what do you guys think about taking "Under God" out of the pledge. i've always abstained from saying it myself, even when I was Christian, because I believe in seperation of church and state. Plus, the only reason it was put it (in the mid 1950's i think) was cause our government was trying to keep us from sharing views with the soviet union. one repetion every time we went to school, went to a rodeo, or any place where the pledge was said. I wonder what Bernard Marx would have to say to that.

remove every reference to god in any government oath, our currency, our government documents, etc. I don't care if people love their Christian god or not. We already got a fucking preacher president pretty much delivering a sermon and quoting the bible. I don't remember his name being Rev. G. Bush. Seriously, keep your god out of it and do your job. Same thing with anything else, god doesn't reflect values. Individuals do, so you can still have a value system and not have a god, and the government claims that is why god is referred to in the documents, etc.

And me personally, I don't like any religions. But I have seen people offended and ostracized b/c they done recite the pledge, join along in a prayer at a public place, etc. Religion in government doesn't promote unity and tolerance, it creates divisions and a self-promoting supremacy.

While we do separate church and state (kind of) if a person runs for President who is atheist, I can guarantee that person will not be elected. The majority of the people in the United States hold some kind of religion or greater order hence; they want a leader who also reflects those principals.

Since this country was originally founded by the religiously persecuted it is unlikely that those words will ever be removed.

I think it's a nitty gritty point. I don't see that it matters one way or another. Saying 'under god' in the pledge isn't going to create a union between government and religion. Neither is removing it a sure fire way to prevent it. It's words, it's not even a statement of loyalty TO god. If people are so GOD sensitive that they get annoyed just by seeing/hearing/saying the word they can shove it up their anal behinds.

I don't like fanatical/strongly-biased/stubborn thinking. Neither for nor against... anything

Good point.

I hold the same/similar view to SR on this point, that extremism either way, on anything, is never good. Frankly, I don't care about this issue at all, really. People who get all pissy about saying two words in the pledge of allegiance are just looking for something to piss and moan about regarding the government. People who would get all worked up about the words being removed would need to chill out too. Because it really doesn't matter at all. About Bush being something of a preacher, well some people may not like it, but he's an American citizen as well, and he has every right to say what he wants. Personally, I don't care either way about whether he discusses god or not. The President's views don't dictate a person's views, and I don't remember him ever telling the country to be Christian or have a god. In addition, I think people should understand the intent rather than the delivery. It should be comforting to think that our President thinks of the country as being under the protection of something he has total faith in. The fact that it's a god doesn't matter, but what does matter is that he associates our country with the subject of his utmost faith. I think that says something about anyone who does that.

The government would never remove all references to God anyway. How much money would it take? I don't know, but probably in the hundreds of billions to trillions range. All to remove one word or phrase? Never gonna happen

I don't believe or disbelieve in God, and I don't have a problem saying "under God." If you believe in any God, then it makes sense. If you don't believe in any God at all, then don't worry about it. It makes more sense to keep it (to me) since the majority of people believe in a God. We aren't going to change the way things are just to make happy a group of people about an issue that doesn't matter. It's not like they want their freedom. Stupid America, liberating Iraq. What a dumbass idea, those Iraqi's loved Saddam. The polls prove it. Oh wait, i'm off topic.

It's a social pressure pushing you to accept a religion you don't want to have to accept. and i agree with perg on the bush/preacher thing. people knew his relegious views when they elected him. what'd they think, that he was just gonna forget them?

Well religion was at one point deeply tied to government/politics... Religion was also designed for health purpose and control (in the past).

I agree with perg and SR that extremeism either way isn't good. But it has to go. It says so in the Constitution, it doesen't matter you think. Any mention of any religion, as JC said, should be gone from anything related to government. It's law, plain and simple. And yes, the "under God" part was added by Eisenhower, it's not part of the original poem. So I don't see what the big deal is anyway. Of course, Rev. Bush would disagree. And another thing, what makes you guys so insensitive to other religions? I believe it is a branch of Christianity(Johova's Witness?) which takes the most offense to the "under God" statement anyway. At school, we were forced to recite the pledge after 9-11. A kid of the aforementioned faith was forced to stand and face the flag, even if it was against his religion to do so(also un-Constitutional according to a Supreme Court decision). BTW, I think God was added to most government documents to make those who signed them keep their oath. Why do you have to swear to tell the truth with your hand on a Bible in court? And Drake, were you referring to Karl Marx in your post or am I just unfamiliar with Bernard?

