• 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

But it does not designate any specific religion. That was HIS argument.
I believe it does. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are the only major/mainstream religions that designate their god as God. Other religions refer to their god or gods by name.
 
Christianity, Judaism and Islam are the only major/mainstream religions that designate their god as God.

That's because the three of them fundamentally all believe in the same god. And yet they fight so hard against each other.
 
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:
Many people don't know this but the song "Sweet Home Alabama" doesn't contain the word "god" in it. That how relevant "The Star Spangled Banner" is to this conversation.
 
Yeah, not since the founding of our nation like Christians would like us all to believe.

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.
 
God was an enormous facet of our founding history. Pretending it isn't is pathetic.

I am curious about your reasoning. As far as I can tell, it was some civic leaders who thought they had a better way to govern than monarchy and got enough people to agree with them to have a successful revolution.
 
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.

I think the Pledge of Allegiance would be a good topic for another thread. I'm torn on the subject.
 
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.

Historically, yes. We are much more complex and diverse now. We ought to recognize that more in our public policies.
 
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:

But that didn't actually become the motto until the 1950's.
 
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.
Maybe you and a few others who espouse apathy over this are ignorant of how social movements occur. Congress is NEVER at the fore of social movement or change. Usually these things start with a single person in a lawsuit or a small group that gains momentum over time. Not supporting a social movement because it is small is a bit... silly.
 
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.

Sometimes I think you have to pick your battles. Things like this strike me as crying wolf.
 
Well, the other great thing about America is if you don't want to say The Pledge of Allegiance, you don't have to.
And you don't think a child refusing to say the pledge would not be singled out by other children and (possibly teachers) ridiculed?
 
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.
I didn't know that. Do you have a source?
 
And you don't think a child refusing to say the pledge would not be singled out by other children and (possibly teachers) ridiculed?

I have no problem with the "under god" part of the pledge (even though I am an atheist), but I do have a problem with it being a ritual performed in schools.

My reasoning for this is such that my allies should be those who are opposed to Obama for his "socialist" ideals, and my opponents should be those who promote socialist ideals, but ironically, the reverse is almost universally true. :lol:
 

“They [the kids who don't support him] are much more crazy, and out of control and vocal about it than supporters are.”

Given that his protest is over the rights of gays and lesbians, the taunts have taken a predictable bent. “In the lunchroom and in the hallway, they've been making comments and doing pranks, and calling me gay,” he said. “It's always the same people, walking up and calling me a gaywad.”

That's about par for the caring and compassionate, love thy neighbor, hypocrites.

Excellent story BTW, thanks for posting it.
 
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?
I guess that kinda shoots the cons in the foot then when they claim socialists and liberals are bad for the country and hate god... :doh
 
I know for a fact there are many that dislike it specifically due to their distaste/hatred for religion
So? You don't support a persons right to speak out against something they dislike/hate or simply view the subject differently than you?
 
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?

They are bad for this country and very disiilusioned........
 
And the Muslims, too. They believe in God. That makes it politically correct, therefore, beyond question.
Beyond question? :rofl I think any intelligent person would agree that the premise is Christianity. Jews and Muslims don't believe Jesus is the messiah which excludes them along with all other religions and non-religious.
 
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".
Forgive me if I find that to be a big pile of bull****.
 
Beyond question? :rofl I think any intelligent person would agree that the premise is Christianity. Jews and Muslims don't believe Jesus is the messiah which excludes them along with all other religions and non-religious.

This is absolutely stupid. Both the Christian religion and Islam are taken from the Old Testament. It is the same God.

Learn some history.
 
HTML:
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".

As long as I had a LOT of currency, I could care less if it said "Under the Flying Spaggetti Monster" myself.:mrgreen:
 
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!

That's a pretty ignorant view and quite a generalization. Well done Christian. :clap:
 
HTML:

As long as I had a LOT of currency, I could care less if it said "Under the Flying Spaggetti Monster" myself.:mrgreen:

:rofl:rofl

Hell, it could say "Tucker Case is a worthless piece of ****" and I'd still work my ass off to collect as many as I could. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom