A family relative was recently upset when she heard that Pepsi was putting the Pledge of Allegiance on their cans but leaving out the part, "under God" which was done so as not to offend people. She was apparently deeply offended.

I was frankly amazed that Pepsi was doing this, but it turns out to be just an urban myth that's been around for a long time. Sometimes Coke gets blamed, sometimes Pepsi. I have even heard that some people are boycotting Pepsi because of this alleged blasphemy.

Turns out all the ruckus stems from the fact that Dr, Pepper once printed the words "One nation . . . indivisible" on their cans which many people took to mean as removing "God." In fairness to Dr. Pepper, it should be noted that very nearly the entire rest of the pledge was left out as well.

Google is your friend.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/undergod.asp

The really funny thing is that god was INSERTED in the pledge...so omitting it is really going back to how it was originally supposed to be.

Xtians are just dumb dumb dumb.

Mr. Pessimistic wrote:The really funny thing is that god was INSERTED in the pledge...so omitting it is really going back to how it was originally supposed to be.

Xtians are just dumb dumb dumb.

Probably not all Christians, eh? Anyway, I only mention this little episode because this relative in question was quite upset about this. She forgot to check out if it was actually true.

geo wrote:

Mr. Pessimistic wrote:The really funny thing is that god was INSERTED in the pledge...so omitting it is really going back to how it was originally supposed to be.

Xtians are just dumb dumb dumb.

Probably not all Christians, eh? Anyway, I only mention this little episode because this relative in question was quite upset about this. She forgot to check out if it was actually true.

So far the veracity of my statement, in my experience, is quite high. But I will concede that it may not be 100%

Mr. Pessimistic wrote:So far the veracity of my statement, in my experience, is quite high. But I will concede that it may not be 100%

Probably your mother's a Christian, right? Or are you a second-generation atheist?

I think maybe the "believer" part of my mother fits Mr. P's description.

This is what amazes me about religion, or belief in general. People demand that the claims others make MUST meet at least SOME bottom barrel metric, whether it be if they should buy a car, where to eat that is good, whether they should go watch a movie, or who would make for a good fight in a boxing match... but this! This you dont need any proof for? This is fine to accept against all credible proof?

johnson1010 wrote: This is what amazes me about religion, or belief in general. People demand that the claims others make MUST meet at least SOME bottom barrel metric, whether it be if they should buy a car, where to eat that is good, whether they should go watch a movie, or who would make for a good fight in a boxing match... but this! This you dont need any proof for? This is fine to accept against all credible proof?

This is the topsy turvy world we live in. The default position is belief in a thing that cannot be shown to actually exist. The extent of this delusion is written into our pledge of allegiance. We are one nation under God. And if you don't believe in this God, you're an outsider and, in all likelihood, dangerous to boot.

It's really too bad we can't turn back the clock and undo that emendation to the pledge. "One nation, indivisible" was concise and powerful. "Under God" appears a random insertion, ruining entirely the force of the statement. You're left thinking, will it be liberty and justice for all, or just all who believe in this God?

The belief in a God or Gods is not confined to the Christian faith. The usage of “under God” may be taken as being a form of respect for those under the protection of the Constitution of the United States (the ‘of America’ addition became fashionable later, if I recall) who do believe in God(s). Whether or not that was the original intent, the idea does harmonize with the text of the document.

Also, the phrase “One nation, indivisible, under God” need not be parsed as meaning that only those who believe in God(s) are included. It seems an innocuous enough addition, and does lend itself to being inclusive without implying forced beliefs. That’s up to the reader. I concede that, for some reason, this irritates people or just seems unnecessary. From the comments I’ve read so far in this thread, it would seem that the issue is equally incendiary for both sides of the equation. An unfortunate impasse, and not a very useful one.

To me, this is illogical, laughable and a tremendous waste of time. Leave it in. Take it out. Put a flap over it so it can be read one way or the other. It only matters if you apply an emotional response to it, which I think is the case for both sides.

There are better and more present issues to deal with in America.

My problem with it stems from the underlying aim of some religions to spread their belief. I'm not saying all people who are religious are guilty of such attempts at acquiring new believers. Some are, and the written word of the more popular bibles ensures that there always will be. Phrases in visible places seems to me little more than maneuvering to spread the word. I've seen it often enough in chain emails where a photograph or quote or anecdote is given, then the email is closed by saying something similar to "...and this is why we need to keep the 'in God' in the pledge of allegiance." It's a foothold, and many religious people point to it to show dissenters that the word of god is everywhere, with the aim being that his existence shouldn't be denied.

All phrases that are included in our system of government should be ideologically neutral. The inclusion of 'under god' is not neutral.