• 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

Not all-encomapssing, but a generic refernce.
Genereic reference is permissible.

Perhaps it's permissible to you and other people who believe in a higher power. I'm just saying I can see the other side of the argument.
 
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).

Here would be my general view on this...

To my understanding Vishnu is a very specific god, not a generalized word, of a very specific religion. This is not the same as little g "god".

Allah, again, is specific to a particular religion even though theologically is the same "god". I would feel the same about it being "Under Allah" as I would if it was "Under Jesus Christ our Lord". Suddenly that takes it from an ambiguous non-specific religion to a specific "Muslim" or "Christian" religion based on its use.

Furthermore this goes back to our prior argument. I don't see a big deal to keep it, or to leave it. I see it being a far more trouble and difficult thing to go about changing it...be it removing it or using a different word...than not doing it. If I think its pointless to take the time, energy, and resources to remove it why should I think its worth while to take the time, energy, and resources to change it?

This is doubly so to change it to something that is far more likely to be controversial and come under fire due to the immensely more defined, immensely less traditional, and immensely less acceptable by the majority.

If I don't care either way and yet feel slightly more apt to keep then remove because I see nothing particular WRONG with it and don't see the point in spending the time, energy, and resources to change it why in the world then would I say I'd be fine with supporting attempts to change it that would cause even greater amount of time, energy, and resources to be expended?
 
Perhaps it's permissible to you and other people who believe in a higher power. I'm just saying I can see the other side of the argument.
No, I mean in legal terms.
The 1st amendment doesn't require that the government completely omit every reference to every religious tenet.
 
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.

I was sent to detention multiple times, forced to leave the classroom and stand in the hallway, singled out, and ridiculed for "choosing" not to recite the pledge. It most certainly was FORCED.

Lastly, it should not be practiced in the classroom at all. Just like prayer, if someone wants to recite the pledge, they can do so at any time. No one is stopping them. That would be voluntary. There is no reason to set aside a time and require or even encourage students at the risk of ridicule to participate in fascism in our public schools. And, they most certainly shouldn't be encouraged to do that when the fascist pledge includes references to mythical beings implied to be watching over our country.

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).
So? It was recited for decades without 'under god' and then it was changed. It can be changed again.

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.
Allah is just another name for 'god'. So, why not change it to under godS, or under goddess?


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.
But there was one day where it DID happen yesterday. It was not always as it is now. So one day it was lacking the words 'under god' and the very next those words were added. No reason we can't change it again.


I am not okay with changing tradition.
Tradition was already changed. Not to mention, we change tradition all the ****ing time. It's usually called progress.
 
Last edited:
That's a reasonable stance, but then you should say you aren't OK with changing your traditions.

But it has always been tradition to me and I am not for changing that tradition. IN God we Trust is now a national motto,so you can't change that. However if you want to leave out the under god part or change to under Allah then that is your business but officially the pledge of allegiance is has traditionally for almost 60 years has had under God in it.
 
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:

I don't think its indoctrination. It is a personal pledge a person makes. It is a way to state you believe in the principles and values that America is based on and what American stands for.

If the kids are glassy eyed. Maybe it is because at home and in school the kids are not being taught the values of the United States of America.
 
Perhaps it's permissible to you and other people who believe in a higher power. I'm just saying I can see the other side of the argument.

Random question for you.

Lets take the two general assumptiosn each of us has made. Mine being that the generic "under god" does not establish a state religion nor infringe upon anyones ability to freely practice their religion and our shared one that one group or the other could simply not say it/say it if they wished and the fact its unconsitutional to FORCE someone to say the pledge/under god.

Lets then say this...

The majority of this country if, judeo-christian in belief, which could be expanded to say an even larger majority of it follows a religion that is monotheistic?

Lets also say that in general those religious tenents state that one should never put anything above their god.

So if its not unconsitutional to have a generic reference of "under god", its not consitutional to force someone to either say "under god" or to say the pledge exactly as its written, why then not make the intonation of it in such a way that both grouping of people can say it without overlapping lines considering that is what the majority of the country would do.

For example, what I'm suggesting here is that one going

One nation
Under god
Indivisible

and one going

One Nation
. . . .
Indivisible

instead of the opposite way so you'd have.

One Nation
Indivisible
For liberty and justice....

and

One Nation
Under god
Indivisible

So you have a group then saying two seperate lines and completely off track with the pledge.

No, I'm not saying this is a good reason to keep it. Its something that just hit my head. But your statement of "they could just add it in" struck me. If NEITHER are constitutionally wrong, and if the majority of the country would be doing the former, why take the time, effort, and resources to change it for it to still end up happening for the majority of people due to their belief structure for it then to become a jumbled mess when stated....

