# Atheists, are you offended by "Under God"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2004, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451 "2004-06-15T11:28:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451/41 "2004-06-16T01:29:37Z")
> [@SP2263](#): > > OK, you’re right, we aren’t, but as far as what the pledge is intended to do, encourage some sort of patriotic spirit, it shouldn’t matter if there is a god for us to be under or not. So, where is the line where church divides from state? Forcing students to recite the name of god in school (which is against the religious beliefs of many theists, not to mention the atheists)? Invoking god’s name in lawmaking sessions and speeches? Where does it stop being “innocent” and start being a “preferred religion”? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451/42 "2004-06-16T01:35:23Z")
Offensive? I think it’s unconstitutional, that’s the issue, and that’s the reason it should be removed. ---
**Author:** ![SkunkApe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@SkunkApe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkunkApe)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451/43 "2004-06-16T01:38:40Z")
> [@Dog80](#): > > … I find these references stupid, but I couldn’t care less… I think that makes you an ambivaleist. A _real_ atheist would rain fire and brimstone down upon those who would dare register a belief in “God”. They do seem to focus mostly on the Christian branding it seems. Does anyone know of any evangelical atheistic action directed toward any Brand-X theisms? In other countries? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451/44 "2004-06-16T01:48:12Z")
I wouldn’t choose the word “offended”. I’m irritated and disturbed, simply because every way that the governement acknowledges, references, supports, or otherwise positively refers to any supernatural being, the easier it is for the religious to influence policy from the perspective of their religion. And that’s a really bad thing. Aside from that, I wouldn’t care. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451/45 "2004-06-16T02:13:53Z")
> [@SkunkApe](#): > > I think that makes you an ambivaleist. A _real_ atheist would rain fire and brimstone down upon those who would dare register a belief in “God”. What are you talking about? > [@](#): > > They do seem to focus mostly on the Christian branding it seems. Christianity being the biggest religion in this country, that’s to be expected. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451/46 "2004-06-16T02:31:44Z")
My primary objection to the phrase in question has already been summarized nicely by **MEBuckner** and others: the addition of a deliberately exclusionary religious sentiment to the Pledge of Alleigance, a republic which ostensibly opposes the establishment of state-sponsored religion (we do still oppose this, right? --or am I hopelessly out of touch here?) is not merely offensive, but is directly anathema to our national tradition of liberty. I dearly love the ol’ Stars and Stripes, but it’s hard to deny that the sight of her tends to induce severe cognitive dissonance in a certain type of person. These are the people for whom the idea, “The American flag is the treasured symbol of our precious liberties here in the Land of the Free,” can be effortlessly followed by, “…and therefore we must amend the Constitution to make desecrating this symbol a federal crime.” To this sort of person, the demand that a monotheistic deity be invoked in an official expression of national loyalty is not at all offensive, oppressive, divisive, or at all contradictory to the values set out in the Bill of Rights. Further, even the supporters of the phrase don’t seem to think that it makes any difference at all to the “God” they claim to be “under.” At least, I’ve never heard any of them attempt to explain why they think that God had a problem with America before we put a reference to him in our Pledge. In fact, I have gotten the sense that many of them seem to think that America is substantially worse off since the 1950’s, yet none of them ever arrive at the fairly obvious conclusion that God is punishing America for its hypocrisy, and will not stop until the Pledge is returned to its original, purely secular content. > [@MEBuckner](#): > > a separate act of Congress proclaimed “In God We Trust” to be the official national motto of the U.S. (replacing _E pluribus unum_, “Out of many, one” As a side note, I found this phrase to be particularly apropos to the issue at hand. And, while we’re on the subject, my method for dealing with the unwelcome portion of the Pledge was to substitute “under God” with the name of a similar mythic force for good, “UnderDog.” Because, you know, when criminals in this world appear, the cry goes out from far and near for UnderDog. ---
