do you think the phrase “Under God” right?
no
Wrong forum. I’m moving this to Great Debates, where it should have been started.
Lynn
Of course not. America is a nation “under god” the same way that it’s a nation entirely made up of caucasian people.
Yeah it’s definitely wrong. America is the top in this relationship.
Erek
One nation under a Constitution. Not a god.
Asking people to honor a Christian god(nothing to quibble about here-the people that fought to put that phrase into the Pledge and the President that signed the bill refered to the Christian god and not to any other gods or godesses) above honoring this country is divisive and wrong.
There’s no need to fear, Under-God is here!
One Nation Under OG!!!
—do you think the phrase “Under God” right?—
Are you accusing me of thinking it wrong? 
There is nothing wrong with the phrase under god. There is something distinctly silly about asking people to affirm a particular metaphysical opinion as part of a pledge to a supposedly religiously impartial nation.
There is also something distinctly silly about claiming that it is a ceremonial deist phrase, considering that deists don’t believe in the sort of god that would care about any particular nation, or indeed any human endeavor. But “In God We Trust” is even sillier as a claimed Deist phrase.
**Czarcasm **: *Asking people to honor a Christian god(nothing to quibble about here-the people that fought to put that phrase into the Pledge and the President that signed the bill refered to the Christian god and not to any other gods or godesses) above honoring this country is divisive and wrong." * [bolding added]
Indeed! Especially when you consider that the way the pledge was written it should say,
one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all
Such an incredibly cool sentiment so sadly and unnecessarily screwed by Cold War ideology and today’s theocratic tendencies.
Not sure if this came up in the many threads on this subject several weeks ago: but I just recently read that “In God We Trust” was also added by Congress in the 1950s. Once again, quite tellingly and sadly it replaced “E Pluribus Unum.”
:sniff sniff:
Under God?
Well, maybe. If He gave me dinner and flowers and sweet-talked me some.
Under God is a pretty silly idea. I never understood what changing the ‘Pledge’ to say “Under God” was supposed to prove. Weren’t Russians predoninantly Christian?
*predominantly
and that has WHAT to do with ANYTHING??
K2Rage101:
“Under God” was added to the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance during the Red Scare. We Americans were paranoid that Communist sympathizers and spies from the Soviet Union had infiltrated our country.
Supposedly, putting “under God” in the Pledge would weed out all them Godless Commies because they’d refuse to say “under God” while reciting the Pledge, and thus give themselves away. :rolleyes: However, the official Communist party line in the Soviet Union didn’t actually force anyone to be atheists (though it did encourage it), so I’d guess that most Russian families continued to be Eastern Orthodox Christian.
Therefore, the primary motivation for adding “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance – to separate us from the Russians – was entirely moot.
Thanks, TheeGrumpy, I will never think of that phrase in the same way again
Now I understand why so many people want to keep that phrase in the Pledge. They’re just rooting for the Under-God.
I have a 1902 US silver dollar with “In God We Trust” on the reverse, E. Pluribus Unum on the face. Was rummaging through the desk the other day and noticed it in light of the Pledge Debacle. I’m not sure if this was common - I got the coin from my coin collecting grandpa and don’t have any others from the period handy.
Strangely, the IGWT motto is in a calligraphic hand just above the eagle with peculiar capitalization: " In God We trust ", which gives it a vaguely sinister look.
So as not to hijack, I’ll cast in my vote for under god to be stricken from the pledge. I’m enormously embarrassed at the reasons for adding it originally.
Thanks for posting that Thras: my source was Katha Pollit’s Nation column (not one that’s available online), and she, in turn, was citing an article by, IIRC, an author in either Slate or Salon. I think the former. I don’t have the column handy or I’d provide better info. I’m pretty sure I’m not misremembering the basic facts. Perhaps there is some technical explanation (as in IGWT wasn’t on paper money until the 1950s). I predict that the Nation will get at least one letter from a money buff–though it’s nice to know in advance!
Um, sorry, that should be Katha Pollitt.
I had to listen to my coworker gasp after this court ruling, and now have to endure local politicians jumping into the fray.
“It’s what this nation was founded on,” my coworker said all day. She wanted me to show as much indignation. As a closet atheist, I keep my thoughts to myself. Of course, it’s such state-sponsored religious sentiment that helps influence me to keep my atheism to myself. I really do think I would be discriminated against in my workplace and elsewhere if I came out and said I was atheist.