Save for the notion that it'd be come so ridiculously stupid that it'd stop being used, which to me would just mean people are using it as a backhanded way to get rid of the pledge without being up front about it ;)

Sorry, wildly random tangent.
 
I was sent to detention multiple times, forced to leave the classroom and stand in the hallway, singled out, and ridiculed for "choosing" not to recite the pledge. It most certainly was FORCED.

Lastly, it should not be practiced in the classroom at all. Just like prayer, if someone wants to recite the pledge, they can do so at any time. No one is stopping them. That would be voluntary. There is no reason to set aside a time and require or even encourage students at the risk of ridicule to participate in fascism in our public schools. And, they most certainly shouldn't be encouraged to do that when the fascist pledge includes references to mythical beings implied to be watching over our country.

rivrrat, I just wanted to say that it was a prior thread about this subject matter where you expressed a very similar opinion that you express above that made me think about the whole pledge and it's purpose. As a result of your thoughts, I concluded I would not say it again...ever. I see this as progress for me. Your words had a serious impact on me. :2wave:
 
I was sent to detention multiple times, forced to leave the classroom and stand in the hallway, singled out, and ridiculed for "choosing" not to recite the pledge. It most certainly was FORCED.

And that's absolutely wrong and unconstitutional, and is something that currently schools and teachers get in extreme hot water for doing as evidenced most recently by the teacher punished for doing just that. Wrong doing in the past does not mean that it is standard practice in the present nor that it was the correct practice in the past.

The fault was not in the pledge being unconsitituional but with your school being such. Take out your frustration on them rather than this transferance.

Lastly, it should not be practiced in the classroom at all. Just like prayer, if someone wants to recite the pledge, they can do so at any time. No one is stopping them. That would be voluntary. There is no reason to set aside a time and require or even encourage students at the risk of ridicule to participate in fascism in our public schools. And, they most certainly shouldn't be encouraged to do that when the fascist pledge includes references to mythical beings implied to be watching over our country.

Completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion about whether "Under god" is constitutionally allowed to be part of the pledge.
 
I can't believe that this is supposed to be such a serious issue of today.
I don't care what side your on this crap is just stupid.

To people who want under god in the pledge, if your religion is so weak that you need it to be affirmed by some arbitrary pledge to make it significant, I'd start looking at another form of worship.

To everyone who gets pissed about it being there, ignore the pledge lovers.
It does you no good to fight with them, they have a block in their brain that prevents them from understanding that not everyone believes in god.
 
So? It was recited for decades without 'under god' and then it was changed. It can be changed again.

Why change our money and our pledge because of a few people have their panties in a bunch?


Allah is just another name for 'god'.

Most real Christians do not consider the Muslim God and the Christian God to be the same.

So, why not change it to under godS, or under goddess?
Why not just leave it as it is and you can can say under Gods,Goddesses or leave it out?

But there was one day where it DID happen yesterday.

Where you around that day? And even if you were do you have any actual memory of having to suddenly say one Nation under God in the pledge of allegiance?




Tradition was already changed. Not to mention, we change tradition all the ****ing time. It's usually called progress.

Change is not always good,sometimes it is. It merely depends on what that change is.
 
I also kind of find it funny and ironic that "under God" was put in before the word indivisible, which means "not separable"...but by adding "under God" into the Pledge you've already done just that.
 
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?


Clueless. Absolutely clueless.

Or maybe you're just playing stupid?
 
I also kind of find it funny and ironic that "under God" was put in before the word indivisible, which means "not separable"...but by adding "under God" into the Pledge you've already done just that.
???
Together or seperate, the states are still under God.
 
Most real unknowledgable Christians do not consider the Muslim God and the Christian God to be the same.

Fixed it for you. Its generally those not knowledgable of their religion, its ACTUAL real world history, and the real world history of the other religion that believe they're two absolutely two seperate gods.

Those actually studied on the religions would make the far more reasonable argument that while both worship to the same god, the variations in their holy text brought forth by men were given by false prophets and as such are either performing false actions or beliefs under the name of God. I imagine this is likely similar to how Jews view Christians and their heretical following of such false teachings that are in the New Testiment. ;)

At best one could possibly argue that while at the root both gods are the same Jews could imagine Christians have been mislead to follow a false idol than God and Christians could believe that Muslims have been mislead to follow a False Idol than God as well. However to say at their theological roots that the "God" of all three religions was not the same being is to basically ignore history and fact.

It can not be denied that the root god of all 3 is the same, the only argument one could make is that perhaps they now over time came to follow a false idol or that htey simply are following the wrong teachings and thus misinterpriting gods will.
 
???
Together or seperate, the states are still under God.

