Why ''Under God'' phrase added on the Pledge of Allegiance in U.S?

[TheDude]

United States is a country which is completely based on secular principles. So, I just wonder about: why they added that phrase on the Pledge of Allegiance? Actually scientifically; humanity doesn't need any god, spirituel or holy thing in its life to be succesful. Because we know that these beliefs doesn't provide or help anything better.

In the future or currently is there an movement-act to remove that phrase ? Or Americans want to remove that ? (Also I wonder about same thing for the ''in god we trust'')

Four Times the Declaration of Independence Mentions God, and Why It Matters

 

[Correll]

"Hypocrisy"? The Soviet Union and the Communist Ideology was strongly anti-Religious.

As the US had Freedom of Religion, including a phrase celebrating the Free Exercise of Religion in the US was not hypocritical.

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

You said that. I responded to that. YOu repeated yourself. That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. Your post is invalid.

Do you think that no one noticed that you were unable to defend your statement?

Your dishonesty was just perfectly revealed.

Your point about this being hypocritical has been debunked.

debunked with what? we don't have any anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, like we did against sex.

You have nothing but fallacy.

My point, that you have refused to address stands.


"Hypocrisy"? The Soviet Union and the Communist Ideology was strongly anti-Religious.

As the US had Freedom of Religion, including a phrase celebrating the Free Exercise of Religion in the US was not hypocritical.



Until you address that, the debate is stalled at, I refuted your last point, and you are unable or unwilling to counter my rebuttal.


Whenever you are ready, go right ahead.

this is my rebuttal:

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

we don't have any anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, like we did against sex.

It doesn't matter what Communists do, if you have Faith in Capitalism.

Your opinion that the Americans of 1954 should have had so much confidence in their eventual victory that they did not need to DO anything to resist the Communist Ideology, is irrelevant to the topic.

That belief of yours, does not make their actions "hypocrisy".

They were honestly and deeply concerned about the threat to them and their way of life.


Why is this a problem for you?

 

[p kirkes]

In God we trust, all others we control, monitor or deceive.

 

[danielpalos]

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

You said that. I responded to that. YOu repeated yourself. That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. Your post is invalid.

Do you think that no one noticed that you were unable to defend your statement?

Your dishonesty was just perfectly revealed.

Your point about this being hypocritical has been debunked.

debunked with what? we don't have any anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, like we did against sex.

You have nothing but fallacy.

My point, that you have refused to address stands.


"Hypocrisy"? The Soviet Union and the Communist Ideology was strongly anti-Religious.

As the US had Freedom of Religion, including a phrase celebrating the Free Exercise of Religion in the US was not hypocritical.



Until you address that, the debate is stalled at, I refuted your last point, and you are unable or unwilling to counter my rebuttal.


Whenever you are ready, go right ahead.

this is my rebuttal:

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

we don't have any anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, like we did against sex.

It doesn't matter what Communists do, if you have Faith in Capitalism.

You're point on capitalism is, you can't insert the phrase under god and still be for capitalism, am I right?

No. My point is, we got a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge but no antihypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple, if the right wing was really really serious about the morals of Religion.

Job 34:30 That the hypocrite reign not, lest the People be ensnared.

 

[danielpalos]

United States is a country which is completely based on secular principles. So, I just wonder about: why they added that phrase on the Pledge of Allegiance? Actually scientifically; humanity doesn't need any god, spirituel or holy thing in its life to be succesful. Because we know that these beliefs doesn't provide or help anything better.

In the future or currently is there an movement-act to remove that phrase ? Or Americans want to remove that ? (Also I wonder about same thing for the ''in god we trust'')

Four Times the Declaration of Independence Mentions God, and Why It Matters

It Only matters if we advance a god's name in victory, not vanity.

 

[danielpalos]

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

You said that. I responded to that. YOu repeated yourself. That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. Your post is invalid.

Do you think that no one noticed that you were unable to defend your statement?

Your dishonesty was just perfectly revealed.

