• 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

RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree completely with that. This is one guy who doesn't like the fact that "under God" is in the pledge. If it were Congress that removed it that would be a completely different story. It shouldn't be changed because one guy files a lawsuit because he feels that he is somehow personally being persecuted.
 
RightinNYC said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

I think my ultimate dislike of the phrase in the pledge is not that it references God. I am good with that. But I have associations (and I am not saying they are reasonable) of that particular phrase being less about God and more about the desire that many have for christian conservative culture to be the dominant culture of the country. I see it as their attempt to shove their culture down my throat.

Really, my distaste for the phrase is the same distaste that I have when people say things like "liberals are not true americans" or "my country, love it or leave it".

In fact, if it said, "one country under Jesus" or "one country under the Trinity" or some other more specific reference, it would not bother me one bit. However, it would be technically inaccurate since this country has other religious faiths besides Christianity and it also does not account for atheists.

That and if I look at it, the whole idea of a pledge for a free country makes no sense to me since it seems oxymoronish. But I would be completely neutral to that fact if it wasn't for what I see to be an attempt at cultural indoctrination.
 
Last edited:
Dr_Patrick said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that for everyone, or even a majority of the people, in the "remove 'under god' from the Pledge" movement that it has NOTHING to do with attacking / being displeased with religion?
 
The way I see it is, if you don't want to say "under God" when you recite the pledge, then don't say it. No one will arrest you. If you don't want to recite the pledge altogether, then don't recite the pledge. (Only a P.O.S. prick-person would make an issue of that.)

But goddammit, there are millions and millions of us out here that stand and say it proudly and we will always include the words "under God,"

Why do people have to go and nit pick little bull**** things that, at the end of the day, don't mean **** to a tree.

I don't need a court to uphold or strikedown what I can or cannot say when I make my pledges. For a moderate conservative, I can be pretty liberal, socially, but on bull**** issues like this, I just wanna strangle those whiney ass liberal types who think they should decide what I do or do not say when, or if, I recite the pledge. Nit-pickin' bastards. Back the **** off. Don't tread on me. **** 'em.
 
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". You can pretend all you want that it doesn't refer to the "god" of abraham all you want. Its actually an important issue to many of us who consider ourselves outside of the homogenized christian community.
Click to expand...

Well, the other great thing about America is if you don't want to say The Pledge of Allegiance, you don't have to.
 
RightinNYC said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

Except the anthem has nothing to do with government just as the fight song fo any NFL team you care to mention has no relation to their board of managers. And as such does not qualify as a breach of the seperation of church and state.
 
More signs of a pendulum swing in American society. I'm not gonna go out and claim it yet, I saw Scott Brown, I see Obamaism dropping faster than Lindsay Vonn, I hear rumblings, I see upheld court rulings, but...more signs.
 
Navy Pride said:
One for the good guys!!!!!!!



Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance - Yahoo! News


By TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer Terence Chea, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 18 mins ago


SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments on Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who claimed the references to God disrespect his religious beliefs.

"The Pledge is constitutional," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded."
Click to expand...


Typical response from the right-wing. More interested in the flag and the pledge than the "Principles for which they stand". :doh
 
kansaswhig said:
Well, the other great thing about America is if you don't want to say The Pledge of Allegiance, you don't have to.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard a schoolteacher say, "Those of you who WANT to say the Pledge of Allegiance please stand?"
 
Zyphlin said:
Are you seriously suggesting that for everyone, or even a majority of the people, in the "remove 'under god' from the Pledge" movement that it has NOTHING to do with attacking / being displeased with religion?
Click to expand...

Well, I can't speak for everyone. For myself, I see it as returning the Pledge to it's original form. I don't see how religion has anything to do with showing one's loyalty to the US. I could see their point if it was originally in the Pledge, but it wasn't.
 
Captain America said:
The way I see it is, if you don't want to say "under God" when you recite the pledge, then don't say it. No one will arrest you. If you don't want to recite the pledge altogether, then don't recite the pledge. (Only a P.O.S. prick-person would make an issue of that.)

But goddammit, there are millions and millions of us out here that stand and say it proudly and we will always include the words "under God,"

Why do people have to go and nit pick little bull**** things that, at the end of the day, don't mean **** to a tree.