Yes, but a nation is made up of its people. I realize it makes sense in that context, which I'm sure is the proper and correct context. I'm just saying that I find it funny that there is a word in the Pledge about not dividing or separating, but by adding "under God" you have kind of excluded a fairly large group of people from the Pledge. Do you really not see the irony in that?
 
Here would be my general view on this...

To my understanding Vishnu is a very specific god, not a generalized word, of a very specific religion. This is not the same as little g "god".

Vishnu is the Supreme god of a polytheisitic religion. Just like the Judeo-Christian god is a Supreme god in a polytheistic religion (Angels are technically sub-deities, and the trinity in Christianity is clearly polytheistic. Not to mention saints etc.)

They are, for all intents and purposes, identical because the big "G" god isn't really all that generalized.



Allah, again, is specific to a particular religion even though theologically is the same "god". I would feel the same about it being "Under Allah" as I would if it was "Under Jesus Christ our Lord". Suddenly that takes it from an ambiguous non-specific religion to a specific "Muslim" or "Christian" religion based on its use.

But Jesus is not the same god as Jehovah or Allah, but Allah is the same god as Jehovah or the Christian God. That's a huge difference between the two.

The Jesus argument works better for Vishnu than it does for Allah because Allah is a synonym for big "G" "God", while Jesus is not a synonym for big "G" God.



Furthermore this goes back to our prior argument. I don't see a big deal to keep it, or to leave it. I see it being a far more trouble and difficult thing to go about changing it...be it removing it or using a different word...than not doing it. If I think its pointless to take the time, energy, and resources to remove it why should I think its worth while to take the time, energy, and resources to change it?

My stance is that if the people who want to keep it are OK with it being changed (not removed, just changed), then it might as well stay as there is no real difference between them and it's not actually worth the effort to change it.

But if they aren't OK with it being changed, then clearly it is worth the effort to change it or have it removed for the simple fact that they pretend it's not a big deal and non-Judeo Christians should "suck it up, it does not harm" when they themselves disagree with that statement (as the alterations I've described would not, in any way shape or form, harm anyone either)

Thus, they don't actually believe their own arguments in favor of the inclusion, thus validating the argument for exclusion.

This is doubly so to change it to something that is far more likely to be controversial and come under fire due to the immensely more defined, immensely less traditional, and immensely less acceptable by the majority.

Look at the statement there, Zyph. If it is far more likely to be controversial, even though it harms no one, to make the alterations I've described, then there is a legitimate case for removal.

If the controversy of the proposed change would be greater than the current controversy, the it should be removed altogether. This is because:

If there is no valid reason for the controversy now, then there is no valid reason for the controversy if changed.

If there is valid controversy if changed, then there is valid controversy from the status quo.

If the point is to avoid controversy, then remove it altogether. It should not be controversial to remove it unless there is a valid reason to remove it.



If I don't care either way and yet feel slightly more apt to keep then remove because I see nothing particular WRONG with it and don't see the point in spending the time, energy, and resources to change it why in the world then would I say I'd be fine with supporting attempts to change it that would cause even greater amount of time, energy, and resources to be expended?

I would argue that the controversy over removing it is the reason why the time energy and resources (which are not much. It's pretty much an official decree of "The pledge no longer contains "under God". The time energy and resources involved are equal to the time energy and resources it takes to type and print a sentence on a piece of paper) should be expended.
 
Clueless. Absolutely clueless.

Or maybe you're just playing stupid?

Oh?

So please enlighten me the specific religion it establishes as a State Religion or how it prohibits the free expression of individuals religion?

I'm clueless apparently. Please give me a clue.
 
I also kind of find it funny and ironic that "under God" was put in before the word indivisible, which means "not separable"...but by adding "under God" into the Pledge you've already done just that.

Strangely I have a much bigger issue with indivisible then I have with "under god" based on an argument made by Tucker in another thread. The Nation isn't indivisible, by its very nature under the consitution it is most defintively potentially divisible...
 
Last edited:
I'm curious. I don't remember when the Supreme Court struck down the law requiring students to say the pledge at school. For some reason, I think it occurred when I was in high school (late '70's). But I'm not sure. Who remembers?
 
rivrrat, I just wanted to say that it was a prior thread about this subject matter where you expressed a very similar opinion that you express above that made me think about the whole pledge and it's purpose. As a result of your thoughts, I concluded I would not say it again...ever. I see this as progress for me. Your words had a serious impact on me. :2wave:

See, you CAN change people's opinions teh internets!

I'm glad to hear it. :mrgreen:
 
Nevermind. I found it. It was West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette in 1943...long before I was born.
 
Funny, I don't remember being given an option to say the pledge or not.
 
Strangely I have a much bigger issue with indivisible then I have with "under god" based on an argument made by Tucker in another thread. The Nation isn't indivisible, by its very nature under the consitution it is most defintively potentially divisible...

So do I. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom