The Pledge of Allegiance was first written in 1892 for a magazine contest, and it read: "I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." The Pledge became part of the US Flag Code in 1942, and in 1954 President Eisenhower and Congress added the phrase "under God” into the Pledge.

Proponents of including "under God" in the Pledge argue that the United States is a Christian nation, at least 80% of Americans support the phrase, the language reflects America’s civic culture and is not a religious statement, and federal law, state constitutions, and US currency already contain references to God.

Opponents contend that church and state should be kept strictly separate as the Founding Fathers intended. They argue that the Constitution protects minority rights against majority will, and that the words "under God" in the Pledge are a religious phrase and thus violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

America was never founded as a religious nation, it was founded as a free nation. Full of exiles who's own nations scorned them for being different.
And I have no doubt the founding Fathers would be peeved at the reversal of this.

A pledge For a start, should be all inclusive. How is it fair that you aren't included due to different, or no, religious beliefs.

Stupid as it sounds, how would the majority of Americans feel if the pledge said under mohamed, under her Britainic majesty Queen Elizabeth, or all whites are created equal.

That's the kind of division those who don't feel included see.
And I have no doubt you'd struggle to find anyone to put them in the pledge.

I have no personal feelings on this, to be honest. I am a strong advocate for not forcing religion on anyone. So I would have no opposition to it being taken out or changed.

But I will point out that the phrase 'under God' was not even originally in the pledge. The pledge was made in 1942, but the phrase was added in 1954 during Flag Day. It was put in over 10 years after it was made. I think the original without the phrase was a better representation as to what the country was actually founded on, and adding the phrase over 10 years later is one more example of people shifting back to the attitude in which we came here in the first place.

But again, I am actually pretty passive on this particular thing. Even if it were removed or change, I guarantee that the 80% who support keeping it will continue to say it when reciting the pledge. Nothing will change from changing it. At least in the short term. All that will be accomplished would be people believing more in the false 'war against Christianity' crap.

During the few times I do the pledge, I pause during the "under GOD" portion. I don't advocate, nor oppose religion, so I don't feel it's my place to say that portion, or tell anyone else that they shouldn't. Although, to make the pledge all inclusive, it should be changed to: "One Nation Under God, or any other or others, if any, deities in which I deem fit according to my own beliefs." But, that would just make it a moot point.

Well, I don't ever say the pledge, but it's rather irksome for "under god" to be in the pledge, when there is a significant number of people who do not even believe in the existence of such a being. The words should be removed. 

It's not much of an issue, aside form the fact that you're offending all non christian/Jewish/Muslim human being's beliefs, but hey I guess it's alright since nobody really complains about it (I do the pledge, but instead of saying under god, I say "Under 2pac", nobody seems to mind, and it's not hurting anyone...

I never really thought about this until now. I feel that those words "under God" seems to contradict America's freedom of religion especially when America is a nation that allows any religion on its land.

I'm starting to think that a sassy black lady is mass asking these questions this so she can pass some exams for something lol... 

Back on topic though, the answer is a flat out NO. The whole "under god" thing has been a reason for lawsuits. The pledge is a oath, a repetitive oath taught to kids nationwide before they can even write a sentence properly. I have no problems with the government using this as a tool to remind even the youngest of our citizens that they need to be loyal and stay loyal to our government. Perhaps the under god part is to help remind people, from an early age, to believe in god. In the minds of the people who drafted the pledge, I am sure that unity was on their mind. A nation that is loyal needs to be united. Religion is a very powerful tool because even before our country was born, religion was there. Smart people know that religion controls the mass. The words 'under god' might be there because it makes the pledge catchy but come on this is America, hidden things are always there. Most people in America believe in god. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship god. 'Under god' means that we have all these people and they need to be represented in this pledge. The pledge reminds them to stay loyal and loyal we are. The people will stay loyal because God is there to watch over this nation of his children. We don't think about this but subtly it is there. Every word on that pledge is there for a reason but as a non believer, I have a problem with those two words because they do not represent me nor do they need to be there to create a pledge that reminds us of our fealty to our country. When the time for war comes, we have Atheists, Theists, and believers from every religion in our armed forces. It is generation and in this generation, there are less believers than ever before.

Best wishes,
TitaniumOxide  

The phrase "Under God" was added in 1954. Do you know why?

