• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

So to summarize, for conservatives:

1 - "Under God" not a big deal.

2 - Children singing about history's first black president of the US during black history month A HUGE DEAL IT'S INDOCTRINATING OUR CHILDREN

For me:

Why would anybody care about either?
 
Deuce said:
So to summarize, for conservatives:

1 - "Under God" not a big deal.

2 - Children singing about history's first black president of the US during black history month A HUGE DEAL IT'S INDOCTRINATING OUR CHILDREN

For me:

Why would anybody care about either?
Click to expand...

So apples and oranges are the same to you? They're not even in the same league, the same subject or the in the same universe.

Now, is there some video of children singing about history's first black Messiah of the US during black history month... then we'd be in the ballpark.
 
Ockham said:
So apples and oranges are the same to you? They're not even in the same league, the same subject or the in the same universe.

Now, is there some video of children singing about history's first black Messiah of the US during black history month... then we'd be in the ballpark.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't put them into the "indoctrination" category, conservatives did that. Meanwhile, some atheists (I presume) put "under god" into the "indoctrination" category.

I'm still on the "who cares about either" side.
 
Deuce said:
Well, I don't put them into the "indoctrination" category, conservatives did that. Meanwhile, some atheists (I presume) put "under god" into the "indoctrination" category.

I'm still on the "who cares about either" side.
Click to expand...

I put the pledge itself (with or without "under god") into the indoctrination category. If the song about Obama were something made standard nationwide, I would definitely oppose it as much as I oppose the pledge.
 
Erod said:
God was an enormous facet of our founding history. Pretending it isn't is pathetic.

This is good news. Now this Newdon creep can just sit and stew for eternity. I can't stand people like him, who absolutely must be the star of their own movie all the time.
Click to expand...
What's pathetic is people who feel the need to build a strawman argument to assuage their uneasiness about their position.

Please quote me denying that Christianity was relevant in our founding as a nation. I'll wait.
 
Redress said:
Sometimes I think you have to pick your battles. Things like this strike me as crying wolf.
Click to expand...
That would only be true if removing "under god" from the PoA had no validity. It does, you just seem to place little value on it's removal.
 
SE102 said:
Well considering one of our governments founding principles is separation of church and state and the phrase seems to acknowledge that we serve a particular god named "God".
Click to expand...
Neither of these things are true.
 
Blackdog said:
This is absolutely stupid. Both the Christian religion and Islam are taken from the Old Testament. It is the same God.

Learn some history.
Click to expand...

I rest my case.
 
jamesrage said:
If it was something that said for almost 50-60 years and on our currency for over a hundred years then I wouldn't have a problem with "Under Allah" or "in Allah we Trust".
Click to expand...

First off, I don't believe that for a second. But even if it were true, why would it matter how long it had been said? We didn't way "under god" for over 50 years in the pledge, and then it was added into it. So, this would be the same. Tomorrow, we'll change 'under god' to 'under allah' or maybe 'under gods', or possibly 'under goddess', just like when they up and changed it in the 50s. And you'd honestly be okay with that?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
That would only be true if removing "under god" from the PoA had no validity. It does, you just seem to place little value on it's removal.
Click to expand...

It has little validity. It's one of those things that technically probably should not be there, but it's not really hurting any one except those who choose to be hurt by it.
 
Redress said:
It has little validity. It's one of those things that technically probably should not be there, but it's not really hurting any one except those who choose to be hurt by it.
Click to expand...

That's basically my stance on the terms. I don't actually understand the rabid desire for either inclusion or exclusion of those terms.

If it's there? Big deal. No harm.

If it isn't? Big deal. No harm.

I don't see why people get all bent out of shape over it one way or the other.
 
rivrrat said:
Incorrect. They just want separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I must've missed that, could you point me out which Religion "under god" caused to become the State Religion or how it prohibits someones free expression of their religion?
 
