View Poll Results: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Voters
236. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    133 56.36%
  • No

    103 43.64%
Page 19 of 107 FirstFirst ... 917181920212969 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 1064

Thread: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

  1. #181
    Banned 26 X World Champs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
    Last Seen
    07-04-08 @ 07:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    7,536

    Re: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

    Quote Originally Posted by JOHNYJ
    It goes beyond peripheral things. Get this,in some schools teaching about "Thanksgiving " is edited. You can't say who they were thanking, you cant say why they were in massachusetts in the first place . Why they came to the New World is not taught. This is what the Liberals given free reign do.
    I find this post and its attack on liberals to be bull****. I would really enjoy seeing proof that Thanksgiving is taught the way described in American public schools and that it is taught that way due to liberals!

    I do not believe your post sorry, I think it is all untrue. Prove me wrong, please?

  2. #182
    Banned 26 X World Champs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
    Last Seen
    07-04-08 @ 07:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    7,536

    Re: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl
    No, if you are truly pro-religion and are against the 'under God' clause, you are practically an island unto yourself.
    I think not. Maybe you misunderstood what I meant? I meant that I am pro-religion in that I strongly feel anyone has the right to practice their religion privately whenever or wherever they choose. I am very confident that if you asked those of us who are anti "Under God" you would find a very strong majority that agree with me and very few who disagree. The only thing I object to is using god in government.

    Let me ask you something? If someone refused to say the Pledge due to their objection to the "Under God" inclusion would that mean they were disloyal to the USA? I believe a larger group than you claim aren't "Pro-Religion" would say that these people ARE "Anti-American." I again reiterate that suggesting that people who are against "Under God" are also against religion is a very inaccurate portayal.
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl
    Nope. Been there and done that. When my sister, a highschool choral teacher taught her students a deep appreciation for the classics including Bach, Handel, Mozart and others who wrote some of the most beautiful Christian music out there. When she became aware that some of the students in the choir were Jewish, she included Jewish songs. When an exchange student came in from Nigeria, she had him sing some of his native songs, arranged them for choir and they sang that. They all learned something of each other's culture and appreciation of each other's heritage and her annual multicultural Christmas concert drew people from miles and miles around. Then the ACLU made them stop almost all of it. And all were the poorer for it.
    I believe one can express the diversity of a school or a nation through music without bringing God into the mix. Read what you just wrote? You mentioned the student from Nigeria. You didn't write that a Nigerian religious song was included, just songs from Nigeria. That is exactly what I mean. There's tons of beautiful choral music to choose from that expresses the diversity of mankind or a nation without having to also make it religious. I bet people will still come from "miles around" to hear the concert if this approach were adopted. Why do people believe that without a religious influence in public places things will collapse? Its not only untrue it is, to me, a scare tactic to influence people. The old "heathen" methodology, IMHO.
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl
    Nope again. If you remove all evidence of religion from the public sector, you are treating everyone unequally but those who hate religion.
    I fail to see how not mentioning any religion during any event sponsored by the Government is treating people unequally. If you don't mention lesbians or blind people are they being treated unequally too? I think not! People want to shove religion down people's throats during public events and that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, has been proven so over and over and over again so why do people still try to impose their religious beliefs on those who aren't interested?

    You make it sound like people who are not part of your religion are doing things in public to dissuade others from religion and that is totally false. That is how I interpret your thinking. You claim to be treated unequally because you're being prevented from force feeding religion onto others and those who do not want to participate in your religion are actually being favored because they can express anti-religious "propaganda" in public. Great argument except that those of us who are against religion in public government are not preaching atheism instead, having monuments that decry religion. We just do not want religion discussed for or against.
    Last edited by 26 X World Champs; 09-17-05 at 06:26 AM.

  3. #183
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,136

    Re: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Columbusite
    No one is denying people their constitutional right to exercise their religious freedom. Christians have had government favoritism (from specifically religious things like school led prayer, 10 commandments in government buildings, "under God" added to the pledge, to Christian based laws like anti-gay laws, inter-racial marriage bans, racial minorities and women being treated as 2nd class citizens, slavery, etc) and when that is taken away somehow Christians are being discriminated against. Enough of this blather about religion being kept out of the "public square". Religion is already in the public square, but it isn't supposed to be government sponsored such as in this case. As I understand it the "under God" part was added with the intent to show our country was a godly one. The problem is, that is for the people to do on their own, not the government. I hardly see how that is anti-religious.
    Whenever my religious beliefs include denying you any legal or inalienable right, then you have an argument.

