It is NOT promising allegiance to God, but rather, to a country that was founded by those who harbored a wish to have freedom (and for the majority of them, it was freedom of religion).

I say that it should stay.
No one ever said that they had to say the pledge.

yes it should...this nation was found under God..n shuld continue to state that in our pledge...we dont force anyone to say anything in there or any of it at all...they can choose not to say if they wish...but those of us who believe we r a seperate nation b/c of Him have a rite to state so in there...and also it never states a specific "god"...it culd either be God...or if u want to interpret it differantly..no1 is throwing u in jail for it...only antheist n sume agnostics have a prob. with it

^ No, "under God" stays because the atheist father "didn't have legal authority" to speak for his daughter, and she's the one who has to say it, not him.

Actually, ehehe, they came here for the FREEDOM to serve God. Not under God's name. There's a difference.

I learn more about pilgrims than you'd think, but what do you know? They came here for the freedom to serve God as they wished.

And you're right, it is for religious freedom, but there were many different groups who wanted to serve God the way they wanted to. There were huguenots, quakers, puritans, and others. NOT just pilgrims, "babe".

And because of this religious freedom, you're facing the whole problem of atheists disagreeing about "Under God". They have a freedom not to pursue religious means just like you have a freedom to serve God.

There's two sides to every story, please respect that.

testify!

but i still stand with my "manifest destiny told us to take america from the indians" so "under god" is ok.

he should have considered it first, i guess. but other parents are arguing over this too, so it's 'it's good' vs. 'it's wrong'.


proposal denied

local parents' views

I bet he did consider it extensively before bringing this to court. And I disagree with the article "proposal denied" just a bit. I didn't think it was a ruling for the wrong reason... I think it was kind of smart to rule that way because it appeases the Atheists somewhat (as in it didn't offend them except for the fact of losing the case).

IN 1982, ON THE CELEBRATION of his ninetieth birthday, Dumas Malone, noted historian and Thomas Jefferson biographer, was asked, "What is the most fortunate aspect of American history?" Malone replied,
The fact that we became a nation and immediately separated church and state—it has saved us from all the misery that has beset mankind with inquisitions, internecine and civil wars, and other assorted ills.

Considering that the phrase consists of only two words, it implies a lot:

That a deity exists: Traditionally, God is viewed as at least omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (with infinite powers). Many religions add other attributes, such as all-loving.
Maleness: "God" implies a male deity. There is no room in the Pledge for any female deity/deities who are normally called "Goddesses."
Uniqueness: The phrase implies monotheism: that there is only a single deity who one who rules over America.
Omnipresent: The phrase implies that God rules over all of America, and is present everywhere.
Control: Most Americans probably believe that the phrase indicates a God who interferes with events on earth, guiding the U.S. in the direction that he wishes.

Imagine, for a moment, that you are a Jewish student. You have the choice of
Reciting a pledge that an Atheist -- a person who has no belief in the existence of a God -- wrote: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, without God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Refusing to recite it, and leaving yourself open to being belittled, harassed, insulted, assaulted, etc.
As the Pledge of Allegiance Restoration Project writes: "Would you repeat all the words? Would you skip over the phrase "without God?" Would it make you feel comfortable about being an American?" Or, as one person posting to a forum said, would you recite "under all."

Imagine that you are a Christian, and you were forced to read a pledge written by an Muslim -- a person who believes in the existence of Allah: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under Allah, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Imagine that you are a Muslim, and you were forced to read a pledge written by an Wiccan -- a person who follows an earth-centered religion, and believes in the existence of a God and a Goddess: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under the God and Goddess, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Imagine that you are a Wiccan, and you were forced to read a pledge written by an Christian: "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."

but I'll be sticking with the old version because I choose to!

i think we should keep it how it is...its stood up for over 200 years so...keep it

im catholic..and proud of it...i think we should keep it how it is...its stood up for over 200 years so...keep it

The bottom line is that everything the government does that involves religion must pass strict requirements. Quite franly I dont belive this does. It must be secular, and unless Im misinformed on the definition of secular I dont believe it is. Ask your Political Studies teachers.

its been around for so long.. generation after generation.. I'm highly doubtful that parents.. citizens who've grown up with it.. would like to see it altered..

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer. Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

I'm sorry, I do this way too fast.

1) It must have a secular purpose.
2) Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3) It must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

hAvEnT pEoPlE fOrGoTtEn ThAt GoD cReAtEd ThE wOrLd?

they should stay with it

If you do it too fast, just go back and edit it.. please dont triple post..

it pisses me off because its not even the students that have a problem with it. this whole thing started because of atheist parents not wanting their children saying "under God".

There are more cases, Im sure, where its just as much the kids as it is the parents.

id sure like to learn more about a case where a student was bothered by it. and if it wasnt started from someone complaining, where did this whole thing come from?

and does it literally mean under GOD? or does it have symbolism?