I Pledge Alligence to...GOD?
- Thread starter night
- Start date
night welcome: we are not all american here, so no need to get upset, in england we have no pledge, religious education ceased to be the thing it was in the past (church of england, morning prays etc.) we have many ethnic cultures in our schools, so if they wish to follow a particular religion they go to a school specifically for that.
however IMO they should take it back to it's 1924 version, the god bit was added in 1954. and in this modern ethically diverse world we should not show bias.
however IMO they should take it back to it's 1924 version, the god bit was added in 1954. and in this modern ethically diverse world we should not show bias.
Last edited:
night said:
Oh i am a Christian so i will give you what Jesus said on the matter.
Mathew: 5: 33-37
“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the lord, but I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for that is Gods throne; nor by the earth, for that is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your Yes be your Yes and your No be your No. For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.”
I believe that Christians should never swear oaths for anything. That includes a oath take in court, one taken by the president, one taken by army recruits and many other oaths of office.
If we look at the pledge of allegiance I think most would agree the word "pledge" is just another word for oath. Are people not swearing an oath of allegiance to a worldly kingdom when they recite the pledge of allegiance?
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
C
charles cure
Guest
Adstar said:
yeah but i think that as a function of the statement in the pledge "one nation under god" they are swearing allegiance to god also in the sense that they are admitting to the superiority of gods authority above that of their nation.
Jesus said to take no oaths, let your yes mean yes and your no mean no.
Hey,
Yeah sry about the "me getting mad" thing, I actually did post the second thing my friend did (hes one of the AMERICANS WILL RULE THE WORLD people), anyway I agree with you guys with the fact that (I am catholic btw) we should not pledge to anything we dont nessicerally believe in, however, does that mean that it should be outlawed????
hmm,
Night
Yeah sry about the "me getting mad" thing, I actually did post the second thing my friend did (hes one of the AMERICANS WILL RULE THE WORLD people), anyway I agree with you guys with the fact that (I am catholic btw) we should not pledge to anything we dont nessicerally believe in, however, does that mean that it should be outlawed????
hmm,
Night
Night,
Welcome to sciforums.
If the Supreme Court agree to hear the Newdow case again, and do not find a convenient technicality to not deal with it, then I expect they will uphold the lower court ruling that the pledge is unconstitutional. However, they are likely to be under incredible political pressure to rule otherwise - they might buckle.
The defense argues that the “under God” clause is a statement of patriotism and not religion. Perhaps someone can explain to me how a reference to a deity is somehow not religious.
The other defense is that those who do not want to say the pledge can freely abstain. Yeah right – peer pressure in schools to conform is overwhelming; very few kids are going to abstain when the status quo is to conform. The pledge has therefore become an instrument of religious indoctrination and coercion – both of which I’m sure the Supremes will fully understand.
Why do I care? The kids in schools now will be my government when I am old – I want freedom and justice to reign and not religious intolerance, coercion, and superstitions. It is important that we fight for truth and freedom whenever possible. The Newdow case will be an important milestone.
The “In God We Trust” clause on all our money must be the next thing to go.
Welcome to sciforums.
If the Supreme Court agree to hear the Newdow case again, and do not find a convenient technicality to not deal with it, then I expect they will uphold the lower court ruling that the pledge is unconstitutional. However, they are likely to be under incredible political pressure to rule otherwise - they might buckle.
The defense argues that the “under God” clause is a statement of patriotism and not religion. Perhaps someone can explain to me how a reference to a deity is somehow not religious.
The other defense is that those who do not want to say the pledge can freely abstain. Yeah right – peer pressure in schools to conform is overwhelming; very few kids are going to abstain when the status quo is to conform. The pledge has therefore become an instrument of religious indoctrination and coercion – both of which I’m sure the Supremes will fully understand.
Why do I care? The kids in schools now will be my government when I am old – I want freedom and justice to reign and not religious intolerance, coercion, and superstitions. It is important that we fight for truth and freedom whenever possible. The Newdow case will be an important milestone.
The “In God We Trust” clause on all our money must be the next thing to go.
night said:
IMO, it's used to promote patriotism. It doesn't matter to me that 'God' is mentioned.
why are my posts bieng deleted when i say things about usa government all the damn time
and i kept to the subject it was like a 2 line answer to the question.
I love the Jesus reference... it only proves the point why the "under god" portion needs to be removed. You see Adstar, not everyone believes nor follows your particular faith. Just because the majority in our government at the time the pledge was changed during the Eisenhower administration were Christian - we have a reference to god in our pledge.
Imagine in thirty years if your children or grandchildren were pledging to Muhammad because the senior members of our government in the future are Muslim? Is that fair? Religion and Government are entirely two separate entities that need to remain just that.... SEPARATE.
Imagine in thirty years if your children or grandchildren were pledging to Muhammad because the senior members of our government in the future are Muslim? Is that fair? Religion and Government are entirely two separate entities that need to remain just that.... SEPARATE.
That is just phenomenal. For nearly a thousand years people have given witness in courts of law "under oath" with the understanding that if they foreswore themselves they would be subject to indictment on earth and damnation after death. To give the oath they put their hand on a Christian Bible and right in there in that book is a passage that says "This deed is not valid." And it's not just anywhere in the Bible or anybody that said it - it was the Highest authority Himself!
That is the total basis of the Unconstitutionality of the PoA with "Under God" in it. The United States was constituted specifically to admit for all earthly matters of jurisprudence and legislation no higher authority than the properly elected authorities of Congress and President.charles cure said:
I've always preferred the Lisa Simpson version: "One Nation, Under the Dollar, with Liberty and Justice for None."
Darwin_76 said:
Well they claimed to be "christian". But where they really followers of Jesus?
I do not have any children, But if i did and they where required to pledge allegiance to muhammad i would hope that they would refuse even if they where killed for refusing it.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days