Your point about this being hypocritical has been debunked.

debunked with what? we don't have any anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, like we did against sex.

You have nothing but fallacy.

My point, that you have refused to address stands.


"Hypocrisy"? The Soviet Union and the Communist Ideology was strongly anti-Religious.

As the US had Freedom of Religion, including a phrase celebrating the Free Exercise of Religion in the US was not hypocritical.



Until you address that, the debate is stalled at, I refuted your last point, and you are unable or unwilling to counter my rebuttal.


Whenever you are ready, go right ahead.

this is my rebuttal:

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

we don't have any anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, like we did against sex.

It doesn't matter what Communists do, if you have Faith in Capitalism.

Your opinion that the Americans of 1954 should have had so much confidence in their eventual victory that they did not need to DO anything to resist the Communist Ideology, is irrelevant to the topic.

That belief of yours, does not make their actions "hypocrisy".

They were honestly and deeply concerned about the threat to them and their way of life.


Why is this a problem for you?

dear Person on the right wing; Do You have Faith that Capitalism is superior to socialism, or not?

It really is that simple. Why, "die a thousand deaths" through having nothing but fallacy.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You said that. I responded to that. YOu repeated yourself. That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. Your post is invalid.

Do you think that no one noticed that you were unable to defend your statement?

Your dishonesty was just perfectly revealed.

Your point about this being hypocritical has been debunked.

debunked with what? we don't have any anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, like we did against sex.

You have nothing but fallacy.

My point, that you have refused to address stands.


"Hypocrisy"? The Soviet Union and the Communist Ideology was strongly anti-Religious.

As the US had Freedom of Religion, including a phrase celebrating the Free Exercise of Religion in the US was not hypocritical.



Until you address that, the debate is stalled at, I refuted your last point, and you are unable or unwilling to counter my rebuttal.


Whenever you are ready, go right ahead.

this is my rebuttal:

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

we don't have any anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, like we did against sex.

It doesn't matter what Communists do, if you have Faith in Capitalism.

Your opinion that the Americans of 1954 should have had so much confidence in their eventual victory that they did not need to DO anything to resist the Communist Ideology, is irrelevant to the topic.

That belief of yours, does not make their actions "hypocrisy".

They were honestly and deeply concerned about the threat to them and their way of life.


Why is this a problem for you?

dear Person on the right wing; Do You have Faith that Capitalism is superior to socialism, or not?

It really is that simple. Why, "die a thousand deaths" through having nothing but fallacy.

yes, capitalism is far superior to socialism.....

what do you want printed on our coin......'In Commies We Trust'.....?

 

[ptbw forever]

Because "Under Clinton" would be confusing?

Aks OB..........................he says "God bless Merica EeryBodddy"

The first response to this post about the phrase "under God" mentions Clinton. This deflection is how Trump followers are like a broken record.

The fact you give the OP any credence says a lot about your ignorance of American history.

We have only been a secular society for a little over 100 years.

 

[Correll]

You said that. I responded to that. YOu repeated yourself. That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. Your post is invalid.

Do you think that no one noticed that you were unable to defend your statement?

Your dishonesty was just perfectly revealed.

Your point about this being hypocritical has been debunked.

debunked with what? we don't have any anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, like we did against sex.

You have nothing but fallacy.

My point, that you have refused to address stands.


"Hypocrisy"? The Soviet Union and the Communist Ideology was strongly anti-Religious.

As the US had Freedom of Religion, including a phrase celebrating the Free Exercise of Religion in the US was not hypocritical.



Until you address that, the debate is stalled at, I refuted your last point, and you are unable or unwilling to counter my rebuttal.


Whenever you are ready, go right ahead.

this is my rebuttal:

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

we don't have any anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, like we did against sex.

It doesn't matter what Communists do, if you have Faith in Capitalism.

Your opinion that the Americans of 1954 should have had so much confidence in their eventual victory that they did not need to DO anything to resist the Communist Ideology, is irrelevant to the topic.