Well, what else was going on in the world in 1954? Oh... right... the Cold War between America and the Soviet Union. So... communism views organized religion as an "opiate of the masses"... a drug to keep them compliant. Therefore, the Soviet Union was largely atheist (the people mostly were not, but they had to keep it hidden because practicing religion was illegal). The phrase Under God was added because Eisenhower and company wanted to further emphasis the difference between us and the "godless Soviets." It was not really for unity... it was an "us versus them" and "we have a deity on our side" mentality. Therefore, the phrase really is more divisive than unifying in its meaning. Which, as others have so rightly pointed out, is grossly out of place in a pledge of unity and fealty to our country.

Now, being a non Judeo-Christian, I am and always have been very uncomfortable with that part of the pledge. I don't say it. I won't lead the pledge either because I know that I will have to omit that part and it will cause me trouble. This made student teaching very interesting for me, and whenever I manage to get a teaching job, will make me glad that they do the pledge over the PA system.

a-sassy-black-lady : The under GOD should stay as is. Perhaps this nation was founded free and not Christian. But it was founded by many men who believed in GOD and in Christian principles. If you feel slighted because of the words "under GOD" then you are seriously having some issues. For crying out loud! Almost every religion has some sort of god, think of them in this place for crying out loud! Atheists, you still do have a god. While you claim that you believe GOD is dead and all that stuff, you make your own god out of it. You place yourself as god. So whether you understand that or not, no one should be offended by the words "under GOD" because he is different to everybody. The only thing you all are doing is causing more strife over something petty! As for the protection of the minority over will of the majority...um, hello! We are a democratic republic. Know what that means? Majority wins! Besides, every law that congress has made concerning the expression of our beliefs is illegal. "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." They have violated this time and time again while they try to use it to say why they make the laws they do. If they were really interested in the welfare of the people and the execution of the true law, they would hand it down to the states to decide, who would hand it down to the cities and towns, where everyone can decide what they want. Instead of forcing evolution and all the other junk they put on the kids at school, and telling us you cannot say things like "GOD bless you" because you might offend someone. Is it that easy? You just say that you are offended and I'm supposed to back off? Is it really that easy?  Then back off buster, you are offending me by trying to tell me how I should and should not believe and practice my belief. I harm no one. I insult and assault no one. You just do not like the thoughts of personal responsibility! That is why you remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse, why you remove prayer and the BIBLE from the classroom, and why you want to remove the words under GOD from the pledge of allegiance. Do not let them fool you. I doubt that a muslim or hindu will be offended by that in the speech. That is just their excuse for their own will to run away from their responsibility to GOD. If you really don't believe in the GOD I believe in, but don't try to say that you are taking it out so that you are including everyone, because that is not the case!

a-sassy-black-lady :
I'm going to have to agree with the other posts, it shouldn't be taken out. If people have religions and "gods" that they believe in then they shouldn't have to say the pledge. Point and simple, no need to get salty over it. If it doesn't apply to you then don't even say it, just go on about your day. If you do believe in god then say it. It's not difficult to understand. It's sad that people get so defensive over it when its not even that serious. You'll for sure be pissing off the people who do actually say the pledge.

xxxbluewolf :
FaithFighter :
Except if the pledge stated there was no god, or paid homage to another faith,christians wouldnt be happy just not reciting the pledge.
The easiest way to validate something is to inverse it.Would it still hold true if the roles were reversed.
If you wouldnt be happy neither should you expect others to be.
A nationl pledge should be unifying.
If a person cant pledge allegiance, it casts them as less patriotic. Why shouod they be barred by something which is not relevant to the running of the nation.
Faith, you say that while the usa wasnt founded christian, many were?
And all the founders were men. They were white. No muslims or jews. Many ßlave owners. Perhaps that should be backed by the pledge?
And atheists have no god, not even a dead one. Unlike agnostics, atheists dont even consider god a feasible answer. You need to do some research. Nor do we place ourself as god. Im an atheist and Id thank you not to paint me as a narcissist because of it. It's rude and unfounded.
Congress has noth exôrcised any restrictions on free worship. Are you stopped from ẃorshiping? No.
There is your answer.
Forcing evplution? Why, all you have to do is not listen. Why create divisionover something so petty?
Sound familiar?
Schools teach the accepted scientific theory. At this moment, evolution is accepted, even by most christians. As you said, it's majority rule .
You see it works both ways. The problem is you seem to want it all with no give.
The government is legally not allowed to endorse any faith. Hence no religion in court, school etc. You may not like it, but thats the law.