**Author:** ![Zulema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/db5fbb/32.png) [@Zulema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zulema)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451/47 "2004-06-16T02:49:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Zagadka > So, where is the line where church divides from state? Forcing students to recite the name of god in school (which is against the religious beliefs of many theists, not to mention the atheists)? Invoking god’s name in lawmaking sessions and speeches? Where does it stop being “innocent” and start being a “preferred religion”? Hey, no argument here. That’s my point, the phrase shouldn’t be there. Even if a person believes in God the pledge is more meaningful as a way to feel national pride or solidarity if there is no mention of God. The government should not give the appearance of endorsing any religion. I was just pointing out a different view of why it is offensive to me, as an “on the fence leaning towards the agnostic pasture” Christian , to refer to God in any way related to politics or government. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451/48 "2004-06-16T02:49:41Z")
Ahem…Let me try that first sentence again: > [@Terrifel](#): > > My primary objection to the phrase in question has already been summarized nicely by **MEBuckner** and others: the addition of a deliberately exclusionary religious sentiment to the Pledge of Alleigance, **in** a republic which ostensibly opposes the establishment of state-sponsored religion (we do still oppose this, right? --or am I hopelessly out of touch here?) **,** is not merely offensive, but is directly anathema to our national tradition of liberty. That makes a bit more sense. The Pledge of Alleigance, of course, is not a republic; it is a canidocracy, ruled justly and wisely by the mighty UnderDog. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451/49 "2004-06-16T03:03:07Z")
I’m not offended by “under God” or IGWT, alone, so much as the “Christian Nation” revisionist history that’s being built upon them. I dropped the “under God” bit from the Pledge when they made me say it in school after I saw it printed on a poster and noticed it had a capital G… and the little footnote about it being added in the 1950s. I probably would have less of a problem with it if it was just a noun and not the deity of christian mythology. I’ll occassional whip out a trusty Sharpie™ and cross out IGWT on all the paper money in my wallet at the time. If I’m feeling particularly moxy, I’ll write “1st Amendment Compliant” or “Constitutionalized for Your Protection”. I haven’t done it in a while and I don’t have a marker handy now that I’m thinking about it. ---
**Author:** ![Fern\_Forest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/71c47a/32.png) [@Fern\_Forest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fern_Forest)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451/50 "2004-06-16T03:11:50Z")
I’m a 2nd generation atheist and I wouldn’t say that the pledge itself offends me. The “under God” part means as much to me a “blah Blah” does. What does offend me is that we have politicians who would vote for such things knowing that there are large amounts of people who don’t believe in God. That they would enact such things based not on that they felt it the right thing to do but that they would do so out of fear. Fear of communism or fear of the backlash of doing something that their opponent would immediately leap on as Anti-God. That there are Christians who are making what seems to me to be a disingenuous argument, that the invocation of God is meaningless here. One which I think they are using not because they believe it but because it’s the one which is most likely to win their case. From the outside it seems to be invoking his name anywhere is a big deal. I am surprised that there hasn’t been more challenges to these things. The arguments against the inclusion of “under God” and “In God we trust” seems very clear cut. And that the more it was pushed the more the proponents would push back the more obvious it would be that they shouldn’t be there. ---
**Author:** ![Mapache](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/58956e/32.png) [@Mapache](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mapache)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451/51 "2004-06-16T03:40:26Z")
I´m too old to have learned the ¨under God¨ part in grade school, and my kids don´t have to say it since we live in Mexico. I kind of enjoy the theists yammering about it, though, since I am invariably reminded of Paul Krassner´s notorious cartoon. (For those of you not as ancient as I, Krassner´s masterpiece showed a small and very unhappy Uncle Sam lying face down, apparently being sodomized by a large, angry-looking naked God.) The cartoon was made into posters, even printed on teeshirts (excellent for starting fights in redneck bars) but I lost my copy years ago. If anyone knows where it´s being reprinted, please let me know. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451/52 "2004-06-16T05:05:04Z")
> [@Fern Forest](#): > > What does offend me is that we have politicians who would vote for such things knowing that there are large amounts of people who don’t believe in God. The religious outnumber the atheists by a huge margin. [Cite.](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/beliefnet_poll_010718.html) It’s not like there is a large atheist voting block, so don’t expect politicians to give too much of a damn. ---
**Author:** ![Denis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5e9695/32.png) [@Denis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Denis)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451/53 "2004-06-16T05:14:47Z")
Anyone care to have a read of Memorial and Remonstrance [http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/jm4/writings/memor.htm](http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/jm4/writings/memor.htm) and still tell me with a straight face that this is OK? ---
**Author:** ![Dog80](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6bbea6/32.png) [@Dog80](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dog80)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451/54 "2004-06-16T05:24:17Z")
> [@SkunkApe](#): > > I think that makes you an ambivaleist. A _real_ atheist would rain fire and brimstone down upon those who would dare register a belief in “God”. They do seem to focus mostly on the Christian branding it seems. Does anyone know of any evangelical atheistic action directed toward any Brand-X theisms? In other countries? A what? I googled “ambivaleist” and didn’t give any results. I also realised that I have little or no respect at all to things such as flags or countries. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451/55 "2004-06-16T05:29:37Z")
> [@SkunkApe](#): > > A _real_ atheist would rain fire and brimstone down upon those who would dare register a belief in “God”. I am unconcerned with what the faithful choose to believe, as long as it doesn’t encroach on my own life, and I am a real atheist. No, really. I’m real. Touch me. Go ahead. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451/56 "2004-06-16T06:12:32Z")
I was in the 5th grade when the words “under God” were added to the Pledge. It seemed so unnecessary at the time and an inconvenience. We kept messing it up. And, of course, the power of God remained unaffected either way. Although I am a Christian, I never did like the Pledge as much after that. It just didn’t seem to be as honest. Now I don’t say the Pledge at all. I love my country, but my allegiance is to something that goes beyond borders. Until the Executive Branch returns to the ethics and morality that preclude the use of torture, “One nation, up for grabs” seems more fitting. It is such acts of inhumanity that are truly _“godless”_ – not a change in the wording of the Pledge. _If it isn’t true, it means nothing._ ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451/57 "2004-06-16T06:43:58Z")
I find it interesting that a conservative judge, namely, Thomas, said that under the 1992 precedent, the court should have ruled the pledge unconstitutional. Granted, he wanted to overturn 1992, but this admission is basically the same thing as saying that the Ninth Circuit ruled correctly, according to the precedents the SC set down. An arch conservative said that. So, how crazy liberal must the 9th’s decision look now? ---
**Author:** ![Fern\_Forest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/71c47a/32.png) [@Fern\_Forest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fern_Forest)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451/58 "2004-06-16T11:47:56Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > The religious outnumber the atheists by a huge margin. [Cite.](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/beliefnet_poll_010718.html) It’s not like there is a large atheist voting block, so don’t expect politicians to give too much of a damn. Well I do consider myself a realist so my expectations are low. But even though, it bothers me when larger groups are singled out for special treatment unnecessarily. I find it unseemly. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451/59 "2004-06-16T13:08:53Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Until the Executive Branch returns to the ethics and morality that preclude the use of torture . . . It is such acts of inhumanity that are truly _“godless”_ Umm, _excuse_ me? I’m sure you didn’t mean that like it came out. —an atheist who hardly ever tortures anyone (unless they really, really deserve it) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451/60 "2004-06-16T14:27:05Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > Umm, _excuse_ me? I’m sure you didn’t mean that like it came out. Naw, I agree: just as there’s no God in a roomful of happy puppies, there’s no god in a roomful of torture victims. Those acts were truly godless, just like all other acts. Daniel [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-you-offended-by-under-god/250451.md?page=4)