That belief of yours, does not make their actions "hypocrisy".

They were honestly and deeply concerned about the threat to them and their way of life.


Why is this a problem for you?

dear Person on the right wing; Do You have Faith that Capitalism is superior to socialism, or not?

It really is that simple. Why, "die a thousand deaths" through having nothing but fallacy.

I do NOT have "faith" that a culture with a capitalistic economy will INEVITABLY be victorious over an Ideological enemy with a communist society.


The people of America is the 1950s, obviously agreed with me on that.


What part of this bothers you and why?

 

[my2¢]

I view the nation as increasingly secular rather than spiritual these days and thus question the merits of the "under God" addition.

I wish I felt the words were deserving.

The Pledge of Allegiance

In its original form it read:

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

In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
​

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So, we have no separation of church and state? Is that what you are saying?

The closest mention to separation of church and state is the first amendment, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with right to peaceable assemble..."

Separation of church and state is no where in the constitution. It's an idea that was originally created to combat the way England and other countries were banning and imposing certain religions, beliefs, and practices on their citizens. It's being twisted now as law, and the idea that religion cannot influence the government...and that government can regulate religious practice on governmental employees, which interferes with the first as shown above. So no, there is no separation of church and state, just that government cannot make laws concerning religion or the exercise of religion.

The Will of the Majority Should Override the Elitist Constitution Anyway

"Free exercise" does not include breaking secular laws. There was already a law against bigamy, so the Mormons could not claim an exemption based on free exercise of their religion. The Muslims can't advocate the overthrow of our government, even though the Koran tells them they can.

One of the biggest functions of the constitution is to make sure the will of the majority does not rule over the minority.

Just because we made a law against bigamy doesn't mean we didn't violate the first amendment, which we did. Government should have no place in marriage, it overstepped starting with DOMA, which was also a direct violation of the first.

And honor killing, or killing infidels, or abortion doctors, is not protected under as a free exercise of religion, since it violates right to life. Free exercise does not permit forcing others into your religion, BC that would be a violation of the 1st.

And again there is no separation of church and state, only in the sense that govt cannot make any law affecting religion, as long as that religion is not violating people's rights against their will, then it becomes a legal problem, that's already laid out in the constitution. So a school cannot ban teachers from praying, even in front of students, as long as those teachers are not forcing their students to pray. Government cannot force business owners to participate in something that violates their free practice of religion. Businesses still retain the right to refuse business, but that's being eroded. If your crazy religion states your not to do business with anyone outside of religion, it's probably a terrible business practice, but you're not infringing on other people's rights, since they have a right to choose business anywhere.

The Greatest Good for the Least Number

The only minority Constitutionazis care about is the 1%, which sics other minorities on us just to put us in our place, not out of love for those misfits.

Huh? The constitution is designed to with strict restrictions on the few geese in charge If you don't like the constitution, move somewhere else that better fits your beliefs.. Constitution is designed so that the "misfits" have every opportunity/rights/freedom etc, as those who are not considered misfits. .

"My Way or the Highway" Means That Your Way Is the Low Way

You're hopelessly brainwashed to think your slavery to a political supremacist document makes you feel powerful. Telling me to leave means you think your precious Masters, the enemies of democracy, care about you like some infallible father figures and my best hope is to get adopted by them or become a runaway.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

In God we trust, all others we control, monitor or deceive.

The Constitution Set Up This Swamplord Oligarchy

You mean you don't believe in the anti-democratic Constitutionazis' doctrine that what is best for the 1% is best for all you worthless little people too? You must be some kind of Commie!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I view the nation as increasingly secular rather than spiritual these days and thus question the merits of the "under God" addition.

I wish I felt the words were deserving.

The Pledge of Allegiance

In its original form it read:

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

In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
​

Weewee on the People: A Trickle-Down Political System

This metaphor for a Guiding Light is harmless; the real toxic element is saying that we stand for a republic rather than a democracy. Political elitists sneaked that in. They are the enemies of democracy and must have all power and influence taken away from them. Any political bully who tells you to shut up and obey his command that we live in a republic, and that democracy is "mob rule," wants us to submit to Snob Rule.

 

[sakinago]

The closest mention to separation of church and state is the first amendment, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with right to peaceable assemble..."

Separation of church and state is no where in the constitution. It's an idea that was originally created to combat the way England and other countries were banning and imposing certain religions, beliefs, and practices on their citizens. It's being twisted now as law, and the idea that religion cannot influence the government...and that government can regulate religious practice on governmental employees, which interferes with the first as shown above. So no, there is no separation of church and state, just that government cannot make laws concerning religion or the exercise of religion.

The Will of the Majority Should Override the Elitist Constitution Anyway

"Free exercise" does not include breaking secular laws. There was already a law against bigamy, so the Mormons could not claim an exemption based on free exercise of their religion. The Muslims can't advocate the overthrow of our government, even though the Koran tells them they can.

One of the biggest functions of the constitution is to make sure the will of the majority does not rule over the minority.

Just because we made a law against bigamy doesn't mean we didn't violate the first amendment, which we did. Government should have no place in marriage, it overstepped starting with DOMA, which was also a direct violation of the first.

And honor killing, or killing infidels, or abortion doctors, is not protected under as a free exercise of religion, since it violates right to life. Free exercise does not permit forcing others into your religion, BC that would be a violation of the 1st.

And again there is no separation of church and state, only in the sense that govt cannot make any law affecting religion, as long as that religion is not violating people's rights against their will, then it becomes a legal problem, that's already laid out in the constitution. So a school cannot ban teachers from praying, even in front of students, as long as those teachers are not forcing their students to pray. Government cannot force business owners to participate in something that violates their free practice of religion. Businesses still retain the right to refuse business, but that's being eroded. If your crazy religion states your not to do business with anyone outside of religion, it's probably a terrible business practice, but you're not infringing on other people's rights, since they have a right to choose business anywhere.

The Greatest Good for the Least Number

The only minority Constitutionazis care about is the 1%, which sics other minorities on us just to put us in our place, not out of love for those misfits.

Huh? The constitution is designed to with strict restrictions on the few geese in charge If you don't like the constitution, move somewhere else that better fits your beliefs.. Constitution is designed so that the "misfits" have every opportunity/rights/freedom etc, as those who are not considered misfits. .

"My Way or the Highway" Means That Your Way Is the Low Way

You're hopelessly brainwashed to think your slavery to a political supremacist document makes you feel powerful. Telling me to leave means you think your precious Masters, the enemies of democracy, care about you like some infallible father figures and my best hope is to get adopted by them or become a runaway.

Wow you really had to insert a lot assumptions there. I never told you to leave, if you don't like this countries constitution that much, I invited you to find a different country. Why live in a country when you find its constitution so oppressive? Honestly, if it's oppressing you, leave, you're not forced to live here. I am not for a strict democracy because that becomes the majority ruling over the minority. I enjoy the constitutional republic set up a lot more, one where there are rights the government, no matter whose in charge, that the government cannot touch. One where no single entity in government is in total control. One where a dictatorship is prohibited. I also don't have any masters, I don't even like anyone in political power. As far as being brainwashed, it never happened to me, but I guess they'd have some way to erase memory.

 

[sakinago]

I view the nation as increasingly secular rather than spiritual these days and thus question the merits of the "under God" addition.

I wish I felt the words were deserving.

The Pledge of Allegiance

In its original form it read:

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

In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
​

Weewee on the People: A Trickle-Down Political System

This metaphor for a Guiding Light is harmless; the real toxic element is saying that we stand for a republic rather than a democracy. Political elitists sneaked that in. They are the enemies of democracy and must have all power and influence taken away from them. Any political bully who tells you to shut up and obey his command that we live in a republic, and that democracy is "mob rule," wants us to submit to Snob Rule.

So you honestly want the majority rule over the minority? Isn't a strict democracy bad for the minority?