    But the words 'under God' take nothing at all away from you, require nothing of you, impinge on not one iota of your personal freedom, property, pursuit of happiness, security, opportunities, or well being. You are not required to say them, believe them, or approve of them.

    To remove those two little words, however, does take away from those who want the words in there.

    It doesn't matter whether the words are "under God" or "under Zeus" or "Donald Duck" or "Santa Claus", if they do not infringe on anybody's rights, and the majority wants it that way, then the majority should prevail.

    Such should be the rule of thumb in all such matters. If the community wants a creche on the courthouse lawn at Christmastime, if the community wants traditional Christmas music in the winter concert, if the community likes that granite statue engraved with the Ten Commandments on the Courthouse lawn, then it takes nothing at all away from anybody else nor infringes on anybody's rights for that to happen. If the community, however, allows the creche, they also allow a Minnorah if some in the Jewish community want that too. The community should not be allowed to discriminate against one group in favor of another. As long as there is no intentional discrimination, there is no foul.

    It comes down to the principle of "the free exercise (of religion) shall not be prohibited" by government. None of these things are an establishment of religion by government. All of these things are the free exercise of religion by a particular community. The ACLU should be required to butt out and the anti-religious should get a hobby or something and learn that they cannot dictate how others shall enjoy their constitutional right to an exercise of religion.

    The day a teacher is discriminating against or rewarding children for having a particular religious belief or non belief; the day the community discriminates against one religion in favor of another; etc., then I'll be right there side by side with you protesting that, as that would be a violation of the Constitution.

    But there is nothing stated or implied or intended in the Constitution that all vestiges or evidence or practice of religion be removed from public property. The founders made sure the government could neither require religious beliefs from anyone nor reward or punish anyone for the religious beliefs they held. But they never intended that those in government not be religious or express their religious beliefs. And there certainly would have been horrified to see (expressly unconstitutional) laws that stripped all evidence of religion from the public sector.
    Last edited by AlbqOwl; 09-17-05 at 06:39 AM.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  4. #184
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,136

    Re: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

    Quote Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs
    I think not. Maybe you misunderstood what I meant? I meant that I am pro-religion in that I strongly feel anyone has the right to practice their religion privately whenever or wherever they choose. I am very confident that if you asked those of us who are anti "Under God" you would find a very strong majority that agree with me and very few who disagree. The only thing I object to is using god in government.

    Let me ask you something? If someone refused to say the Pledge due to their objection to the "Under God" inclusion would that mean they were disloyal to the USA? I believe a larger group than you claim aren't "Pro-Religion" would say that these people ARE "Anti-American." I again reiterate that suggesting that people who are against "Under God" are also against religion is a very inaccurate portayal..
    The Constitution does not specifiy a freedom of religious expression in private. It specifies a freedom of religious expression, period. According to the 2002 poll I posted yesterday, almost 90% of Americans disagree with you that 'under God' should be removed from the pledge.

    Nobody has said those who don't want 'under God' in the pledge are un-American. I am just saying that those who dn't want 'under God' in the Pledge want to take something away from the almost 90% who want 'under God' in the Pledge. The words do not harm you in any way or infringe on anybody's rights in any way. Thus the majority should prevail. When the majority no longer wants the phrase there or objects to any other part of the Pledge, it will be changed.

    I believe one can express the diversity of a school or a nation through music without bringing God into the mix. Read what you just wrote? You mentioned the student from Nigeria. You didn't write that a Nigerian religious song was included, just songs from Nigeria. That is exactly what I mean. There's tons of beautiful choral music to choose from that expresses the diversity of mankind or a nation without having to also make it religious. I bet people will still come from "miles around" to hear the concert if this approach were adopted. Why do people believe that without a religious influence in public places things will collapse? Its not only untrue it is, to me, a scare tactic to influence people. The old "heathen" methodology, IMHO.
    It was a Nigerian religious song. And yes there is much beautiful non-religious music written. But when it harms no one, when it gives pleasure to both the singers and listeners, when it is a longstanding tradition of a community, why should religious music be banned from a concert? How is such banning not a 'prohibition against the free exercise of religion?

