Should we change the Pledge of Allegiance to this one?
443870
Not going to work. Mexico will consider us racist by say "over Mexico" it has the connotation of being superior.
912768
I agree!!\n\nIf you have noticed, our country has really started going through a lot of challenges, since God has been taken out of our everyday lives, such as school prayer. Prayer at sporting events. Taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance etc.  etc.  etc.
1041414
Yes, definitely. While my ancestors were British I don't think we need the Union Jack on the corner of the Aussie flag any more. \nPersonally I think it would be fine if they just took the Union Jack off and left it as the Southern Cross and Federation star on a blue background....
359960
are you about to change it ?
1122829
"I pledge allegiance"\n(I promise to be true)\n\n"to the flag"\n(to the symbol of our country) \n\n"of the United States of America"\n(each state that has joined to make our country) \n\n"and to the Republic"\n(a republic is a country where the people choose others to make laws for them -- the government is for the people)\n\n"for which it stands,"\n(the flag means the country) \n\n"one Nation"\n(a single country)\n\n"under God,"\n(the people believe in a supreme being) \n\n"indivisible,"\n(the country cannot be split into parts)\n\n"with liberty and justice"\n(with freedom and fairness)\n\n"for all." \n(for each person in the country...you and me!)\n\nThe pledge says you are promising to be true to the United States of America!
246102
I would change it to an eagle or a lion. The Republican party is America's last hope.
349796
You shouldn't have to honour any flag it should always be a personal choice.\n\nIn some religions its blasphemy to worship false idols and i believe flag honouring can fall under that catagory.\n\nIf i were forced to honour a flag i'd use prayer as a repression mechanism.
787470
It is everyone's right NOT to recite the Pledge if they don't want to, or to omit the speaking of any words within it that they may happen not to agree with.\n\n     ALL schoolchildren should be advised of this.  And then if they ever are put into a position of being forced to do otherwise, they either should ask their parents to report the incident to the ACLU, or do so themselves, if they're old enough to know how.
704862
Here ... check this:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance\n\nAnd here is one on the ACLU's challenging of a proposed law in Colorado (proposed by Republican Representative Bill Crane) to make reciting the pledge mandatory.\nhttp://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=3005\n\nAnd there are many state laws like this one (Washington state, passed, March 13, 1919):\n\n"Every board of directors of the several school districts of this state shall procure a United States flag, which shall be be replaced with a new one whenever the same becomes tattered, torn or faded, and shall cause said flag to be displayed upon or near each public school building during school hours, except in unsuitable weather, and at such other times as to said board may seem proper, and shall cause appropriate flag exercises to be held in every school at least once in each week at which exercises the pupils shall recite the following salute to the flag: 'I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands. One nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.' "\n\n[1919 Washington State  Senate Bill 93, School Code Amendments, Section 4, Laws of Washington, Chapter 90]\n\n(Note that "under God" is not in that version of the Pledge ... that was added in 1954.)\n\nWhat does all that mean?  Well the laws *require* schools to lead children in the pledge.  Would a chlid be prosecuted if he/she declined? ... not by law.  But if enough students declined to participate, then technically the *school* could be sanctioned.  So the pressure on children would not come from the law, but from the school and the teacher.  \n\nAnd finally, saying that a 2nd-grader has the "First Amendment right not to participate" is all well and good ... but what 2nd-grader will go up against the peer pressure of his classmates, and so much as an angry glare from a teacher or visiting principal?\n\nBy the way ... can someone explain to me why "pledge of allegiance" doesn't literally mean "loyalty oath"?\n\nP.S. Rebecca ... your great aunt sounds like a great lady. Kudos.
1077753
The government is not going to take the words "under God out of the Pledge of Allegiance.  At least not right away.\n\nThe Humanist (Atheist, Agnostic, Deist, Unitarian, whatever) groups want the words removed from the pledge.  The belief in God by the majority of Americans interferes with their (the humanists) religious beliefs.\n\nThe "wall of seperation between church and state" is a non issue.  It is not in the constitution, and is a phrse taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson who was not even a framer of the constitution.  Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from exposure to religion.
