Let's End the Pledge of Allegiance in Schools

[delrem]

42. I don't think it necessarily does.

In those contexts where "God" does carry connotations, the connotations are expressed by doctrine, by rites, credos and observances, and people have invented an incredibly diverse variety of often conflicting connotations. When a stranger uses the word "God" I don't jump to immediate conclusions because the connotations attached to the word are as varied as human culture.

There are "materialists" who don't believe in the individual "soul", or "spirit" -- but I wouldn't cordon those terms away from official and semi-official language just to satisfy the imaginary "hurt feelings" of a materialist belligerent. After all, if there is no individual spirit or soul, there are no individual feeling of "hurt" caused by "connotations of words", so the complaint is self-dispelling. I don't expect people to be so fucking dumb that they can't distinguish intent from random (negative) interpretations passing by in streams of consciousness.

The sentence from the Pledge that I quoted doesn't infer any particular contextual connotations - because that isn't its intent. It would be different if the pledge cited a Judeo-Christian God. That would be an unthinkable insult to people who don't believe in that credo. Likewise if it cited native North American "God(s)" or "Spirit(s)", or the great void that characterizes the Tao, The Way, it would be an insult.
The Pledge doesn't do that.

On the other hand as someone else posted, the entire procedure is nothing more than taking a loyalty oath, and I can't see a reason why someone should be required to take such an oath over and over. That too seems insulting.