 

[Polishprince]

In the future or currently is there an movement-act to remove that phrase ? Or Americans want to remove that ? (Also I wonder about same thing for the ''in god we trust'')

The Pledge was completed back in the 50's, pointing out the undisputed fact that America was a nation under the providence of Almighty God contrasted us with the ultraliberal USSR, which was atheistic and sought world domination.

Although the Soviet Union is long gone, it still shows the difference between our republic and the rogue states of the Islamonazi World, who don't believe in Almighty God either, although they aren't atheists.

 

[danielpalos]

debunked with what? we don't have any anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, like we did against sex.

You have nothing but fallacy.

My point, that you have refused to address stands.


"Hypocrisy"? The Soviet Union and the Communist Ideology was strongly anti-Religious.

As the US had Freedom of Religion, including a phrase celebrating the Free Exercise of Religion in the US was not hypocritical.



Until you address that, the debate is stalled at, I refuted your last point, and you are unable or unwilling to counter my rebuttal.


Whenever you are ready, go right ahead.

this is my rebuttal:

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

we don't have any anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, like we did against sex.

It doesn't matter what Communists do, if you have Faith in Capitalism.

Your opinion that the Americans of 1954 should have had so much confidence in their eventual victory that they did not need to DO anything to resist the Communist Ideology, is irrelevant to the topic.

That belief of yours, does not make their actions "hypocrisy".

They were honestly and deeply concerned about the threat to them and their way of life.


Why is this a problem for you?

dear Person on the right wing; Do You have Faith that Capitalism is superior to socialism, or not?

It really is that simple. Why, "die a thousand deaths" through having nothing but fallacy.

yes, capitalism is far superior to socialism.....

what do you want printed on our coin......'In Commies We Trust'.....?

How about, in the name of our Commerce Clause?

 

[danielpalos]

debunked with what? we don't have any anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, like we did against sex.

You have nothing but fallacy.

My point, that you have refused to address stands.


"Hypocrisy"? The Soviet Union and the Communist Ideology was strongly anti-Religious.

As the US had Freedom of Religion, including a phrase celebrating the Free Exercise of Religion in the US was not hypocritical.



Until you address that, the debate is stalled at, I refuted your last point, and you are unable or unwilling to counter my rebuttal.


Whenever you are ready, go right ahead.

this is my rebuttal:

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

we don't have any anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, like we did against sex.

It doesn't matter what Communists do, if you have Faith in Capitalism.

Your opinion that the Americans of 1954 should have had so much confidence in their eventual victory that they did not need to DO anything to resist the Communist Ideology, is irrelevant to the topic.

That belief of yours, does not make their actions "hypocrisy".

They were honestly and deeply concerned about the threat to them and their way of life.


Why is this a problem for you?

dear Person on the right wing; Do You have Faith that Capitalism is superior to socialism, or not?

It really is that simple. Why, "die a thousand deaths" through having nothing but fallacy.

I do NOT have "faith" that a culture with a capitalistic economy will INEVITABLY be victorious over an Ideological enemy with a communist society.


The people of America is the 1950s, obviously agreed with me on that.


What part of this bothers you and why?

That you don't really believe in Capitalism; and prefer to resort to socialism on a national basis during times of Peace, as evidenced by the fact, that our Commander in Chief, believes we can lower taxes.

 

[OnePercenter]

United States is a country which is completely based on secular principles. So, I just wonder about: why they added that phrase on the Pledge of Allegiance? Actually scientifically; humanity doesn't need any god, spirituel or holy thing in its life to be succesful. Because we know that these beliefs doesn't provide or help anything better.

In the future or currently is there an movement-act to remove that phrase ? Or Americans want to remove that ? (Also I wonder about same thing for the ''in god we trust'')

There are numerous mentions of God in our founding documents. Not sure, but "under God" wasn't there until the fifties? Not sure why it was added.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution do not mention 'God,' 'Jesus,' 'Christianity' or any other specific religion.