Interesting, David. I haven’t seen Matthew’s quote of Jesus brought up in this context before, but it certainly fits. “They have their reward.” Indeed.
Directly answering the OP: I wasn’t offended when the phrase was originally added, because I was too young to understand the implications. But as I matured and became aware of my disbelief such expressions made me feel excluded, not so much from the basic rights of citizenship, but from the kinship of my fellow citizens. The use of “Under God” and “In God we trust,” I believe, are deliberate attempts to make outsiders of otherwise good citizens just because they don’t go along. It is distinctly un-American IMO.
What Gaudere said. Though since my dad pointed out to me in about the third grade that the “under god” part was added later, I stopped saying it all together. I used to just skip that part and wait for everyone else before continuing; now I say as loudly as I can, “one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” to make a point of ignoring it. In general, though, I am not a big fan of the pledge, anyway.
The last few times I felt obligated to recite this thing at my daughter’s various school assemblies, why did everyone else appear offended when I left out “under god”?
I’m not offended by “under God,” though I am annoyed by it. It is one of my fundamental beliefs that a core strength of the United States is that it’s not a theocracy, and that policies aren’t made by arbitrary dictates of any holy book. Stuff like “Under God” and “In God We Trust” undermine that foundation, and gives the loonies a “justification” for their efforts to theocracize this nation.
Still, on the list of Important Stuff That Needs To Be Fixed, this is near the bottom.
Atheist here. On the few occasions that I recite the pledge I bristle a bit at the “under God” part-- a very, very, small bit. Usually it’s something you say without even thinking about the meaning.
I would think that religious people of a non-Judeo/Christian tradition would be more offended. But in the end, it just seems rather silly to have to add that phrase to what is an entirely secular saying. However, I also think that people read too much into the constitution when they insist on complete separation of church and state. As much as I’d like that to be in there, it really isn’t. I’m also too much of a realist to expect that we’ll ever change it in our lifetimes. In fact, if we were re-writing the constution today, I’d expect the establishment clause would be even weaker than it is in delineating a separation of church and state. There would probably be some lawyerly preamble to that amendment along the lines of “Congress may recognize the importance of religion in the lives of the citizens, but it shall not pass any law respecting the establishment…”
Adding to what others have said, I am annoyed by it, I am disappointed in my country for doing it, and I am fatigued by treating it as a beachhead, a tolerable intrusion that I will grudgingly accept but that I regard as “this far and no farther” — but offended? I’m not sure that’s the right word.
Note that this only applies to coins. With the exception of the $1 bill, E pluribus unum doesn’t appear on our paper money (it’s on the $1 bill because it’s part of the Seal of the United States, which is depicted on the reverse of the bill). As best I can tell, the phrase E Pluribus Unum does not appear anywhere else in the U.S. Code. (I kind of expected 4 U.S.C. 41 to have a lot of fancy heraldic language in it specifying what the Seal of the United States, including what the scroll in the eagle’s beak says, but basically all the statute says is “the seal of the United States is the same one we’ve always used”. I guess we all know it when we see it.)
I don’t know that I’m offended, but I don’t like it.
If the purpose of the pledge is to make us feel united as Americans, why include a part that insists on belief in any god, let alone belief in a JudeoChristian one?
And if we wish to express trust in some authority through a motto on our money, I’d prefer Alan Greenspan.
The ideals of America transcend any one religion. To tie them to any religious faith makes them weaker, not stronger.
I’m not offended by the “under God” portion of the Pledge of Allegience, I just don’t say that part. We are one nation, indivisable, no matter what. What does strike me as wrong is the implication, by that phrase, that somehow God has picked out The United States and given us special protection and approval.
It also bothers me when people put out all the signs that say “God Bless America” the minute we have a conflict with another country. If there is a God wouldn’t he bless everyone? I would think Christians would be the most offended at the casual reciting of “under God” and the God’s blessing signs that are put out without any thought of the meaning behind them.
Being in a more secular place, I’ve only once felt particularly awkward about such a reference to God - when I was giving evidence in court, and the usher without asking just handed me the ‘religious’ wording of the oath. He’d already disappeared to the other side of the court by the time I realised, but I still asked for the ‘other one’.
I was very relieved to see the identical thing happen to the police officer giving evidence after me
Doesn’t offend me in the least. It’s just ‘window dressing’. A bit of Americana. Nobody is trying to convernt me through ‘In God we Trust’ or ‘One nation, under God’, and the efforts of morons like Nedow certainly don’t do much for atheists, under than sully the word (even further).
I think having pro-religion (In God We Trust) statements on anything related to the government is contradictory to a nation based on (among many other things) a separation of church and state.
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.