Zyphlin said:
Sorry, I must've missed that, could you point me out which Religion "under god" caused to become the State Religion or how it prohibits someones free expression of their religion?
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, "under God" doesn't really cover all religious beliefs considering that some people believe in more than one God, or a Goddess, or whatever else. Just saying "under God" isn't really all encompassing.
 
Tucker Case said:
That's basically my stance on the terms. I don't actually understand the rabid desire for either inclusion or exclusion of those terms.

If it's there? Big deal. No harm.

If it isn't? Big deal. No harm.

I don't see why people get all bent out of shape over it one way or the other.
Click to expand...

I honestly could care less if they keep it there or not. I see no reason to change it so essentially I see the over drawn efforts to change it to be wasteful, which is the only reason that really sides me with the "leave it" then "get rid of it" side instead of just being completely ambivilent.

I just hate it when people make stupid statements on either side be it that it needs to be gone because its unconsitutional (because you know, an ambiguous "under god" that's on a voluntarily stated pledge or on a piece of money somehow "establishes a religion" even though its not direct of any particular religion, or it prohibits the free expression of religion some...how?) or it needs to stay because we're a christian country (first, no, one could argue a "christian nation" by the technical definition of Nation but not how most people use it. Second, no you could argue its founded on christian principles but it was founded with the mentality of an areligious government, IE a government without any real concern for religion either way).
 
Zyphlin said:
Sorry, I must've missed that, could you point me out which Religion "under god" caused to become the State Religion or how it prohibits someones free expression of their religion?
Click to expand...

In a PUBLIC school where children are FORCED to recite a fascist pledge that includes religious overtones that specifically EXCLUDE certain religions and FORCES acknowledgment of some mythical being... that is most certainly a violation of church and state.

PUBLIC school FORCING acknowledgment of a DEITY.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Well, to be fair, "under God" doesn't really cover all religious beliefs considering that some people believe in more than one God, or a Goddess, or whatever else. Just saying "under God" isn't really all encompassing.
Click to expand...

It most certainly does not reference all religion because you're right, some don't have a "god" in the sense most people use it or have multiple. That said, I never made the claim it applies to everyone. The claim I made is that it in no way, shape, or form establishes a state religion because there's not a single person in here that can tell me a specific, singular, religion it establishes that the government is enforcing upon people.

Now does somehow having "under god" printed on money, or having a completely voluntary pledge having it in its words, somehow infringe upons someones ability to freely practice their religion.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Well, to be fair, "under God" doesn't really cover all religious beliefs considering that some people believe in more than one God, or a Goddess, or whatever else. Just saying "under God" isn't really all encompassing.
Click to expand...
Not all-encomapssing, but a generic refernce.
Genereic reference is permissible.
 
Zyphlin said:
I honestly could care less if they keep it there or not. I see no reason to change it so essentially I see the over drawn efforts to change it to be wasteful, which is the only reason that really sides me with the "leave it" then "get rid of it" side instead of just being completely ambivilent.

I just hate it when people make stupid statements on either side be it that it needs to be gone because its unconsitutional (because you know, an ambiguous "under god" that's on a voluntarily stated pledge or on a piece of money somehow "establishes a religion" even though its not direct of any particular religion, or it prohibits the free expression of religion some...how?) or it needs to stay because we're a christian country (first, no, one could argue a "christian nation" by the technical definition of Nation but not how most people use it. Second, no you could argue its founded on christian principles but it was founded with the mentality of an areligious government, IE a government without any real concern for religion either way).
Click to expand...

Exactly.

