I decided to do a survey on Facebook to see how people felt about 1) the phrase 'Under God' being removed from the Pledge, and 2) creationism being taught in schools. 


Here are the two questions I asked:


1. Should 'under God' be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance?

2. Should creationism be taught in public schools?

Both answers should include why or why not, not simply yes or no.


Here are some of the answers I got:



1. No, Christian principles make up our law and US Code. God is just as much a part of our laws as freedom. And, even if you aren't religious, "under God," was how the Pledge as penned. To remove those words from the Pledge of Allegiance is, at very least, an affront to our nation's history. We should not revise one of our nation's founding principles because it might offend.

2. Creationism in public schools is a state's rights issue. However, if a school is going to teach straight on evolution from the primordial oceans as fact, then that's a problem. Macro-evolution is a THEORY that was refuted within years of its presentation to academics in the time of Darwin. Adaptation and natural selection are fine for topics, but if you are going to bring up macro-evolution, then creationism should be taught beside it.



1. I think it should stay. Why mess with a good thing. But I do believe it's a persons right to not say the words while saying the pledge.

2. I find it important to separate church and state in most things, but I don't think it would be a bad idea to have an optional class in high school which teaches both sides.



1. no, I think it should stay the way the pledge of allegiance as been for so many years.


2. not a big "God" fan, but I have always said. "don`t fix something if its not broken.


3. REALLY, why spend so much time on this when there is so many things more important than this issue.



1. Yes because not everyone believes in God.

2. No because it is not proven to be fact . it is only opinion. Like everything else it's all interpretation.


As you all could see, in A, the commenter clearly is indoctrinated with tonnes of misinformation.  I know for a fact that in 1892, the original pledge was posted as an article in "The Youth's Companion" in Boston.  Here is how it read: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all."  I don't see anything about God, or even religion in there.  It wasn't until President Eisenhower in 1954 suggested that we add 'under God' into the Pledge that the phrase was included.  Therefore, the Pledge was not 'penned' with the phrase.  As far as Christian principles making up our laws and US Code, no.  Our founding fathers wanted a secular government, and definitely wanted the separation of church and state.  But none of this supports the belief of all Christians that the U.S. was founded on Christian principles, so it's simply not true.  As for question number two, he goes to the 'evolution is just a theory' argument.  Need I say more?


D is one of my uncles.  He has the most rational answers of them all.  Someone who gets it.  I put these in this order because they actually gradually go from a fundie to an atheist (or agnostic).  But looking at the first response, it made me think of the title 'One Nation Under Ignorance' because it seems that Christians ARE ignorant.  They will only believe what supports their beliefs, and everything on the contrary is thrown to the wind.  The first commenter is a great friend of mine, very intelligent and educated.  But it seems that education and intelligence aren't enough for him to look at the evidence and make an educated decision.  I don't know where he got the info that made him think that the Pledge originally included 'under god.'  That is nowhere to be found.  And nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it even imply that this government is to be based on Christian principles.  Ignorance.

Views: 47

Comment by Daniel on June 14, 2011 at 9:50am
Are these people your friends on Facebook or random people on a fan page you created or something? Because if they are your friends you need to do yourself a favor and cut them out your life, not just Facebook. Ignorance of this magnitude shouldn't be accepted or tolerated.
Comment by Seth Jon Nonnemaker on June 14, 2011 at 10:35pm
Im not sure how I feel about this....I think if it were to be taken out of the pledge of allegiance, it would create more of a controversy than provide a "fix". But maybe, just maybe, someday the government will really make an attempt to back up their "separation of church and state" policy they say has been in affect for so many years.
Comment by Merlin Mercer on June 14, 2011 at 10:48pm

@Daniel - These are personal friends of mine.  The first one as you can see is about as far right as they come.  I don't see a need to cut them out of my life, but I'm sure most of them will inevitably cut themselves from my life once I reveal to them that I am atheist (I'm not sure you're familiar with my past, but I recently left Christianity).  Leaving Christianity was possibly the best decision I've ever made.  Though I do agree, the level of ignorance is nauseating and should not be tolerated.  I will be confronting them soon about their severe lack of confirmation in their information.


@Brian - Thanks for sharing.  You take an interesting standpoint, being that you don't believe in God.  You mention that an atheist will never be elected.  I agree, and I just saw in an article I was reading today (please excuse me, I cannot remember which article, but when I find it I will link it for your review) that over 60% of Americans would NOT vote for a political figure that claims to be atheist.  Which is too bad.


I like your argument with regards to creationism.  If you don't mind I'd like to use that in my next debate with a creationist.  I'd like to add that I totally respect all people (except those that do not deserve it) and plan to continue respecting everyone.

Comment by Merlin Mercer on June 14, 2011 at 11:25pm

@Seth - That's the thing.  We have a secular (or should have a secular) government.  But with regards to that they are all over the board.  On one hand, you have the end of school prayers in Engel v. Vitale (1962), and on the other hand you have Presidents adding stuff like 'under God' into the Pledge (namely Eisenhower).  If I'm not mistaken, the separation of church and state is meant to keep religion out of the government, and to keep religion from influencing our government.  I think we need to honor our idea of a secular government and keep that stuff out.  But of course, I also believe that we can just skip over the words we don't agree with.  Are we really one nation under God?


@Brian - I have found the article I mentioned previously.  Here is a table from the article:

So, to correct my earlier comment about this, it seems that some 61% of people would be less likely to vote for an atheist or non-believer/agnostic candidate.  And here is the complete article if you'd like to refer to it.

Comment by Seth Jon Nonnemaker on June 15, 2011 at 2:55pm
Just think how our government would perform WITHOUT religious influence. Whenever Im at a sports game, then when the pledge comes on I usually say "one nation, under science"...I just dont feel the WHOLE nation is under god. And if it is under god, which god is this nation under? Are we not a melting pot society with different faiths and beliefs? So is this nation under god, buddha, ahla, or some other god?


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service