. . . is there God in a roomful of happy puppies being tortured?
…or desire it… 
Weren’t these principles established mainly by deists and Christians?
In contrast, the French revolution was guided by agnostics and atheists. Immigrants aren’t flocking to France. 
A belief in something will always offend someone.
Millions of Arabs and other have emmigrated to France. It is a huge issue for them politically and conservative (neo-Nazi) groups are making political hay from exploiting it.
I’m not an American (which I deeply regret, by the way), but in so far as I may still be entitled to a view… I’m pretty much with Go Bear and others. I don’t think it’s so much a case of being ‘offended’ by it, which is as much to do with one’s emotional profile as anything else. It’s just that it is inconsistent, because church and state are supposed to be separate. It’s on a par with printing parts of the federal tax laws on church leaflets or inside bibles - people would think… what’s that there for? It’s irrelevant!
It’s also just plain inappropriate. Lots of Americans don’t believe in a god, and lots more only believe in their own version of god and reject other people’s version… so it doesn’t really fit with ‘one nation’ and ‘indivisable’ parts of the pledge.
I’m also struck by the irony of the proximty of the words ‘under God’ and ‘indivisible’. In common with many other atheists, I find religion a massive cause of division, separatism and what I call tribalism - the ‘us good, them bad; us right, them wrong’ soil in which so much hatred and mistrust can flourish and grow.
I’m very offended by it. The words themselves are trivial, but the people who keep them there are a danger to secular government, and in violation of the Constitutional separation of church and state.
All references to God should be removed from official buildings, money, etc. If politicians want to pray to God in public, that’s their right (they can ask me to join in with them (or not)), but I should not be forced to acknowledge any religious view.
Many here consider official references to God to be unthreatening, but to me they are emblematic of among the most significant cultural divides in this nation, the secular humanism of progessive liberals, and the fundamentalist Christianity of right-wing conservatives. “In God We Trust” is a line drawn in the sand of this social conflict.
I just wish the christians would give the same respect to the rest of us that they’re always demanding.
It’s not a liberal v. conservative issue any more than it’s a athiest v. theist issue. The only question is if you support the notion of seperation of church and state. Some liberals do, many don’t, most are indifferent. Same with conservatives. Some athiests support it, some don’t (from a don’t rock the boat standpoint), some are indifferent. We’ve seen some theists on this board voice their support, we’ve seen others voice opposition. I suspect most theists are indifferent.
Myself, I’m a conservative athiest who thinks that the notion of a loyalty pledge is an abomination in a modern, secular society, regardless of whether the phrase “under God” is included or not.
One would think this wouldn’t even being a question, seeing as the separation of church and state is one of the main building blocks of our very existence as a nation. The fact that people don’t get this basic concept is beyond me.
But it isn’t trivial! It’s the equivalent of saying, “One caucasian nation” or “One heterosexual nation”.
You are quite incorrect. The belief is not what offends. It’s pushing the belief on unsuspecting others that results in offense.
Although, I admit to finding the “We Christians are so persecuted” belief quite offensive on it’s own.
Pash
Yeah, it’s the moral equivalent of the State saying that if you don’t believe in bigfoot, then you’re really not a citizen.
Additionally, it isn’t neutral or non-sectarian, and it certainly isn’t meaningless. Many people find it to be an endorsement of their religious belief, and it is easy to detect this by making similar suggestions. Instead of “God,” make it “gods” so as to embracy polytheists. Or offer that it be made “G-d,” with the appropriate change of pronounciation, to accomodate Orthodox Jews (or whomever it is) who doesn’t say “God” let alone spell it out. It’s my understanding that “God” is a specifically Christian convention (e.g. point 1 on page 8 of the brief), and insisting that it be made lower-case to properly reflect its non-proper noun status would be a good exercise in identifying just how neutral the terms is.
The “God” reference tells a group of people that they are special because they share a particular superstition that is officially endorsed by the State. Yes, that offends me.
Many people of faith and principle are offended by the pledge itself — as a whole. It is inconceivable that Jesus would have pledged allegience to any Roman symbol no matter how the pledge was worded. As well, there are political philosophies (including my own) that hold the Kennedy principle — ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country — to be bass-ackwards. Rather than my pledging allegience to my government’s rah-rah rag, my government ought to be pledging allegience to the security of my rights.
I’m not offended as an atheist. I could conceive of having some grievance that it costs tax-payer money to print “In God We Trust” on money, but that’s incredibly petty.
All in all, it just doesn’t bother me because I’m glad that religion and government are as separate as they are. The vast majority of people in the US (at least, in so far as my experience has been) believe in some form of religion, so I’m just glad that the cracks in the separation of church and state are as small as they are.