• 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

Yet I'm quite sure you guys would think differently if we changed it to "under Allah".
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".
 
Completely inaccurate. I am Jewish and we also capitalize GOD.

I thought Jews technically aren't even supposed to say "God".


I'm fine with the under god portion of the pledge. ****, I think it's even more ironic to keep it in there becuase that kind of makes it blasphemy when someone recites a prayer to their nation. See: False Idol ;)


But I do have a question for the big "under God" supporters:

Would you be OK with it being altered to "Under Allah" since this would be identical to saying "under God" as they are the same being?
 
Last edited:
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

I'm sure there are people who oppose it for that reason. However, I can in no way speak for them. I'm only talking about my personal views on the subject.
 
When I served in Iraq, I had no problems greeting the locals with "salaam aleikum". That doesn't offend me. That's their culture and I'm OK with it. It's a traditional greeting and I followed the local tradition. In fact, I know of no one that I served with that had a problem saying it to the locals. We were on their turf. Then again, we aren't the types to be oversensitive about something so trivial.
 
It is hard to believe some of the comments posted. I know my grandparents and father if they were alive would be shaking their heads.

I remember Red Skelton show growing up. He had a good take on the Pledge.

Red Skelton In The Pledge Of Allegiance on Yahoo! Video

I just don't understand what is so objectionable.

It's kind of funny how he injected god into the pledge even before it was mandated. Frankly, I don't know how we survived so long without "under god" in our pledge. :roll:
 
It's kind of funny how he injected god into the pledge even before it was mandated. Frankly, I don't know how we survived so long without "under god" in our pledge. :roll:

The history of the Pledge of Allegiance is pretty interesting.

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.

The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.

In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

http://www.oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm
 
Last edited:
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?

A good many of the people supporting removal of religious terms and religious icons from public ownership, supporting all separation of church and state, are themselves religious. They recognize the unfairness of a government which is supposed to provide equal access to all regardless of religion endorsing one religion. They also recognize the danger of entanglement. While the words in the pledge and on money seem to be a trivial matter, they have been used to justify other more egregious acts, such as Faith-based Initiatives or forcing school students to pray.

Welcome to the Interfaith Alliance

PROTECT
We promote policies that protect vital boundaries between religion and government
.
 
The history of the Pledge of Allegiance is pretty interesting.

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.

The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.

In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

The Pledge of Allegiance - A Short History

I've been talking about how the Pledge was designed as a tool of socialist propaganda for quite some time, and that's why I find it hilarious that the most ardent supporters of the pledge are also the most ardent opposition to ideas they (somewhat arbitrarily) label as "socialism". :lol::lol:
 
It's a very simple issue..


When a conservative doesn't believe in God, he doesn't go to church...

When a Liberal doesn't believe in God, he wants all mention of God removed from the face of the planet...

THIS is one of the major difference between Libs and conservatives.. Liberals just can't tolerate another's liberty!
 
It's a very simple issue..


When a conservative doesn't believe in God, he doesn't go to church...

When a Liberal doesn't believe in God, he wants all mention of God removed from the face of the planet...

THIS is one of the major difference between Libs and conservatives..

No, that was just a silly, inaccurate snide comment. The difference between libs and conservatives is few and far between.
 
It's a very simple issue..


When a conservative doesn't believe in God, he doesn't go to church...

When a Liberal doesn't believe in God, he wants all mention of God removed from the face of the planet...

THIS is one of the major difference between Libs and conservatives.. Liberals just can't tolerate another's liberty!

Nothing like using poor stereotypes to bolster your argument. :roll:

Doesn't the whole libs vs. cons shtick get old? Not everything can be broken down in such simplistic terms. Are you going to tell me right now that there are no Conservatives out there who advocate the separation of church and state?
 
