"Under God, Indivisible . . . . "

[andyfox]

Looks like "under god" stays in the pledge of allegiance.

Congress adopted the pledge as a national patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress added the phrase "under God" more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold. Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United States apart from godless communism.

Perhaps we should change it to "under our god," to set the United States apart from the bad god its current enemies worship.

[Zeno]

We need John Cole maybe, but I looked up some references to the pledge and all had 'God' in the capitalized form -'under God', not 'under god'. I was under the impression that the capitalized form referred specifically to the Christian God (in western culture), as opposed to all the other floating incorporeal gods jetting about the universe. But I may be all mixed up on this. I remember a grammar class long ago that was a stickler about the proper use of 'god' or 'God'. Being a heroin addict at the time, I quickly forget it all. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Perhaps John ‘English God’ (or god) Cole can set me on the straight and narrow. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

-Zeno

[Easy E]

the Aryans worship?

Perhaps we should change it to "under our god," to set the United States apart from the bad god its current enemies worship.

[John Cole]

Zeno,

You are correct; use "God" when you are referring to "Him," the Christian God. Do not use "She" or "Her." The Pope will not approve.

And, since you can find no reference to the Pledge in which God is not capitalized, then we know the Pledge specifically refers to Him (not Her). As if we haven't known this all along.

When you were a heroin addict, did you pronounce "heroin" with three syllables or two?

[juanez]

Amemdment I of the Bill of Rights: [ QUOTE ]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

[/ QUOTE ]
Those are the exact words as written by our forefathers. Note that " the seperation of church and state" does not appear ANYWHERE in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights at all - not once. Of course it's written all the time by the media and referred to as "The First Amendment", but the media is often willingly wrong while they push their liberal agenda.

Sounds like you are against the word "god" or "God" or any symbol of god or God being uttered, written or displayed by any government institution in any way whatsoever. If I am wrong for making this assumption, I apologize. Believe me, I am no religious zealot by any means.

If you are a true secularist, which law exactly has Congress made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof? The Pledge is not a law establishing a religion any more than "In God We Trust" written on a quarter is a law. And please don't try arguing that because the word God is capitalized in the Pledge that that is a law establishing a religion. That would be a rather tourtured argument at best.

Why be so afraid of people believing in God - whether it's a Christian "God" or a Pagan "god"? Most religions preach peace and harmony, yadda, yadda, koombaya. Not such a bad thing really. Secularists should be more TOLERANT of religious folks of all varieties.

Of course I don't want Bush declaring the we all MUST be born again or it's off to the guillotine. I'd be loading my .45 and the shotgun if he announced that in a press conference and would fight to the death against him (whoops...guns are supposed to somehow be inherently evil too) and I'm sure the vast majority of the American public would rebel instantaneoulsy as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United States apart from godless communism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure this is true, but I'd like to see a few sources (besides MoveOn.org [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])

[elwoodblues]

Would you make the same argument if it said "one nation under Allah"?

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you make the same argument if it said "one nation under Allah"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet he would but he would also be wearing a turban.

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you make the same argument if it said "one nation under Allah"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. According to the Websters New World Dictionary:

Allah: the Muslim name for God.

God: (1) any of various beings being conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship. (2) an image that is worshiped; idol.
(3) a person or thing deified or excessively honored and admired.

Note that Christianity is not included in the definition of "god" at all but "Muslim" is included the definition of Allah.

So no, I would not make the same argument if "one nation under Allah" were the pledge, just like I would not make the same argument if "one nation under Jesus Christ" were in the Pledge.

Unless you have redefined this common english language word (which is so fashionable by the libs these days) god can mean any supernatural being, not just the Christian God.

Also FYI...there is no seperate definition for the "capitalized" version of the word god.

[Philuva]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like you are against the word "god" or "God" or any symbol of god or God being uttered, written or displayed by any government institution in any way whatsoever. If I am wrong for making this assumption, I apologize. Believe me, I am no religious zealot by any means.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am. To me, the word God is associated with religion. When the word God is used within the realm of government sponsored or funded instituions, then I think it is a very slippery slop of goverment promoting a particular religion. In this case a relgion that believes in God.

I am not afraid of people who believe in God. But I don't think we should be using a bible for judicial procedures, nor do I think teachers should lead children in pledges containing the word God in public schools. When you and your family are at home, pray the hell out of that bible. Talk about God all you want. Just don't do it on my tax dollar.

[ QUOTE ]
Why be so afraid of people believing in God - whether it's a Christian "God" or a Pagan "god"? Most religions preach peace and harmony, yadda, yadda, koombaya. Not such a bad thing really. Secularists should be more TOLERANT of religious folks of all varieties.

[/ QUOTE ]

Secularist should be tolerant of religious folks??? You are kidding, right? There have been more wars and persecutions in the name of religion than I can count.

Just because God is removed from Gov't institutions, does not mean God does not exist or God is less relevant. It just means people who believe in God, should support that belief on their own time.

If anyone does not think our country is moving towards a Christian oriented goverment, I think they should take their heads out of their bibles.

[elwoodblues]

Note that the constitution does not say that Congress shall make no law establish a religion. It just says religion.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you have redefined this common english language word (which is so fashionable by the libs these days) god can mean any supernatural being, not just the Christian God.


[/ QUOTE ]

I find it ironic which uses of the term "god" you chose to capitalize given that your argument is that capitalization doesn't matter.