or separation of church and state. You can't compare a democracy to an Islamic country when it comes to religious freedoms. The two have completely opposite ideals.

That wasn't my point. This wasn't about democracy. This was about asking people to conform. If you don't like it, either don't participate or stay silent, don't expect the world to change to suit your beliefs.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
That wasn't my point. This wasn't about democracy. This was about asking people to conform. If you don't like it, either don't participate or stay silent, don't expect the world to change to suit your beliefs.

If you don't like it, there is a third option: Attempt to get it changed.
 
I didn't mean I wanted the world to change. All I was saying was that a democracy and an Islamic country are like apples and oranges. Personally I don't think 'Under God' should be in the Pledge of Allegiance or on our money. Kids shouldn't be told to say something when they don't understand what they're being told to say. Americans have to use money. There's no escaping it. Not every American has a god or only believes in one.
 
Originally posted by megsand247
I didn't mean I wanted the world to change. All I was saying was that a democracy and an Islamic country are like apples and oranges. Personally I don't think 'Under God' should be in the Pledge of Allegiance or on our money. Kids shouldn't be told to say something when they don't understand what they're being told to say. Americans have to use money. There's no escaping it. Not every American has a god or only believes in one.

To note, as far as your examples of the pledge and money:

1. Nobody is REQUIRED to say the pledge.
2. The money is not a government issue currency. The federal reserve is a private company. Legally, they can do it.
 
Actually some schools do require the recititation of the pledge and there have been bills introduced in the U.S. Congress and also state legislatures that would force students to say the pledge. I firmly believe that "Under God" should be removed and the Pledge returned to original, secular version as the Baptist minister who wrote intended it. "In God We Trust" should be removed from money as well, because as Teddy Roosevelt said, it is both Unconstitutional and sacriligious.

acludem
 
Originally posted by acludem
Actually some schools do require the recititation of the pledge and there have been bills introduced in the U.S. Congress and also state legislatures that would force students to say the pledge.

Actually, they DO NOT if they are PUBLIC schools. Private schools can do whatever they want.


"In God We Trust" should be removed from money as well, because as Teddy Roosevelt said, it is both Unconstitutional and sacriligious.

acludem

Again, irrelevant. They are not a government entity.
 
It may be that public school kids aren't being required now, but there have been bills introduced that would force all students in all schools, public included, to recite the pledge each morning. I'm guessing they'd have to put in some sort of rule where kids whose parents don't want them doing it could come into the room late or something. Keep in mind, some groups like the Jehoveh's Witnesses don't do pledges at all, under God or no under God.

Btw, Jim McDermott is a congressman from Virginia, I believe.

acludem
 
I haven't contributed to this discussion yet, so here it goes.

Although I was shocked for a second, I realize that this senator did nothing wrong by not reciting a portion of the Pledge of Allegiance. He pledged allegiance to the flag, and that's what matters. If he was trying to make a political statement and started advocating removing the phrase completely, I would be mad at him, but I am not.

Now, as for public schools, I honestly don't know how we could handle that, but I don't have a problem with individuals leaving out a portion of the pledge as long as the true meaning is not lost.
 
Originally posted by acludem

Btw, Jim McDermott is a congressman from Virginia, I believe.

acludem

Washington State, he is the turd (I mean congressman) that went to Iraq before the war and denounced Bush on forgein soil.

link
 
I remember my elementary school and highs school days. The principal would lead everyone in the pledge. Almost everyone stood up for the recitation. I participated, standing up with my hand over my heart. During the first few years of elementary school I participated even though I didn't fully understand what I was saying. Through my formal education, I continued to participate eve though I may not have agreed with what I was saying. I participated because I thought that it was the expected thing to do. Practically everyone else was doing it. Even the teachers were participating so it must be the right no matter what my opinion was. I didn't want to be singled out by not participating. No one really took the time to explain that I didn't have to participate. Yet I remember one student who remained seated. I thought that he showed courage. Yes. He was relatively ostracized.

Why do we subject students, particularly those who don't want to participate, to such activity? It can be intimidating. After more reflection, I realize that public schools do a variety of things that may offend people's personal values (comprehensive sex education as an example). Parents who don't want their children subjected to sex education in the classroom may request that their student take an alternative class (though the student may feel ostracized for not attending the class).

I though some more. How can children be taught information that is consistent with their and/or their family values without their feeling ostracized or intimidated by the other students? Then I found the solution: PRIVATIZE! End public education, redistribute school tax money, and allow students to go to the school of their choice.
 
some groups like the Jehoveh's Witnesses don't do pledges at all, under God or no under God

Well then they are welcome to leave this country !
 

Forum List

Back
Top