Bernard Marx is a character of a book called A Brave New World. I can't remember who it's by off the top of my head. It's a futuristic world wehre the population is mass produced on an assembly line by artificial insemination. while the embryos are growing they're subjected to physical exercises to make their bodies fit the role assigned to them in life. once they're born, they're brainwashed to believe adn want the things teh world-controllers want them to believe. Part of this is done with repetition. Bernard Marx is a kind of pyschiatrist who's embryo got screwed up so he's physically stunted in a palce wehre everybody else is physically the same. He constantly points out every time somebody says a phrase they got from the brainwashing. The entire book is crazy.

brave new world is by Aldous Huxley.... his fordship, lol

No no no, he's not physically stunted where everybody else is the same. There are different classes of people. He's an epsilon, which is the lowest class, the trash of the world really. The top three classes (I forget what they are, but I imagine they're alphas, beta, and gamma) are produced for specific reasons, and the lowest classes (deltas and epsilons) are the genetic defects, the throwbacks.

he's an alpha plus. the top of the class. the cream of the world, really. he's physicaly stunted to the level of a beta. so he's self-conscios casue he looks like an inferior even though he's not.

Also, about bush, I sounded kind of harsh, as I always do at first. I do not mind if he as a person decides to include this or that from the bible. He is acting as our president, so when addressing the nation as so or when involved in any type of policy-making, he should refrain. My personal belief. The main reason it angers me so much is a few reasons.

It creates divisionism in an already divided country, divided by religion, in a war that involves two distinct sets of religious beliefs. Not a good idea, its just bad politics.

yeah, now that i think more on that, i agree. one of the powers of the executive office is desrcibed as chief citizen. which means he's supposed to be chief among all the citizens, not just the Christian ones.

At the same time, though, he has the right to bring God into his speeches. Whether you agree with his beliefs or not is irrelevant. Even having a super strict interpretation of separation of church and state doesn't matter. He is still an American citizen, with the same rights as the rest of us. Though you or I may not like it, it doesn't matter, because he is granted civil liberties just as we are, including the right to bring his beliefs into his speeches.

I would agree, up to the point where you have to realize his position. He is the president, and when acting as a citizen, he is free to do whatever he wishes. However, when he is giving a worldwide media platform from which to deliver presidential speeches, that is neither the time, nor the place to be a "citizen". That is like saying the dollar bills and the bills floating through congress are able to have references and basis from christianity, simply b/c those are also created by "citizens". The president and politicians play many roles, and I don't think anyone has a problem with Dubya going to church if he wants. But that is a citizen, and not a president.

i agree that he has the right to bring his beliefs into his speeches, however, i feel that he should be conscience of the fact that he represents all the citizens in the united states, some of whom do not share his beliefs. another thought of mine was how his religous comments can be used against him by iraqi media. i imagine it wouldn't be hard to edit one of his speeches and portray him as a religous extremist and make the war in iraq seem to be a religous war. needless to say this could cause some ill feelings from devout muslims in the middle east.

What can one person say that everybody in the United States agrees with?

MAC sucks
*gets out a water hose and prepares to put out all the flames*

I thought Bernard Marx was a beta who looked like a delta... oops "Why not? Bernard's an Alpha Plus. Besides, he asked me to go to one of the Savage Reservations with him. I've always wanted to see a Savage Reservation." LOL!!! I live on a 'savage reservation' ROTFLMAO!! It's so primitive here that we have DSL but no dialup provider...

Also, EVERY single president of the US has been Christian. There was a big hoopla when Kennedy was elected because he was the first Catholic and all the previous (and subsequent) presidents were Protestant. LOL

And don't forget that money not only has references to "God" on it, but it also has masonic (aka freemason, which dubya happens to be as well as a bonesman) symbols... the "all-seeing pyramid", which ALSO happens to be the new symbol for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

My prototypical two cents... and how do I make my links a different color with UBB Code™? Thanks in advance

OUT- First step in removing the references and from the rest of our government


Hopefully some day no one will have to swear on a bible

Why does it matter? I'm a Christian and I couldn't care less about it being in or not. My problem is wasting the time and money to remove all theological references. Also, everyone knew that Dubya was a Christian before he was elected, why do they suddenly care now? Did you think he would stop? (BTW, I think Dubya is a horrible president, and I don't care about his religion. All that matters is how he does his job.)

This issue shouldn't create another "division" in the United States. It is clear that there is a separation between Church (all religious bodies) and the State (the government). The United States should adhere to this and not make any associations with "God." This should not be a hard decision to make. One person in this thread mentioned that a majority of the people in the United States believe in God. Well, if the majority of people also believe that murder should not be punished, then does that make the majority right?