I don't need a court to uphold or strikedown what I can or cannot say when I make my pledges. For a moderate conservative, I can be pretty liberal, socially, but on bull**** issues like this, I just wanna strangle those whiney ass liberal types who think they should decide what I do or do not say when, or if, I recite the pledge. Nit-pickin' bastards. Back the **** off. Don't tread on me. **** 'em.
Click to expand...

People started including it into the Pledge in the 1800's. However, it wasn't officially added to the Pledge until the 50's. Why did it have to be "officially" added at all? That's my point. It should be something that people put in if they feel like it, which is how it had been up until the 50's.
 
kansaswhig said:
Only people who crave attention would put up a fight against something like this.

Offended by "under God"? Really? Get a life.

Who sits around and thinks up this ****?
Click to expand...

Probably a very similar set of people as those who have to put "god" into everything.
 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

Taylor said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yet I'm quite sure you guys would think differently if we changed it to "under Allah".

CaptainCourtesy said:
But it does not designate any specific religion. That was HIS argument.
Click to expand...
But it does exclude certain religions. Such as those who worship multiple gods or worship goddesses.

kansaswhig said:
Well, the other great thing about America is if you don't want to say The Pledge of Allegiance, you don't have to.
Click to expand...
As an adult, sure. As a child, however, we were (and mostly they still are) fascistly forced to recite it.

Would be a non-issue if no one were forced to recite it. Such is not the case.
 
The ironic part is that the pledge was written by a socialist and, "under God", was added by a Liberal Democrat. And, who bitches about it the most?
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Well, I can't speak for everyone. For myself, I see it as returning the Pledge to it's original form. I don't see how religion has anything to do with showing one's loyalty to the US. I could see their point if it was originally in the Pledge, but it wasn't.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that's your reason. It just seemed like you were speaking in a general sense and I know for a fact there are many that dislike it specifically due to their distaste/hatred for religion
 
Navy Pride said:
One for the good guys!!!!!!!



Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance - Yahoo! News


By TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer Terence Chea, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 18 mins ago


SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments on Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who claimed the references to God disrespect his religious beliefs.

"The Pledge is constitutional," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded."
Click to expand...
What you really meant was 'ONE FOR THE CHRISTIANS!'.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
What you really meant was 'ONE FOR THE CHRISTIANS!'.
Click to expand...

And the Muslims, too. They believe in God. That makes it politically correct, therefore, beyond question.
 
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's a part of the inculcation that goes on with children in our country. Christians have slipped their religious symbolism into every corner of society and it's so ubiquitous that rooting it out will take many generations.
 
lizzie said:
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:
Click to expand...
That is COMPLETELY disingenuous and you know it. That reveals you as intellectually dishonest.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
That is COMPLETELY disingenuous and you know it. That reveals you as intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

If it said something like, "Our Lord Jesus Christ", you might have an argument.
 
TurtleDude said:
The guy who brought this suit is a clown seeking attention. The Court ought to make him pay for all the money wasted in this charade. Bankrupt the fool and that will put an end to him being an attention-whore
Click to expand...
Did you take the same position against the nutbag who insisted, against the courts ruling, to display the statue of the 10 commandments a court house?
 
rathi said:
Although the phrase has no reason for existing and probably should be removed, its so completely irrelevant that it isn't worth the time or money to fight for it. If there comes a day where the worst intersection of government and religion is the pledge, I would ask for it to be struck down, but until that day there are other issues that actually matter to focus on.
Click to expand...
That's like saying it's OK to have a little racism because fighting it is too cumbersome and expensive. So long as you don't think it directly effects you right now.
 
kansaswhig said:
Only people who crave attention would put up a fight against something like this.

Offended by "under God"? Really? Get a life.

Who sits around and thinks up this ****?
Click to expand...
People who believe Christianity is a farse and a drag on our progress as society and humanity in general?
 
apdst said:
If it said something like, "Our Lord Jesus Christ", you might have an argument.
Click to expand...

While I don't really care about the "under God" part, I think people repeating this mantra are being very disingenuous. You all know damned well which god is referenced. The United States is incredibly Christian, the "God" parts in our currency, propaganda, and pledge are all the Christian God. That's the god people believed in and that's the god people wrote about.

Regardless, I still think Congress, the SCOTUS, and the POTUS should all have to start their morning by reciting a pledge to the People.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom