Replacing "Under God" with WHAT?

Many of you know about the ongoing battle to remove the phrase "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. In this short, hilarious video, comedian Rich Prator says, "What are they going to replace it with?" He gives his own suggestion: evolution. Most of you know how I feel about evolution, so this pretty much sums it up! In my opinion, it is hilarious because it is so true! Enjoy!

                        

If this purposed amended version of the Pledge of Allegiance is ever excepted, I wonder if it will make the students stop and think about what they are being taught in school -- "Do I actually believe that I evolved from slime? Did all of this really just happen by chance?" But of course not! We don't want the students to actually think... the horror! There goes that idea! Hmmmm...

Comments

  1. AnonymousThursday, October 22, 2009 at 10:03:00 PM EDT

    This is GREAT!!! If they go with his version, maybe it'll stop people from saying the pledge at all!

    Instead, we could just swear our allegiance to King Jesus!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. CatoFriday, October 23, 2009 at 12:33:00 PM EDT

    Ha! Excellent clip, point well taken! (Not to mention, exceedingly true and just!)

    It's relieving to snicker a little about the issue, it certainly helps the tension after battling this sort of drivel in the media and the public forum day after day. I addressed this issue last year, albeit on a much more serious note. If you are interested in reading it, as you seem to have some interest in the issue, it's here:
    http://catoofutica.blogspot.com/2007/10/so-help-me-me.html

    This very, very basic logic, that our form of government presupposes belief in God (even if individuals in the nation should but do not adore or obey Him) is absolutely critical to any argument against secular humanism as our "national religion." The smallest schoolchild should be made aware of this (as well as the highest Court in the land, as they seem to have forgotten it). While I never admired the Pledge of Allegiance (I'd rather see a pledge to our Creator who has endowed us with these certain inalienable rights), there seems to be a desire from some to preserve it, because it does mention God.

    I apologize for rambling; the brevity of the situation can be burdensome sometimes. I suppose I need to watch the video clip again! Thanks for posting it, it is excellent.

    ReplyDelete
  3. BricksterFriday, October 23, 2009 at 12:59:00 PM EDT

    Oh man, that is so terrible, and yet so true! lol

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousSaturday, October 24, 2009 at 8:33:00 PM EDT

    How about "One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"? It served us well during WWII and God did not seem to mind.

    Moreover, note that between the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the Constitution, various states limited voting and holding elected office to Christians. When our Founders drew these individual states together to form the republic (via the constitution) they did NOT include such rules. It is therefore hard to argue that the word "religion" in the First Amendment means in fact just the Christian subset of "religion". Consequently, while many of the Founder were ardent believers, the constitution puts religious liberty for all above the favoritism of Judeo-Christian monotheism. Yet the words "under God" establish that very faith in our national pledge. Tsk Tsk. We hae no business teaching constitutional principles and religious liberty overseas until embracing it at home.

    NubisPertusus.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. Secondary RoadsMonday, October 26, 2009 at 12:57:00 PM EDT

    That was great! Sure makes the point, doesn't he?

    The Freaky Frugalite sent me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousTuesday, November 3, 2009 at 8:35:00 PM EST

    Completely true! If they are going to take out "under God", then I suggest they replace it with what Rich Praytor says. I agree with Jean- Maybe they will rethink taking out "under God" after all!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

All comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Please keep in mind that the topics are not open to debate; however, I do allow (and encourage) friendly discussion and dialogue. Check out the comment policy for details before commenting. Thank you for visiting!

Popular Posts

Did Pontius Pilate actually exist?

Image
Antonio Ciseri's painting of Pontius Pilate presenting Christ to the crowd. For years, skeptics have claimed that Pontius Pilate, the one responsible for Jesus' execution, was nothing more than a mythical figure. Is this true? And whether or not it is true, what is the significance of this? The implications of this are simple: if Pontius Pilate, did not exist, then the critics are right in stating that the Bible is in error. However, if he did exist, then it proves once again that the Bible is accurate in its details. Let's begin by examining Matthew 27:2. It reads, "And when they had bound Him, they led Him away, and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor." Was Pilate really a governor? Luke 3:1 seems to agree: "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea , and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias t
Read more

April Fools

Image
Today is April Fool's Day. While I am not too enthralled with the idea of playing tricks on people, I wanted to share a little story with you all (no offense meant to those to whom it refers): An atheist complained to a Christian friend, "You Christians have your sacred holidays, such as Christmas and Easter. Jews celebrate their national holidays, such as Passover and Yom Kippur. But we atheists have no recognized national holidays. It's unfair discrimination." His friend replied, "Why don't you celebrate April first?" On a more serious note, I would like to remind you all that we are called to be "fools for Christ" (1 Corinthians 4:10). This does not mean that we are to act stupid in the name of Christ; rather, it means that we are to go about God's business -- even if it makes us look like fools in the process. Today is as good a day as any to go out and spread the Gospel, to be a fool for Christ!  P.S. Don't forget : The Online
Read more

Quote of the Week: Ravi Zacharias On The Problem of Evil

Image
"When you say there's too much evil in this world you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral Law Giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. What is your question?" ~ Ravi Zacharias, in response to the objection, "There cannot be a God, because there is too much evil in this world"
Read more