What percentage of people would lik to see the pledge changed?
105485
you know the pledge has already been changed once. "under God" was added I believe in 50's or 60's Anyways why does America keep messing with a good thing. Not saying that we should take it out just leave it as is.
67783
I'm as patriotic as the next guy, moreso if the next guy hasn't done 18 years in the military.  I am also an atheist, and I therefore am not all that happy with the pledge as it now stands.  \n\nThe pledge lacked the words "under God" until 1954.  During the height of the Red Scare, Congress stuck those two words into the thing to differentiate us from those "godless commies".  (It seems to me that taking the pledge out of the elementary schools would have done a better job.  The idea that little children should have to stand up and recite a loyalty oath every day seems, well, communist. It evokes images of Chinese children saluting pictures of Chairman Mao.)  Slapping "under God" in there basically made the Pledge of Allegiance a pain in the rear in that I have to pray to/acknowledge a deity in order to recite the thing.  When it comes up (which is rarely as an adult) I just leave those two words out.\n\nWhat's funny is that the pledge existed for 62 years just fine before some religious folks conflated patriotism and belief in Judeo-Christian mythology.  Now if anyone tries to restore the pledge to its original form, they are accused of interfering with tradition.
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.
742816
Congress passed the legislation to add the phrase "under God" to the Pledge on June 14, 1954.  It had already been under suggestion for a few years by that point.\n\nIt was not the first revision to the Pledge.  The original Pledge, written by a Baptist minister, first started as "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
117780
well that really depens....if your saying a majority opinion in the case of law\n\nin order to change the us constitution, the majority opinion would be half the electoral votes and 2/3 the hourse.\n\n60 votes by the senate\n\nbasically, when one side has moer votes than the other side.
751753
If you don't want to pledge allegiance to the United States of America,\n\n\nLEAVE,,,,, it is that simple, see how much freedom you get in other countries.\n\nPeace!
274597
none so far, but debate over the past year regarding constitutional change (or charter change) has been quite heated. currently, they are still under the constitution of 1987.
653051
Well if that bothers you then just read the prohpesies told by Kenneth Coplaland Ministries and Creflo Dollar mIniatries. Also If you want to change it you can if what you are saying is true. Look I believe in God and he has promised some go things for the future of this country. God can turn anything around if his faithful people ask him too and do what is right.
436094
People can and do change.\n\nBut don't set your watch to it.
1011207
Respect and love everyone regardless of differences in race, religion, sexuality, and creed...\n\nIt needs to be added because people seem to have forgotten the golden rule...
316750
I don't know that you can do that. People are going to believe what they believe, no matter what  you DO about it. The only way to truly affect change is to BE what it is you profess. If you condemn them, that gives them the right to condemn you and that only leads to conflict which will worsen matters.
89413
It wasn't originally in the pledge. It was added by Congress in the 50's during the Cold War.
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.
68853
I would suggest using you first Amendment rights and write an editorial in your local newspaper. The more people are enlightened on a topic the better your chances are at getting some attention to your "cause". Plus, the people that are reading your editorial are usually the ones who want to make a difference.
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.) :-)
973012
Yes\n\nLiberals represent a 1.4% minority according tho the Census bureau\n\nRecent polls show a majority of Americans want some change to the Stay the Path model that we have been living with.\n\nGo big Red Go
810359
I agree but I doubt that many of out countries leaders would today. Indeed, there seems to be many who actively seek to disenfranchise those who disagree by stating that people who disagree with a politician aid the enemy by their dissent. It seems abhorrent to believe I have to follow the illogical statements of such leaders today or be considered anti-American and serves to drive a wedge in society if you are not the right religion, the right color, have the right beliefs, or have to support a cause you disagree with. I think Thomas Jefferson was right, and is perhaps still right, but you will be disenfranchised and risk being accused of being anti-American today if you do not choose blindly to follow.