• 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

I can't tell you how many innocent little atheists have succumbed to Christianity because they found themselves reciting the pledge in grade school.

Wait, yes I can... none!:roll:

Don't forget they have to spend money too,think of how many kids have been converted because of "In God We Trust" on our money.
 
Did you know that "under God" was not added to the pledge until the 1950's?

"In God We Trust" has appeared on our currency since 1864
 

Attachments

  • Two_cent_obverse.jpg
    Two_cent_obverse.jpg
    42.4 KB · Views: 5
Don't forget they have to spend money too,think of how many kids have been converted because of "In God We Trust" on our money.
Yes! Sometimes I stay awake at night pondering whether we can blame the entire existence of modern religion on our currency and its suggestive messages.

At times I feel compelled to take a stand... to educate the masses... to challenge this great injustice in our courts!

Then I remember I have a life. And a job. And a clue.
 
By using the capitalized "God" you actually are referring to a specific god - the Christian god.

Uh, what? You refer to two religious Christian sites that claim that "God" only means the christian god and think that that proves it? Also, unless you're reciting the pledge via closed captioning, I'm pretty sure the capitalization doesn't come across.

Also the fact that the whole reason for adding "under God" in 1954 was spiritual / religions as well as political - during the Red Scare it was added to separate ourselves from the "godless" communists:

And again, who cares? While that might mean something in terms of whether its good policy, it's barely relevant to the question of constitutionality.

Me thinks those quick to dismiss this as nonsensical need to read a bit more between the lines.

I think that those who really give a **** about this on either side should spend less time between the lines and more time outside.
 
I have heard Red say this many times and it says it all...........

Totally off topic, but hey...

I had heard of Red Skelton but never seen his comedy till not long ago when they ran a long special during pledge week on PBS about him. The man was simply hilarious, a real genius.
 
One for the good guys!!!!!!!

Navy, people who disagree with you on something like this aren't "bad guys", they don't have evil intent. They're not twirling their mustaches while tying young girls to train tracks. They just have a difference of opinion on how things should be done. You know, where two people legitimately disagree on something, but both have the best of intentions?
 
The "under god" part is just a platitude. I don't think most people take it that seriously anymore, except maybe the atheists.
 
By using the capitalized "God" you actually are referring to a specific god - the Christian god.


Capitalization


The Holy Observer: THO Guide to Christian Capitalization

Also the fact that the whole reason for adding "under God" in 1954 was spiritual / religions as well as political - during the Red Scare it was added to separate ourselves from the "godless" communists:


"Under God"--A Product of the 1950's Red Scare


Me thinks those quick to dismiss this as nonsensical need to read a bit more between the lines.

Completely inaccurate. I am Jewish and we also capitalize GOD.
 
I have no problem with the words 'in god' being in the pledge as long as everyone realizes that it's okay not to say the pledge if you don't want to.
 
One other fun bit of trivia re: the Pledge adding "under God" in the 1950's.

Our official national anthem (since long before McCarthy set foot in office) is the Star Spangled Banner. While everyone knows the first verse, few know the second, third, or fourth. The fourth verse is as follows:

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
 
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:

The UK has a state religion (Church of England) of which the Monarch is head. The Monarch is not ellected, they are ordained supposedly by god through birthright. The Coronation ceremony takes place in Westminister Abby, and is performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

God is inherrent in the system. And there is no official seperation of church and state.

One only swears alligence to the Crown when you take office in the military most common, or in high public office.

As you can see, it's a totally different kettle of fish.
 
Using the term "God" is not distinct to Christianity, nor was the name Jesus, or any other Biblical figure used in our founding documents.:roll:

Which is why the term "Creator" is used instead.
 
One other fun bit of trivia re: the Pledge adding "under God" in the 1950's.

Our official national anthem (since long before McCarthy set foot in office) is the Star Spangled Banner. While everyone knows the first verse, few know the second, third, or fourth. The fourth verse is as follows:

You do realize that the anthem has very little to do with the actual civics of the state?
 
One would think that the purists should have no issue with removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. After all, it was officially added during the McCarthy era. The original intended purpose of the Pledge is to declare one's loyalty to the United States. I don't see how religion fits into that at all considering that not everyone in this country is religious or believes in God in any form.