However, my arguments tend to be on the side of the "remove it" people because I have yet to meet someone who supports it staying that would still be OK with it if it was changed to "Under Allah" (even though Allah is the same God as the Judeo-christian God) or "Under Vishnu" (Because "under God" is non-inclusive of Vishnu, but "under Vishnu still fails to establish a state religion).
 
rivrrat said:
In a PUBLIC school where children are FORCED to recite a fascist pledge that includes religious overtones that specifically EXCLUDE certain religions and FORCES acknowledgment of some mythical being... that is most certainly a violation of church and state.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure its at the very least against school policy in just about the entire country and may very well be against the law to FORCE children to reciet the pledge. I was in school more than a decade ago in a rural southern town and even we were specifically told each and every year that:

1) we didn't have to say under god if we didn't want
2) we didn't have to say the pledge if we didn't want

And never got in any trouble for it. I know the only major news story about someone being "Forced" to say the pledge in recent years had a teacher getting severely punished for performing such a thing.

For it to FORCE acknowledgement it would have to be mandatory that all citizens say it. It absolutely, positively, is not.

I would agree 100% with making it voluntary if it wasn't...but it IS. If a school is FORCING children to say it that's wrong, but that is a problem with the schools leadership or the guidelines they have, no with the pledge itself.
 
rivrrat said:
First off, I don't believe that for a second. But even if it were true, why would it matter how long it had been said?
Click to expand...

There is a difference between something being added now and something that was added practically six decades ago with "under God" and over a century ago with "in God we trust". Those things are now a national motto and a matter of national tradition. Unless you are some old fucker who went to school before the mid 50s(and even if you did then most likely you have barely any or no recollection/memory of reciting the pledge of allegiance without the Under God part in it) you,me and practically every American member of DP has uttered "under God" in a our pledge of allegiance and our money and has always had "In God We Trust" on it(unless you were born before 1864 or you are a Naturalized citizen).

If a founding forefathers and majority of citizens were muslim and those in the 1800s were muslim and those in the mid 50s were muslim then our money would probably have Under Allah in our pledge of allegiance and In Allah we Trust on our money and the same thing for any other religion.

We didn't way "under god" for over 50 years in the pledge, and then it was added into it.
Click to expand...

I was born in the mid to late 1970s,so Under God was always in my pledge of allegiance and IN God we Trust was on our money.So it did not happen just yesterday.


S
o, this would be the same. Tomorrow, we'll change 'under god' to 'under allah' or maybe 'under gods', or possibly 'under goddess', just like when they up and changed it in the 50s.
And you'd honestly be okay with that?
Click to expand...

I am not okay with changing tradition.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
If "under god" in the pledge is indoctrination, it sure is a piss poor one. Even the UK, which is way more liberal than us, sings "God save the Queen." They get 4 versus of that, we only get 2 words in our pledge....yea, we are soooo indoctrinating people. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It isn't the "under god" that makes it indoctrination, it is the whole thing. The very concept of a pledge of allegiance reeks of indoctrination. I heard a bunch of little kids chanting it in their creepy monotone way the other day as they stared with glassy eyes at the flag, and it reminded me of a similar pledge in some books I read:

"Master Rahl guide us. Master Rahl teach us. Master Rahl protect us. In your light we thrive. In your mercy we are sheltered. In your wisdom we are humbled. We live only to serve. Our lives are yours."
Click to expand...
 
Tucker Case said:
You do realize that tradition was changed when these things were added, right?
Click to expand...


In God We Trust and One Nation Under God has always been traditional to me.
 
Zyphlin said:
It most certainly does not reference all religion because you're right, some don't have a "god" in the sense most people use it or have multiple. That said, I never made the claim it applies to everyone. The claim I made is that it in no way, shape, or form establishes a state religion because there's not a single person in here that can tell me a specific, singular, religion it establishes that the government is enforcing upon people.
Click to expand...

That's my point though. I don't even see why it was officially added in the first place. Before it was officially added people could include it if they wanted to. Why wasn't that good enough? To me, that is a far better system than the way it is now. :shrug:

Now does somehow having "under god" printed on money, or having a completely voluntary pledge having it in its words, somehow infringe upons someones ability to freely practice their religion.
Click to expand...

No, but if it is in there it should be all fairly all encompassing. This is precisely why it was better before the official addition of "under God". It honestly isn't that big of a deal for me personally either way. I haven't said the Pledge since Elementary school.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom