Good. Now to get it off our money and anywhere else it appears. Gods are personal, not public or political, and need to stay that way. If xtians disagree then I say let’s replace all the places where ‘god’ appears with allah or the non-religion, buddha. Same thing.
@suzibikerbabe - If your money offends you so much, renounce it.
Good. The phrase has no business in the pledge. Neither does the phrase “in God we trust” belong on American money. America is not a theocracy (well, even though American Christians like to think it is, one of my biggest complaints with American Christianity). Not only do I believe it’s imposing on non-religious people, but I also think that the phrase is blasphemous, on a religious level (no nation or government is divinely blessed or has endorsement from God, and the US is no different). I could go into how Americans are patriotic to the point of idolatry, but I won’t.
That’s good, it shouldn’t have been added in the first place!
@suzibikerbabe - According to the Supreme Court, this is exactly how “God” in such places already functions. In 2004, Sandra Day-O’Connor said, “Given the values that the Establishment Clause was meant to serve, I believe that government can, in a discrete category of cases, acknowledge or refer to the divine without offending the Constitution. This category of ‘ceremonial deism’ most clearly encompasses such things as the national motto (‘In God We Trust’), religious references in traditional patriotic songs such as the Star-Spangled Banner, and the words with which the Marshal of this Court opens each of its sessions (‘God save the United States and this honorable Court’).”
As a Christian, I want God removed from the currency and the Pledge (though as a Christian I cannot say the Pledge, of course) precisely because I won’t submit my understanding of God to the merely private realm of belief that such public use already necessarily implies.
If we do away with God, who then is it that gave us our rights?
@obamawatch - Prior to 1954 the words “under God” were not in the pledge of allegiance. They were added under pressure from Christian leaders in a time of heightened nationalism and Communist fear in America.
@obamawatch - If your God is so weak as to be “done away” by the removal of words from a pledge of allegiance, in a single nation-state out of dozens, on this Earth, then you need to reconsider your idea of God’s omnipotence.
Hmm. I’m divided as to what I think & how I feel on this.
Anyway, did anyone also notice that they omitted “indivisible” as well? That saddens me. After 9/11 our country seemed to come together during crisis. Since the beginning of campaigns for the 2008 elections, I feel our country’s peoples have been quite divided. It’s frustrating. So it would’ve been nice to hear it in there.
However, @SirNickDon brings up a very good point. I haven’t thought about it much before, but recently I read a FB Christian homeschooling page status that asked if people planned to teach their children the pledge & recite it daily like we used to in school. Some of the comments mentioned that Christians cannot do this biblically. After thinking of the words in the pledge again – I think I agree. I’m patriotic, most assuredly. However, my God will ALWAYS come first & foremost because without Him I wouldn’t be who I am & I wouldn’t have any hope for now & for the future.
I approve. If we truly want separation of church and state, then that’s the way it’s gotta be.
@SirNickDon - So why can’t you say the Pledge? I’m not trying to rile, I’m genuinely curious. I was raised in the church and it’s not something I’ve ever encountered before.
@prettynpink628 - My perspective–as a Christian, I say the Pledge proudly, because I believe the Bible calls me to the best possible citizen I can be of whatever country is my temporary earthly home.
That’s just wrong!
@Pickwick12 - That was what my mum always said. That the Bible instructs loyalty to one’s country. Which is why I asked, because I’ve never seen that before.
@prettynpink628 - Nick’s perspective is a bit different, to say the least I couldn’t disagree with him more if I tried, but I appreciate his sincerity.
@prettynpink628 - I embrace a church tradition heavily influenced by the Mennonites. In my view, our citizenship is in heaven (Phil 2), and while we are to submit to earthly authority (Rom 13), this doesn’t mean the same thing as declaring our allegiance to them. Like any foreigner residing in another land (the New Testament describes Christians as “aliens” “strangers” and “exiles”), we are to obey the laws of the land, and even actively seek the good of the land we are exiled in (Jer. 29:4-7). But the Pledge of Allegiance asks for more than this, and asks us to pledge unconditional loyalty to the flag of the nation. This makes the flag sacred in a way that I believe parallels the deification of Roman emperors, which Christians have always refused to do. After all, what is it called when someone touches a flag to the ground, or burns a flag? It’s called “desecrating” the flag: the flag is a sacred thing. I am deeply suspicious of this.
@striemmy - Where in my comment did I say my money offended me? Time for you to renounce the drugs you’re taking …
There are two possible ways to take these sort of things, things like omitting “under God” from the pledge of allegiance or avoiding acknowledging that for the vast majority of us our “winter celebration” is Christmas. One way to take it is that people want to avoid appearing to favor one religion over another. But there is another way to take this: as a way of telling Christians that who they are is so offensive that they should not be seen or heard lest some poor soul be confronted with the fact that they exist. One reason is conscientious, a government agency or corporation not wanting to appear to be favoring the people of one religion over another. The other is bigotry. One is out of love, the other out of hate. It takes discernment to determine which is which, especially as many who do it out of the hateful reason tell themselves that they are doing it to be conscientious.
As for NBC, the words “under God” were not the only ones omitted from the pledge. While I think they did specifically choose to omit those words, it was done in a way, with the pledge cutting in and out, that one could imagine that the kids were actually every word in the pledge. I don’t think people should be taking offense over this.
@SirNickDon - Ok, I can see that. Thanks for taking time to explain.
@suzibikerbabe - If it doesn’t offend you then I suppose it doesn’t need to change.
That is cool. They decided to omit the rough, fast greens and overall a tough course but cool to see they went old school with the pledge.
@Kristenmomof3 - ”added under pressure of Christian leaders and the threat of Communism”, I think that is how you said it (but could not locate your comment to verify): that is okay, isn’t it? If President Eisenhouer recognized the hand of God with our troops in WWII, and the members of Congress heard the people, in the time of the Communist threat, and added the phrase, then that move was Constitutional, therefore legal. I would ask you all how you justify the pledge to the nation, without recognition that loyalty to God (or at least respect) is above it? I would also ask you doubters, why not recognize God in the uttering of the Pledge of Allegiance? The founding fathers, including Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson did.
Comments (22)
Good. Now to get it off our money and anywhere else it appears. Gods are personal, not public or political, and need to stay that way. If xtians disagree then I say let’s replace all the places where ‘god’ appears with allah or the non-religion, buddha. Same thing.
@suzibikerbabe - If your money offends you so much, renounce it.
Good. The phrase has no business in the pledge. Neither does the phrase “in God we trust” belong on American money. America is not a theocracy (well, even though American Christians like to think it is, one of my biggest complaints with American Christianity). Not only do I believe it’s imposing on non-religious people, but I also think that the phrase is blasphemous, on a religious level (no nation or government is divinely blessed or has endorsement from God, and the US is no different). I could go into how Americans are patriotic to the point of idolatry, but I won’t.
That’s good, it shouldn’t have been added in the first place!
@suzibikerbabe - According to the Supreme Court, this is exactly how “God” in such places already functions. In 2004, Sandra Day-O’Connor said, “Given the values that the Establishment Clause was meant to serve, I believe that government can, in a discrete category of cases, acknowledge or refer to the divine without offending the Constitution. This category of ‘ceremonial deism’ most clearly encompasses such things as the national motto (‘In God We Trust’), religious references in traditional patriotic songs such as the Star-Spangled Banner, and the words with which the Marshal of this Court opens each of its sessions (‘God save the United States and this honorable Court’).”
As a Christian, I want God removed from the currency and the Pledge (though as a Christian I cannot say the Pledge, of course) precisely because I won’t submit my understanding of God to the merely private realm of belief that such public use already necessarily implies.
If we do away with God, who then is it that gave us our rights?
@obamawatch - Prior to 1954 the words “under God” were not in the
pledge of allegiance. They were added under pressure from Christian
leaders in a time of heightened nationalism and Communist fear in
America.
@obamawatch - If your God is so weak as to be “done away” by the removal of words from a pledge of allegiance, in a single nation-state out of dozens, on this Earth, then you need to reconsider your idea of God’s omnipotence.
Hmm. I’m divided as to what I think & how I feel on this.
Anyway, did anyone also notice that they omitted “indivisible” as well? That saddens me. After 9/11 our country seemed to come together during crisis. Since the beginning of campaigns for the 2008 elections, I feel our country’s peoples have been quite divided. It’s frustrating. So it would’ve been nice to hear it in there.
However, @SirNickDon brings up a very good point. I haven’t thought about it much before, but recently I read a FB Christian homeschooling page status that asked if people planned to teach their children the pledge & recite it daily like we used to in school. Some of the comments mentioned that Christians cannot do this biblically. After thinking of the words in the pledge again – I think I agree. I’m patriotic, most assuredly. However, my God will ALWAYS come first & foremost because without Him I wouldn’t be who I am & I wouldn’t have any hope for now & for the future.
Here’s a great pledge though.
I Pledge Allegiance to the Lamb
Video to the above.
I approve. If we truly want separation of church and state, then that’s the way it’s gotta be.
@SirNickDon - So why can’t you say the Pledge? I’m not trying to rile, I’m genuinely curious. I was raised in the church and it’s not something I’ve ever encountered before.
@prettynpink628 - My perspective–as a Christian, I say the Pledge proudly, because I believe the Bible calls me to the best possible citizen I can be of whatever country is my temporary earthly home.
That’s just wrong!
@Pickwick12 - That was what my mum always said. That the Bible instructs loyalty to one’s country. Which is why I asked, because I’ve never seen that before.
@prettynpink628 - Nick’s perspective is a bit different, to say the least
I couldn’t disagree with him more if I tried, but I appreciate his sincerity.
NBC apologised.
@prettynpink628 - I embrace a church tradition heavily influenced by the Mennonites. In my view, our citizenship is in heaven (Phil 2), and while we are to submit to earthly authority (Rom 13), this doesn’t mean the same thing as declaring our allegiance to them. Like any foreigner residing in another land (the New Testament describes Christians as “aliens” “strangers” and “exiles”), we are to obey the laws of the land, and even actively seek the good of the land we are exiled in (Jer. 29:4-7). But the Pledge of Allegiance asks for more than this, and asks us to pledge unconditional loyalty to the flag of the nation. This makes the flag sacred in a way that I believe parallels the deification of Roman emperors, which Christians have always refused to do. After all, what is it called when someone touches a flag to the ground, or burns a flag? It’s called “desecrating” the flag: the flag is a sacred thing. I am deeply suspicious of this.
@striemmy - Where in my comment did I say my money offended me? Time for you to renounce the drugs you’re taking …
There are two possible ways to take these sort of things, things like omitting “under God” from the pledge of allegiance or avoiding acknowledging that for the vast majority of us our “winter celebration” is Christmas. One way to take it is that people want to avoid appearing to favor one religion over another. But there is another way to take this: as a way of telling Christians that who they are is so offensive that they should not be seen or heard lest some poor soul be confronted with the fact that they exist. One reason is conscientious, a government agency or corporation not wanting to appear to be favoring the people of one religion over another. The other is bigotry. One is out of love, the other out of hate. It takes discernment to determine which is which, especially as many who do it out of the hateful reason tell themselves that they are doing it to be conscientious.
As for NBC, the words “under God” were not the only ones omitted from the pledge. While I think they did specifically choose to omit those words, it was done in a way, with the pledge cutting in and out, that one could imagine that the kids were actually every word in the pledge. I don’t think people should be taking offense over this.
@SirNickDon - Ok, I can see that. Thanks for taking time to explain.
@suzibikerbabe - If it doesn’t offend you then I suppose it doesn’t need to change.
That is cool. They decided to omit the rough, fast greens and overall a tough course but cool to see they went old school with the pledge.
@Kristenmomof3 - ”added under pressure of Christian leaders and the threat of Communism”, I think that is how you said it (but could not locate your comment to verify): that is okay, isn’t it? If President Eisenhouer recognized the hand of God with our troops in WWII, and the members of Congress heard the people, in the time of the Communist threat, and added the phrase, then that move was Constitutional, therefore legal.
I would ask you all how you justify the pledge to the nation, without recognition that loyalty to God (or at least respect) is above it? I would also ask you doubters, why not recognize God in the uttering of the Pledge of Allegiance? The founding fathers, including Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson did.