Okay. I'll be honest. This is pretty much one of my favorite arguments to have with people. But it always seems to be with those who label themselves as religious. So I would love to see what the atheist community thinks (And it's completely fine if you don't agree with me, of course).

Two things I would like you to weigh in on:

1. DO you think that "In God We Trust" should be removed from American currency?


2. Do you think that "Under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance?
(Or, if you are like me, do you simply refuse to participate in it?)

Please state your opinion and the reasons why!

Views: 8

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

yet another thread ruined by Nelson
quickly posting the definitive response
rendering anyone else's input redundant

kidding of course! but there's always a bit of truth in any jest, right?

you do always seem to have insightful answers, so of course you shouldn't withhold them!
*points at Nelson's reply*
I agree with Nelson but definitely do think both of these God things should be removed.
Yes, to both. Because, in a democracy (or whatever it is we have in this country) it is not nice to alienate a large portion of your populace.
Yes. I believe both of them violate our freedom to have a choice whether to believe in or not believe in a religion. How is it fair anyways to Zeus, and Allah, and Jehova and any other make believe god out there? Why can't we put "In the Flying Spaghetti Monster we trust?" That just isn't fair to everyone. :)

As far as the pledge. By all means. I refused to say the pledge when I was in public schooling. I went to an elementary school in tennessee for a few years and when it was your birthday you'd have to stand in the principles office and say the pledge and silently "pray" during the moment of silence with the preachers wife who was our principal. It was and is a majority baptist town and everyone went to church. The principal actually would drive and pick me up to take me to church when I made the excuse that I didn't have a ride. I hated that. :(

I also disagree with the use of bibles in courthouses as well. How the hell am I supposed to make an oath on a fiction book? Why don't you make me take the oath on the origin of species instead? I have more "faith" in that.

Albert Roden,
Wall Washer

"I would rather answer a question about sax and violins"
for the seek of equality YES for both

Because not all people in earth believe/trust God. Some don't even knows. So for respect to non-believers it should be remove.

or God-believers should ask permission to every non-believers that they will put it....if non-believers will say OK then there they should put it.
I think both should be done away with since they are UNconstitutional.

But of course there are more important things to focus on first. Still, I can't help but twitch a little whenever I handle money.
Yes to both questions. Why should we trust in what no one can prove exists. Why don't we trust in leprechauns and faries then. Under god was added in the 50s, well after the pledge was written. The only problem is that this will be a HUGE FIGHT to get either removed.


© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service