    I fail to see how not mentioning any religion during any event sponsored by the Government is treating people unequally. If you don't mention lesbians or blind people are they being treated unequally too? I think not! People want to shove religion down people's throats during public events and that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, has been proven so over and over and over again so why do people still try to impose their religious beliefs on those who aren't interested?
    Who is shoving religion down anyone's throat? If you interpret the presence of evidence of religious art, music, etc. is 'shoving religion down your throat', then how is stripping the public sector of any evidence of religion not 'shoving athiesm down somebody's throat?' There is no constitutional right to see only what you want to see or hear or experience in the public sector. The community can decide in all other aspects of community life, and since there are always going to be some who want it to be different, the majority should prevail. And the community should decide in matters of religion.

    We are not talking about anybody's rights here. I am opposed to violating anybody's rights. I am talking about preferences that affect nobody's inalienable rights one way or the other.

    You make it sound like people who are not part of your religion are doing things in public to dissuade others from religion and that is totally false. That is how I interpret your thinking. You claim to be treated unequally because you're being prevented from force feeding religion onto others and those who do not want to participate in your religion are actually being favored because they can express anti-religious "propaganda" in public. Great argument except that those of us who are against religion in public government are not preaching atheism instead, having monuments that decry religion. We just do not want religion discussed for or against.
    The presence of evidence of religion takes nothing away from you, requires nothing of you, violates no right that you posses. The prohibition of evidence of religion does take away from those who wish to have it there. It is as simple as that.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  5. #185
    Pundit-licious
    shuamort's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Saint Paul, MN
    Last Seen
    02-26-09 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,297

    Re: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

    Quote Originally Posted by SKILMATIC


    Its not extra claims they are common sense claims. When you have god and godly morals in your schools and life then the chances of these negative things happeing immensely decline, and vice versa. Its simple as that. I cant beleive this is so hard for you to understand. So I guess in the last almost 400yrs when we have had godly morals in our school and all the sudden we took them out we have had a increase of all that which I have mentioned isnt proof or isnt evidentiary suppor tin itself? Well if its not then I really dont know how anything else can be?
    So........no proof then. Gotcha.

  6. #186
    User marchare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Last Seen
    10-26-05 @ 06:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    62

    Re: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

    Quote Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs
    The only thing I object to is using god in government.
    Even though this is very clear, you will still be accused of being anti-religion.
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl
    Nope again. If you remove all evidence of religion from the public sector, you are treating everyone unequally but those who hate religion.
    Typical sorry attempt by the Righteous Right to reframe the issue, from that of attacks on the secular nature of our constitution, to that of majority victimhood. To this nut, “free exercise” means majority rules.
    Majority consensus is not the source of spirituality.
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl
    It comes down to the principle of "the free exercise (of religion) shall not be prohibited" by government. None of these things are an establishment of religion by government. All of these things are the free exercise of religion by a particular community. The ACLU should be required to butt out and the anti-religious should get a hobby or something and learn that they cannot dictate how others shall enjoy their constitutional right to an exercise of religion.
    This guy claims that he is not a theocrat. Take a look at the lively exchange on the thread entitled ”Why are liberals tolerant of everything, save Christians and Jews”. The utter arrogance of those who’s faith is for everyone.
    Peace: the preemptive veteran’s benefit.
    Trade liberty for security and obtain neither of either.
    Whatever is begun in anger ends in shame.

  7. #187
    Only Way Round is Through
    ShamMol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Pasadena, California
    Last Seen
    01-12-09 @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    1,988

    Re: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl
    If the Pledge stated: "......,under the God of Isaac, Jacob, and Abraham,. . ." or "The all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent God. . ." or "The Creator God of all ages" or "the one and only God", etc., that would be one thing. That would in fact be acknowledging or affirming a specific religion or religions. But the Pledge neither says nor implies that.

    The Jew may think of the God of Abraham, the Christian may think of the God preached about in church, the Moslem may think of the English word for Allah, the athiest may think of a generic source of our inalienable rights, the anti-religionist may think of superstitious myth, or whatever. The Pledge does not specify. The word could be anything or nothing at all.