Where does it say which god it is? FAIL

While it may not specifically say which God it is, I think it's quite obvious why it was put in there. Considering that Christianity is the biggest religion in this country, I'm sure they weren't trying to cater to the other religions out there by putting "under God" in the Pledge. Why is it such a big deal to go back to the original format which allowed people to put "under God" in there if they felt like it? It just doesn't make sense to me to "officially" add it when there is really nothing religious about the Pledge in and of itself. The Federal Government is supposed to represent all of us, not just people who believe in a higher power.
 
While it may not specifically say which God it is, I think it's quite obvious why it was put in there. Considering that Christianity is the biggest religion in this country, I'm sure they weren't trying to cater to the other religions out there by putting "under God" in the Pledge. Why is it such a big deal to go back to the original format which allowed people to put "under God" in there if they felt like it? It just doesn't make sense to me to "officially" add it when there is really nothing religious about the Pledge in and of itself. The Federal Government is supposed to represent all of us, not just people who believe in a higher power.
You can speculate all you please, but the letter of the law is satisfied. There is no Christian anything anywhere. Same with 10 Commandments, which are Judaic.
 
You can speculate all you please, but the letter of the law is satisfied. There is no Christian anything anywhere. Same with 10 Commandments, which are Judaic.

So screw the people who don't believe in a higher power or who believe in multiple Gods? I realize it's easy to sit back and not give a rat's ass about everyone else when you are represented.
 
Let me put it this way - If God offends him so much, he should give me all his money. I will gladly accept it. :mrgreen:
Gods money? Yeah, I'll gladly take all the money bilked from the poor, the ignorant, the lonely, the weak of spirit... and donate it to secular charities. Hell, we could probably end poverty world wide with all the money Christianity takes in to build new churches, golden cups, fine clothing and propaganda. :2wave:
 
Where does it say which god it is? FAIL

It's the Judeo-Christian God. It's not really inclusive of Vishnu or Brahma from the biggest non-judeo-Christian religion that has a large US population (over 1 million adherents).
 
Nothing like using poor stereotypes to bolster your argument. :roll:

Doesn't the whole libs vs. cons shtick get old? Not everything can be broken down in such simplistic terms. Are you going to tell me right now that there are no Conservatives out there who advocate the separation of church and state?

IF a Conservative had an issue with "separation", it would be to address it as intended by the founders not simply make it his life's work to remove all things "God" from the face the planet!

AND.... Soooooo..... WHY.. pray tell... Was this case an ISSUE in the first place?..Never mind.. I'll be "snide" and tell you...My point is EXACTLY CORRECT!
 
Last edited:
Honestly this is one of the things I could careless about. It doesn't bother me if kids have to say it or not because I know why under God is in the pledge.
Why, because we are a fearful people who would trade secular despotism for religious despotism?
 
It's the Judeo-Christian God. It's not really inclusive of Vishnu or Brahma from the biggest non-judeo-Christian religion that has a large US population (over 1 million adherents).

Yup, this is the honest answer.
 
The WHY.. pray tell... Was this case an ISSUE?..

Never mind.. I'll be "snide" and tell you...

My point is EXACTLY CORRECT!

This case was started by one guy. I already said earlier that I don't support this guy. If Congress moved to take "under God" out of the Pledge I would be more than happy. I can't stand people like this guy who get up in arms about stupid **** and suddenly think that public policy should change just because of them. This is precisely why he didn't win. Nobody gives a rat's ass about this guy and they shouldn't. And no, your point isn't correct because liberals and conservatives aren't that simply defined. You are using poorly constructed stereotypes.
 
There are real things to worry about with with the "separation of church and state", real areas where we inch into trouble and may need to make a case that things should not be done due to that separation. This however, is not one of those cases. Sometimes you have to sit back and admit that something is just harmless and let it go. Making a case about things like this just make it harder when there is a real issue.

I don't believe in god, but I am certainly not worried about either the pledge of allegiance, nor what it says on my money(outside of the denomination amount). Let's save out efforts for where it matters.

I disagree, the less ubiquitous religion is in society, the easier it is when there is a bigger issue.

It kinda falls under the ongoing remediation and liberalization that we wish Islam would hurry through. It goes away piece by piece.
 
Back
Top Bottom