thenumberone : "A pledge should be unifying" Yes, should be but unfortunately it's not. I stopped saying the pledge long ago and so did most of my friends.I'm as patriotic as someone watching national football. Joking aside, not a lot of people understand what the pledge actually really suggests. In my opinion it enforces irrational obedience, and really shouldn't be said at all since it violates free speech. Matter of fact it wouldn't hurt not to say it, if you want to teach people about their country tell them about the bill of rights and 27 amendments and the history behind america. But it all comes down to free speech, if you want to say it  and if the pledge applies to you then good. If you don't  support the belief that it suggests then don't say it and that's fine too. Honestly the only good "patriotic" thing you could do is be a good neighbor and help others.

thenumberone : Couldn't agree more. I constantly hear a lot of hypocrisy when it comes to stuff like this. I'm not an atheist, but I believe you are also pretty familiar with my views. We tend to agree almost every time . Atheist are told that they should just not say the "Under God" part of the pledge and deal with it. But when evolution is part of the curriculum, there is "War on Christianity", even though most schools allow students to opt out of it if they have real religious objection to it. When the shoe is on the other foot, it is always "War on Christianity". When the atheist community says ANYTHING, they are told that it shouldn't bother them because they don't believe in God anyway, so they should just deal with it. Yet they can't apply the same logic to themselves when it comes to anything.

I remember a point that was made about how 'In God We Trust' is put on our currency. If it was switched to 'In Allah We Trust', even though Allah is just the Aribic word for God, you could bet that it would cause an uproar. War on Christians, we are being oppressed! You could also be safe betting that saying "You don't believe in Allah, so why can't you just ignore it? It shouldn't bother you" will not work. The difference in that case is that it is happening to them instead of the Atheist group, and they don't like it. I am more than happy with my theistic view, but it is sometimes difficult to identify myself as part of the community. It is because of things like this that anytime I am asked, I identify myself as such but immediately have to clarify that I have Christian views in Faith, but not the views of the community.

thenumberone : As I said...and you totally overlooked. Ther word GOD will mean different things to different people. Even an atheist who knows that there is no GOD should not be offended by something that he does not believe exists. No, I am not technically stopped from worshipping. The thing that I am talking about is how many kids have been punished for praying in school? Because some idiot was offended by it, now we get in trouble for praying in schools. You  try asking a muslim or jew sometime how they would feel, if the principles that their country were founded on were suddenly thrown out of their courthouses like worthless trash. In fact, forget asking the muslims, that is a bit too dangerous.
How many times do we christians put up with you people that do things that offend us? Ever think about that? Ever think about how much using the LORD's name in vain can be offensive to us? And you know, we never do it to anyone else's god. You only do it to us. 
rcarter2 : I see your post. Did you ever stop to think that we were founded on Judeo-Christian principles? And just so you know, I probably could deal with allah. It really is just the muslim's version of our GOD. I would just start worrying about everything blowing up if it came to that point. Read above too. I am not a one sided person. Why should I not start a lawsuit against everyone who uses my LORD's name in vain? You never thought about something like that. The only way it has really been for us is that everyone tries to see how much they can get us to shut up. Take out prayer, the ten commandments, Christmas becomes a debate, yeah you won't even leave my favorite holiday alone. Again trying to take the foundation out of something.

xxxbluewolf :
I agree with everything you have said, but if it is going to exist, it shouldnt exclude people unnecessarily. If people don't want to say it for other reasons like yourself (and I too would be that way inclined, it seems borderline obsessive to me)then thats not an issue.

FaithFighter :
I didn't overlook it, I disregarded it as nonsense.
God is an omnipotent being. Not everyone believes in such. Such an entity does not change the nation, does not invalidate or validate laws, its not relevant to the role of government, which many in America object to for interfering in poples lifes. Endorsing things that arent for the benefit of the nation is an unnecessary intrusion.
In what way is it dangerous to ask a Muslim? Political correctness, or you are just making assumptions about Muslims?
"You people".
You realise, when someone sys, "you people", its a safe assumption what follows isnt going to be rational?
It's never "you people really help the economy", or "you people are good citizens".
Always derogatory, and typically unfounded.
Blacks-You people are the reason theres so much violence in our country
Gays-You people are the reason there are so many std's
Atheists-you people are the reason our citizens are so immoral.

You like to generalise don't you?
Generaly speaking, you are talking utter nonsense, and are in fact just throwing offensive accusations against people or having different views.
As you stated, America is a democracy. What you do is your buissines. But unless it relates to national agendas like education, healthcare, police service, your faith has no place in national policy or events.
Go to the capital building, preach the word of god, spread the good word, post fliers.
But don't suggest the regional governement has to do that. You have all the religious freedoms you need. So long as you arent harming others, you have pretty much free reign. You certainly have a better deal than the atheists.

"Ever think about how much using the LORD's name in vain can be offensive to us? And you know, we never do it to anyone else's god. You only do it to us. "
Let me ask you something.
If i walk up to people in the street and tell them christianity is bogus, you are offended yes?
If you walk up to someone on the street, who you dont know, and tell them they are living their lifes wrong, they are going to suffer eternal anguish in hell if they dont do what you say, that there lifes are not theres but god's. You honestly think I'm in the wrong there?
If you have the right to tell me im wrong for disbelieving in god, Iv got every right to say you're god is bogus.
Incidentally, the foundation of christmas is a pagan festival for the winter solstice.
Im sorry, thats not attacking the foundation, thats stating what its true foundation was.
If that offends you, I have to wonder if there was anything in school that you didn't take offence to.
You realise that you stated the pledge should be left alone, you dont see why people take offence.
Yet you have just provided a huge list of things (with far less justification) that you take offence to?
Worth thinking about.
If thinking about it isn't offensive.

thenumberone : First of all, I do not walk up to people and tell them that they are living their lives are all wrong and that they are going to hell. You are in the wrong to assume that I am that kind of person. I am not that way at all, because I am smart enough to realize that it will be offensive. (First of all, I am really getting tired of the word offensive!) Furthermore, that is not my place. What if I should happen to be wrong. Yes, I do leave room for error in my beliefs. I do not shove it down everyone's throat. I have seen far too many Christians doing that, and I know what it does. It is wrong to do, period. It is wrong, furthermore to assume that I am that kind of Christian, just as it would be wrong for me to assume that all muslims are vicious killers, or all atheists are cold hearted haters. I am the kind of Christian that live my life the way that I feel GOD has called me to live. I let others alone, but they know how I feel about things, and I never said one word about it. Yes, we are to have freedom of religion, as well as freedom of speech. And it is wrong to shove your belief on someone else. However, taking the "under GOD" portion out of the pledge or leaving it will always be leaving someone out.

And yes, I am aware that Christmas originally began as a day to worship the sun in rome. That was before JESUS hit planet earth. Once the news got around and the people accepted HIM, they decided to change to to a day to worship not the sun but the SON. Christmas name was derived from the church. Every year, they would hold a special mass, calling it CHRIST's mass. Most people anymore do not want to think about that, and want to decide that we all should just say something like Happy Holidays. (which holiday are we talking about? There are several in december!) Anyways, this topic gets me fired up. As you probably can tell. This is my last post here for fear that I will blow my top on this. Yes, I am willing to admit my weakness on this. I don't like the thoughts of people telling me what I can and cannot say because I might offend people, when they are not even consistent. FaithFighter, out.

FaithFighter :
I wasn't saying you would do that.
I wouldn't walk up to someone and say god isnt real. It was just an analogy.
Since the discussion was between the two of us, it made the most sense for simplicity's sake.
All citizens of the USA share the same country, I think the pledge should attempt to reflect that. The absence of god isn't validating non religion, its leaving it open to the individual.
Equally if people added under god by choice, that would be fine, as a personal addition.
Thats my fundamental reasoning here.

I was really reluctant to post here, as I wasn't sure about people's reception of a history buff giving his two cents worth. But I decided I would do that anyway. The words "under God" came around in the height of the Cold War. America wanted to distance itself from Russia. Russia was an Atheistic nation, and America took the opposite stance. Not to mention the majority of Americans were Christians back then.

thenumberone :
Hun, it's not really a big of a deal. There will be a point in time where saying the pledge wouldn't even matter as such. It becomes a big deal when people make it a big deal, when it's not. That kind of reminds me of that one dude who got offensive because someone said bless you. If saying the pledge was a big deal and you want to omit, "Under God" then say it. No one really cares if you do it or not. It doesn't make a difference. If god was taken out some people would still say "Under god" so with that being said. It goes either way.