Does removing "under God" somehow affect your personal religious views? While many argue that it doesn't refer to a specific God, we should all at least be honest in recognizing that it was inserted to cater mostly to Christians in this country. I fail to see why we can't keep the two separate. It's no surprise to me, however, that those who are applauding this decision or referring to it as "one for the good guys" are religious. Removing "under God" has nothing to do with attacking religion. It's about returning the Pledge to it's original intended purpose, which is to show your loyalty to this country. To me, God or religion has absolutely nothing to do with that.
 
One would think that the purists should have no issue with removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. After all, it was officially added during the McCarthy era. The original intended purpose of the Pledge is to declare one's loyalty to the United States. I don't see how religion fits into that at all considering that not everyone in this country is religious or believes in God in any form.

Because its a free country. Therefore you have to conform to it's culture! (I know, that didn't make sense to me either)

Does removing "under God" somehow affect your personal religious views? While many argue that it doesn't refer to a specific God, we should all at least be honest in recognizing that it was inserted to cater mostly to Christians in this country. I fail to see why we can't keep the two separate. It's no surprise to me, however, that those who are applauding this decision or referring to it as "one for the good guys" are religious. Removing "under God" has nothing to do with attacking religion. It's about returning the Pledge to it's original intended purpose, which is to show your loyalty to this country. To me, God or religion has absolutely nothing to do with that.

I don't care either way. The whole premise of the pledge is stupid.
 
Because its a free country. Therefore you have to conform to it's culture! (I know, that didn't make sense to me either)



I don't care either way. The whole premise of the pledge is stupid.

It absolutely is.
 
I don't care either way. The whole premise of the pledge is stupid.

I agree. For some, however, it is important and it helps them affirm their loyalty to the country. To each their own. Personally, the pledge does nothing for me. I don't see how a reciting a bunch of words somehow makes one more patriotic, but whatever. I recognize the fact that it's important to some and I'm more than happy for them. However, I just fail to see why religion is such a necessary addition in something that really has nothing to do with religion. It just surprises me that so many would applaud this decision considering that "under God" wasn't even officially added until the 50's. It seems that people are only purists when it suits them.
 
A sanfrancisco appeals court ruling like this almost sounds like some Bizarro world stuff. I think Newdow is pissed his wife left him and that is why he holds a grudge against something he allegedly views as imaginary.

If Newdow (who has been at this for a long time -- I remember when he attacked the moment of silence in Georgia) can't win in the Ninth, he should just simply quit.
 
You do realize that the anthem has very little to do with the actual civics of the state?

Which means what? I'm not citing the religious tone of the anthem as proof that we should all bow down to worship a Presbyterian god, but rather as a counterpoint to the implication advanced by some that the pledge's reference to god is:

1) The only religious reference in our official culture, and
2) Proof that all of said references are solely the result of an anti-communist propagandist.

The fact is that there have been similar offhand and nonspecific references to religious deitys throughout the history of our nation. While this one might have been added more recently, that doesn't make it particularly unconstitutional.

One would think that the purists should have no issue with removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. After all, it was officially added during the McCarthy era. The original intended purpose of the Pledge is to declare one's loyalty to the United States. I don't see how religion fits into that at all considering that not everyone in this country is religious or believes in God in any form.

Does removing "under God" somehow affect your personal religious views? While many argue that it doesn't refer to a specific God, we should all at least be honest in recognizing that it was inserted to cater mostly to Christians in this country. I fail to see why we can't keep the two separate. It's no surprise to me, however, that those who are applauding this decision or referring to it as "one for the good guys" are religious. Removing "under God" has nothing to do with attacking religion. It's about returning the Pledge to it's original intended purpose, which is to show your loyalty to this country. To me, God or religion has absolutely nothing to do with that.

For me, it's not so much that I oppose the concept of removing it as I don't support the idea of filing lawsuits to remove all the vestiges of objectionable material from public life. If Congress voted to remove "under God" from the pledge tomorrow, I can't say I'd care. I just can't stand people like Newdow and his ilk, so I refuse to encourage them.
 
Back
Top Bottom