623073
You said it sister! Remember that there was only one denomination for over 1500 years. We should put aside our petty differences in doctrine and unite in Truth and Holiness, all under the banner and Lordship of Jesus Christ.
1135762
I am in the right country. This country was founded on the principle of "all men are created equal", not Christian domination. I do agree that "PC" has gone too far. There is no law against wishing someone "Merry Christmas", it's companies that force the issue for fear of offending non-Christians.\n\nI agree with you on the "English as the National Language" point, but the government needs to step up to the plate on this issue, or it'll never happen.\n\nOn to the God issue:\nI am a Christian. I carry Christ's teachings with me in my daily life. I don't need it printed on my money, which, I feel, is an object of lust, therefore sacreligious. America is a "melting pot". Equal right for all regardless of religion, race or sex.\n\nThomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, two of our most prominent Founding Fathers, were Deists. Washington and Jefferson were not particularly religious but tended more toward Deism than Christianity.\n\nThomas Paine, whose writings were a powerful catalyst for the American Revolution, vehemently attacked Christianity in one of his works and refused to embrace Christianity, even on his death-bed.\n\nGod is not mentioned in our Constitution. The Declaration of Independence simply mentions "Nature's God" and a "Creator", neither of which specifically imply a Christian god.\n\nPer the Treaty of Tripoli, endorsed by President John Adams and ratified unanimously by the US Senate in 1797: "the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..."\n\nThis is the America I love, one where everyone is free to worship as they please without State interference. That is what the First Amendment to the Constitution is all about.\n\nOne last issue: the pledge. The Pledge of Allegience, as it was written in 1892, was "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty, equality and justice for all." "Equality" was removed and "under God" added. Coincidence?
725310
I would say it is a moral affair now, but certainly not a religious one.\n\nActually, Church and State are more separated now than almost any time in our nation's history.\n\nExample #1 -several schools across the country have banned the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, so atheist children "would not be offended by it."\n\nIf that's not separation of Church and State, I don't know what is.
1082577
I pledge allegiance to the flag\nof the United States of America\nAnd to the republic for which it stands\none nation under God\nIndivisible with liberty and justice for all.
800248
1954 to be precise.\n\nIn fact, here's the irony:  Before 1954 it said "One nation indivisible."\n\nThey then took that beautiful phrase, and chopped it up ("divided" it).\n\nAnd in so doing, they divided our "indivisible" nation in two:\n- People who could say the pledge with sincerity (Christians, Jews, and Muslims).\n- People who could not say the pledge with sincerity (pretty much everybody else).  I.e. you could say it as long as you were just mouthing words.\n\nIn other words they "amended" the Pledge of Allegiance to exclude athiests, agnostics, Buddhists, pagans, etc.   These people are no longer eligible to pledge allegiance to the country.  There is no different version for them ... you either say this is a "nation under God", or ... sorry, you're disqualified.  \n\nI.e. they amended the pledge in 1954 to make it clear that you could no longer be considered a loyal American unless you believed in God.\n\nCould some of the modern divisions in the country, along religious lines, be traced back to this little bit of symbolism?\n\nCan anyone really read the amazingly hateful posts on YA ... Americans expressing open *hatred* of fellow Americans (did I just hear Mark D say "God how I hate you people"?) ... and say we are still "One nation indivisible"?\n\n---\n\n{edit} Mark D ... yes that's precisely my point!  *Both* sides are extremely intolerant of each other, especially on matters of religion, because there is *nothing* more personal or sacred than whether a person chooses to believe, or NOT believe, in God.  That is precisely the POINT of the Establishment Clause.  When the government passes laws declaring that belief in God is part and parcel of declaring yourself a loyal American ... that's what happens.\n\n{edit2} Mark D ... good points.  So we have traded concessions ... so maybe there's hope after all. (Cheers.) :-)
81933
No. People just cant come to our country and change it to better them. Its been this way and we should not change b/c of them. Its a free country so you have a choose not to say it.
1031057
All right, I must admit you have made your point very clear!\nLikewise your wording is quite sound.\nPerhaps we must give it a second thought and \nElaborate the other way around as well\nReally do you want to get it right?