    Whether or not you like the phrase in the Pledge, it is not an establishment of religion and neither favors nor denies a religious belief. I think it is a virtual certainty that the SCOTUS will see it that same way I do. (Or I them, which sounds a little less egotistical>)
    However, then you go back to the history portion of my argument and you see that when they were arguing this in the Congress about when to put this in, they were not talking about a generic god. They were specifically mentioning the god that they felt this nation was founded on and would show those commies. That god was the christian god to them and thus that argument can theoretically be thrown out.

  8. #188
    Educator Columbusite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Columbus
    Last Seen
    01-04-07 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    808

    Re: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

    Quote Originally Posted by SKILMATIC
    Well again I am talking about beleifs here. And some people beleive it or not beleive in the big bang theory. So in order to be fair all beleifs must be taught.
    The big bang theory is not a "belief". This is a scientific theory which makes it much more than that ("theory" in science is different than what it means in common usage) and is hardly comparable to religious beliefs which state what happened with supernatural intervention. Biblical creation is not science nor is any other religious belief. We are talking about beliefs here, not science. Remember?

  9. #189
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,136

    Re: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

    Quote Originally Posted by marchare
    Even though this is very clear, you will still be accused of being anti-religion.
    If you said you are pro-black people as long as black people stay out of sight; if you say you are pro-women so long as they stay in the kitchen; if you say you are pro-music so long as you don't have to listen to it, how seriously would you be taken? To say you are pro-religion so long as you don't have to be around it doesn't make much more sense.

    Typical sorry attempt by the Righteous Right to reframe the issue, from that of attacks on the secular nature of our constitution, to that of majority victimhood. To this nut, “free exercise” means majority rules.
    Majority consensus is not the source of spirituality.
    What rights of yours are taken away by a religious presence? The Constitution assures people of faith that their free exercise of religion shall not be prohibited. So if you get your way and all public venues are stripped of any evidence of religion, whose rights are being infringed? Not yours. But the religious have had their Constitutional right denied.

    This guy claims that he is not a theocrat. Take a look at the lively exchange on the thread entitled ”Why are liberals tolerant of everything, save Christians and Jews”. The utter arrogance of those who’s faith is for everyone.
    What guy is that? And what does that have to do with the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or evidence of religious belief in the public sector?
    Last edited by AlbqOwl; 09-17-05 at 10:06 AM.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  10. #190
    Educator Columbusite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Columbus
    Last Seen
    01-04-07 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    808

    Re: Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl
    This I agree with 100%. As no science re origins of the universe is much better than educated guesses of how it all exactly came about, it is important to know how science evolved beginning with religious explanations that morphed into the earlier incomplete (and often erroneous) scientific theories such as a flat earth and the sun revolving around the earth, etc. Little by little man, forever insatiably curious, kept questioning, kept wondering, kept observing, and kept experimenting until we arrived at the science we have today. And you know what? A hundred or a thousand years from now, much of the science we have now will have been proved to also be imperfect and incomplete.

    For those few fundamentalist students who have been taught the earth is 6000 years old or some such as that, all the teacher has to do is tell them they are free to believe what they believe, but they're going to have to pass the test on science too. He does not have to destroy their faith to teach science.

    The more students learn how science, as well as religion, and other theories of human behavior and development have evolved over the millenia, the better we understand, the more we realize how far we have come and that there is infinitely more possibilities and potential to be discovered yet.

    To think that we have all the science now that we will ever have is as naive and narrow minded as those who think God is not the author of science. :smile:
    Disagree and agree with somethings here. Science related theories have to be in step with science, not religion. Science back in the day was intertwined with religion. That's why they found so many things contrary to what they believed and the church tried put an end to science. Students who believe in the Earth being 6000 years old are free to believe that, but like you said they should gain an understanding of science to get an A in their science class. Just want to clear something up. Christian beliefs and the origin of the universe are not intrinsically at odds. I don't think anyone anywhere thinks all the science we have now will be it and although I disagree, I can see where some would see God has no part in science.

Page 19 of 107 FirstFirst ... 917181920212969 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •