• 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!

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

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 68 54.4%

  • No

    Votes: 57 45.6%
  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
SKILMATIC said:
I understand but it is just giving respect to the establishment of a religion meaning the place of worship. You do know what an establishment is right? Its a place. Well a place(establishment) of a religion is the place in which they gather and worship. So its in respect to those places(establishments) of worship. Again its just referring to religions not anything else.
Click to expand...

Congress shall make no law respecting (Concerning or regarding) an establishment (The act of establishing a permanent organization) of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
 
C.J. said:
Congress shall make no law respecting (Concerning or regarding) an establishment (The act of establishing a permanent organization) of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Click to expand...

I love how you just added your own words into the constitution. :rofl

But again all those adjectives would be describing what? Is it the subject? Is it the preposition? Is it the DO? Or is it the Object of the prepostion?

Yes it is the subject which is? Yep thats right the establishment(not religion). So once again your wrong anyways :lol: .

Religion is the object of the prepositional phrase which has no connections with the adjectives outside it. Please learn proper English gentlemen it will alleviate all this meaningless argument.
 
So again who or what is the congress making no law against? Is it religion or the establishment?

I beleive it states the establishment so therefore it is the DO and it is in direct connection to what the subject(congress) is referring to which is the DO(establishments)

and religion is the object of the preposition.

Thank you have a nice day:2wave:
 
AlbqOwl said:
This country has managed quite nicely with steady improvements with no noticable or mass conversions of athiests into holy rollers before the concept of erasing any reference of religious belief or history from public view caught on just a couple of decades ago. In a very few instances in which nonbelievers were illegally assaulted or harrassed, the law acted swiftly and effectively to protect the nonbeliever's right to be a nonbeliever.
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone "erasing any reference of religious belief from history or public view". I do see people calling out the government on it's preference shown towards religion, which it isn't supposed to do. For example, when it is the 10 commandments, by itself, in a government building it does not belong there. Such a thing gives the false impression that our laws are derived from them when they are most certainly not and it is respecting an establishment of religion. What you are describing simply isn't matching up with reality.

At such time as the government attempts to define who or what God is in any specific terms; at such time as the government attaches 'Christian' or any other specific religious belief to the Pledge (or anywhere else) for public consumption, then I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you to protest that.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I am for preventing such a thing from happening. Waiting until it happens would be a big mistake. We must be remain vigilant and keep the wall of separation up.

They aren't doing that in this case. "Under God" in the Pledge is not specified as any particular god, any particular faith, or any particular belief, and is not a requirement for anybody to say. I don't understand how anybody thinks tolerance can be tolerance when it is only granted in one direction. If the Christians or any other people of faith tolerate the athiests and impose no penalty or prejudice on them for their athiesm, that is tolerance. It is not too much to ask of the athiests that they also be tolerant of people of faith.
Click to expand...

Specific or not it is government endorsement of religion. I've already went into detail how requiring the pledge to be said is moot. It is government endorsement of religion that is the issue here. Reverting the pledge back to the way it was is not one-way or intolerant. Unlike the current pledge which favors religion, the former pledge favors neither religion, nor atheism, nor agnsoticism. That pledge is tolerant of both people of faith and of no faith. It was written after the civil war to emphasize unity. It only makes sense that the pledge be inclusive rather than exclusive. By the way, I am a Deist, just for the record so it isn't just Atheists pushing for this.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Yes the issue is not letting religion/God in the gov. Well if I am not mistaken the liberty bell is a trademark of this country and it has incribed on it a passage form the Word of God. So I think this has everything to do with the same topic. So you agree we should destroy the bell?

And this is a democracy. Once we got the electoral college it soley became a democracy. Majority rules period! It is like that in congress, in the senate, and in the coutrooms. Where have you been?
Click to expand...

The Liberty Bell isn't strictly religious, like the 10 commandments or "under God", and that verse taken out of context is one that I can agree with. A democracy, huh? Hmm, then why are we a Federal Republic?
 
Columbusite said:
The Liberty Bell isn't strictly religious, like the 10 commandments or "under God", and that verse taken out of context is one that I can agree with. A democracy, huh? Hmm, then why are we a Federal Republic?
Click to expand...

Well the pledge isnt strictly religious either, like the 10 commandements or "under god". Well the fact is its a verse from the Bible, so you agree that having a very religious books verse(which also refers to God in its context) on a federal gov object(liberty bell)? And then you rebuke the 10 commandments which are also in the Bible(which I also think you agree with and its also taken out of context) that are on federal and local gov courts? Ok I think this is very contradictory with what you just said. Can you say debacled?
 
Columbusite said:
I don't see anyone "erasing any reference of religious belief from history or public view". I do see people calling out the government on it's preference shown towards religion, which it isn't supposed to do. For example, when it is the 10 commandments, by itself, in a government building it does not belong there. Such a thing gives the false impression that our laws are derived from them when they are most certainly not and it is respecting an establishment of religion. What you are describing simply isn't matching up with reality.
Click to expand...

And I think your rationale doesn't match up with reality. The first settlers on the west brought with them their priests and monks with the intention of religion being the first established institution in the new land. The first settlers in the east went there specifically to gain religious freedom (even though most had no intention of allowing that for anybody else.) Religion is more a part of American history and culture than any other single factor. To think that people would not wish to acknowledge that is completely unrealistic.

Like I said, I am for preventing such a thing from happening. Waiting until it happens would be a big mistake. We must be remain vigilant and keep the wall of separation up.
Click to expand...

The wall of separation was never intended to separate government from religion; it was intended to protect religion from government. As the interrelationship of religion and government caused no problems whatsoever for the first 180+ years of our nation's history, there is no precedence for thinking it will cause a problem now. We have the technology and ability now to prevent lots of bad things from happening but the use of it would be far worse than the risk.

Specific or not it is government endorsement of religion. I've already went into detail how requiring the pledge to be said is moot. It is government endorsement of religion that is the issue here. Reverting the pledge back to the way it was is not one-way or intolerant. Unlike the current pledge which favors religion, the former pledge favors neither religion, nor atheism, nor agnsoticism. That pledge is tolerant of both people of faith and of no faith. It was written after the civil war to emphasize unity. It only makes sense that the pledge be inclusive rather than exclusive. By the way, I am a Deist, just for the record so it isn't just Atheists pushing for this.
Click to expand...

It is an acknowledgement of religion, not an endorsement. If it was an endorsement, then school chldren would be required to say it. It is a custom, a patriotic exercise, and, until recently, was viewed as a positive thing to do for all who cared to do it. It is my opinion the it is nothing but intolerance for a small angry minority to seek to deny those who choose to recite the Pledge, as it is, the right to do that. Anybody could see that adding extra words would be disruptive, while just not saying the words would not be.
 
Last edited:
SKILMATIC said:
I understand but it is just giving respect to the establishment of a religion meaning the place of worship. You do know what an establishment is right? Its a place. Well a place(establishment) of a religion is the place in which they gather and worship. So its in respect to those places(establishments) of worship. Again its just referring to religions not anything else.
Click to expand...

OK. Time to pull out the dictionary. (dictionary.com, that is)

es·tab·lish·ment Audio pronunciation of "establishment" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-stblsh-mnt)
n.

1.
1. The act of establishing.
2. The condition or fact of being established.
2. Something established, as:
1. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
2. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
3. An established church.
4. A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
5. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
3. often Establishment An established social order, as:
1. A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the.
2. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the.

As you can see this word goes beyond "place of worship". If the framers wanted to say "place of worship" or "church" they would have said so. Insetad they carefully chose the word "establishment" and not just because it's fancy.

No but we had Godand prayer, mind you, in our schools. So gotcha there. :lol:
Click to expand...

What do you mean that we "had" God and prayer in schools? We still do. Looks like I found a way out.

I feel the same way. Why dont you all get out on the battlefield and see how patriotic you get? True patriots fight for their rights and secure them. Look, you cant tell me or preach to me about patriotism for I say it like Patrick Henry does. Yes, I would die before I get enslaved by any regime. I think debating on what we look at while we recite the pledge is meaningless. I could say it looking at a dumpster for all I care. The words mean the same regardless. Saying the pledge infront of a constitution isnt nothing different IMO.
Click to expand...

I don't even think you have to go as far to fight, but to stand up for what our Constitution says in order to be a patriotic American. That can certainly include fighting for it. The words start off with "I pledge allegiance, to the flag" I was saying that if we should make a pledge to something, it should be to our Constitution, not a flag (even though ours is very nice).
 
SKILMATIC said:
Well the pledge isnt strictly religious either, like the 10 commandements or "under god". Well the fact is its a verse from the Bible, so you agree that having a very religious books verse(which also refers to God in its context) on a federal gov object(liberty bell)? And then you rebuke the 10 commandments which are also in the Bible(which I also think you agree with and its also taken out of context) that are on federal and local gov courts? Ok I think this is very contradictory with what you just said. Can you say debacled?
Click to expand...

The pledge, as it is now, is religious. The Liberty Bell was here BEFORE our Cosntitution was written AND unlike the 10 commandments does not claim to be the law of the land. The quote itself, ""Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof," is not acknowledging God/authority of the Bible. Quite unlike what we are discussing.
 
SKILMATIC said:
I love how you just added your own words into the constitution. :rofl

But again all those adjectives would be describing what? Is it the subject? Is it the preposition? Is it the DO? Or is it the Object of the prepostion?

Yes it is the subject which is? Yep thats right the establishment(not religion). So once again your wrong anyways :lol: .

Religion is the object of the prepositional phrase which has no connections with the adjectives outside it. Please learn proper English gentlemen it will alleviate all this meaningless argument.
Click to expand...

So your superior english skills tell you that congress shall make no law showing any respect for a building? Unbelievable! No need to give you an english lesson.
 
The phrase "under god" in the Pledge of Allegience is unconstitutional.

The insertion of religious phrases into daily life in public schools was deemed unconstitutional by Engel v Vitale, and was affirmed by many, many cases to follow.

The fact that the phrase was instituted by a democratically elected Congress does not change the fact that it was illegal to do so:

"Our Founders were no more willing to let the content of their prayers and their privilege of praying whenever they pleased be influenced by the ballot box than they were to let these vital matters of personal conscience depend on the succession of monarchs." - Justice Black, majority opinion, Engel v. Vitale

I think that a lot of people will be surprised when this case comes before the SC and is decided in favor of the petitioners by a margin of 9-0. There's no Potter Stewarts left on the court.
 
RightatNYU said:
The phrase "under god" in the Pledge of Allegience is unconstitutional.

The insertion of religious phrases into daily life in public schools was deemed unconstitutional by Engel v Vitale, and was affirmed by many, many cases to follow.

The fact that the phrase was instituted by a democratically elected Congress does not change the fact that it was illegal to do so:

"Our Founders were no more willing to let the content of their prayers and their privilege of praying whenever they pleased be influenced by the ballot box than they were to let these vital matters of personal conscience depend on the succession of monarchs." - Justice Black, majority opinion, Engel v. Vitale

I think that a lot of people will be surprised when this case comes before the SC and is decided in favor of the petitioners by a margin of 9-0. There's no Potter Stewarts left on the court.
Click to expand...

Wow! Something reasonable coming out of a republican's mouth!!! Just, wow!
That a conservative would come to the same conclusion, I am not surprised. (See that? I distinguished between republicans and conservatives) :2razz:
 
Columbusite said:
Wow! Something reasonable coming out of a republican's mouth!!! Just, wow!
That a conservative would come to the same conclusion, I am not surprised. (See that? I distinguished between republicans and conservatives) :2razz:
Click to expand...

Hahahaha, like I said, I think people will be surprised with the final decision. Justices such as Scalia, Thomas, and (soon to be) Roberts who are labeled as "Republican" are all smart enough to see this too. I have it on good authority that Roberts believes that "under god" is unconstitutional.
 
Columbusite said:
The pledge, as it is now, is religious. The Liberty Bell was here BEFORE our Cosntitution was written AND unlike the 10 commandments does not claim to be the law of the land. The quote itself, ""Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof," is not acknowledging God/authority of the Bible. Quite unlike what we are discussing.
Click to expand...

Again it doesnt matter its in the Bible remember? Prolly something you werent even aware of until I told you. Which is impartly why your argument is muddled. So now you say becasue the bell was manufactured before the constitution its ok? So if the pledge was inacted before our constitution having "under god" in it from your own words it would be ok. And again the 10 commandments are the same thing from what you just said. I cant beleive you think you have an argument on this, :lol: . You just got debacled again.

So this isnt even about god in the constitution its about being made before the constitution was made. Now I get it:doh

Hey I am just stating what you just said. So dont get mad at me. I believe it will be a very strenuous debate from here on out due to the fact your statements are in direct contradictory with what you just said.

In a nutshell here it is. Becasue the liberty bell was made before the constitution it is totally ok. But becasue the pledge and the 10 commandments werent made before the constitution then they arent constitutional. Thats the argument at hand. You cant say the Bible being on the liberty BELL is constitutional, but God and the 10 commandments which are also in the Bible arent constitutional. I dont think thats being fair Mr. Columbusite.

The time that it was implemented means nothing. Its not even a factor. The fact is that all of it is here today amidst us. So if you are going to side with one then its got to be all becasue they are all essentialy the same issue. Which you already sided with one so if you all the sudden decided you opposed it all the sudden then its suffice to say that your argument has been voided at all costs. But if you finally see the light in that they are all basically the same issue at hand and you agreed then I would say you have gained some common sense. Please let me know that you have common sense. ;)
 
RightatNYU said:
Hahahaha, like I said, I think people will be surprised with the final decision. Justices such as Scalia, Thomas, and (soon to be) Roberts who are labeled as "Republican" are all smart enough to see this too. I have it on good authority that Roberts believes that "under god" is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I admit that while I am somewhat uneasy about Roberts due to not knowing much about him and rightwingers cheering him on (including rightwing Christians), at the same time he hasn't demonstrated that he is a threat to the Constitution and I haven't seen enough to show he is. If one were to dissent though, I would guess Scalia, and I wouldn't be surprised. I'm hoping he'll surprise me. :lol:
 
C.J. said:
So your superior english skills tell you that congress shall make no law showing any respect for a building? Unbelievable! No need to give you an english lesson.
Click to expand...

What?!!! When did I say that? Do you even know how to disect a sentence? The constitution as it is written states that there should be no law passed that would incorporate the establishment of religion meaning its properties and denominations. No where does that imply to God or spirits or man for that point.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Again it doesnt matter its in the Bible remember? Prolly something you werent even aware of until I told you. Which is impartly why your argument is muddled. So now you say becasue the bell was manufactured before the constitution its ok? So if the pledge was inacted before our constitution having "under god" in it from your own words it would be ok. And again the 10 commandments are the same thing from what you just said. I cant beleive you think you have an argument on this, :lol: . You just got debacled again.

So this isnt even about god in the constitution its about being made before the constitution was made. Now I get it:doh

Hey I am just stating what you just said. So dont get mad at me. I believe it will be a very strenuous debate from here on out due to the fact your statements are in direct contradictory with what you just said.

In a nutshell here it is. Becasue the liberty bell was made before the constitution it is totally ok. But becasue the pledge and the 10 commandments werent made before the constitution then they arent constitutional. Thats the argument at hand. You cant say the Bible being on the liberty BELL is constitutional, but God and the 10 commandments which are also in the Bible arent constitutional. I dont think thats being fair Mr. Columbusite.

The time that it was implemented means nothing. Its not even a factor. The fact is that all of it is here today amidst us. So if you are going to side with one then its got to be all becasue they are all essentialy the same issue. Which you already sided with one so if you all the sudden decided you opposed it all the sudden then its suffice to say that your argument has been voided at all costs. But if you finally see the light in that they are all basically the same issue at hand and you agreed then I would say you have gained some common sense. Please let me know that you have common sense. ;)
Click to expand...

Ugh, I had already discussed the chaplains which I said would continue due to tradition in that it was implemented before our Constitution. The difference here is that I am against the chaplains for congress. We're paying for them you know. Now with the Liberty Bell, if it was unconstitutional (I'm certain it isn't) I would be for it being removed like the chaplains. But the Liberty Bell is not government acknowleding God/religion. The quote itself is does neither on it's own, unlike the Bible. That quote is not the Bible, sorry.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Again it doesnt matter its in the Bible remember? Prolly something you werent even aware of until I told you. Which is impartly why your argument is muddled. So now you say becasue the bell was manufactured before the constitution its ok? So if the pledge was inacted before our constitution having "under god" in it from your own words it would be ok. And again the 10 commandments are the same thing from what you just said. I cant beleive you think you have an argument on this, :lol: . You just got debacled again.

So this isnt even about god in the constitution its about being made before the constitution was made. Now I get it:doh

Hey I am just stating what you just said. So dont get mad at me. I believe it will be a very strenuous debate from here on out due to the fact your statements are in direct contradictory with what you just said.

In a nutshell here it is. Becasue the liberty bell was made before the constitution it is totally ok. But becasue the pledge and the 10 commandments werent made before the constitution then they arent constitutional. Thats the argument at hand. You cant say the Bible being on the liberty BELL is constitutional, but God and the 10 commandments which are also in the Bible arent constitutional. I dont think thats being fair Mr. Columbusite.

The time that it was implemented means nothing. Its not even a factor. The fact is that all of it is here today amidst us. So if you are going to side with one then its got to be all becasue they are all essentialy the same issue. Which you already sided with one so if you all the sudden decided you opposed it all the sudden then its suffice to say that your argument has been voided at all costs. But if you finally see the light in that they are all basically the same issue at hand and you agreed then I would say you have gained some common sense. Please let me know that you have common sense. ;)
Click to expand...


The fact that the Liberty Bell has a biblical quote on it does make it religious in nature. However, this does not necessarily mean that it is not proper for government to be endorsing of it. There are special exemptions for religion in the public arena that have been deemed constitutional by the courts.

A) In cases of conflict between Establishment and Free Exercise
B) Establishment and Exercises in legislative bodies
C) Non-Devotional use of the Bible in the Public Schools
D) Uniform tax exemptions incidentally available to religious institutions
E) Religious considerations in public welfare programs
F) Activities which, though religious in origin, have ceased to be religious in nature

The last one there is what the Liberty Bell would fall under. It is also the same precedent that the defendents in the "under God" case will be claiming exonerates them, but the circumstances point pretty clearly toward the pledge not falling under this clause.
 
Columbusite said:
I admit that while I am somewhat uneasy about Roberts due to not knowing much about him and rightwingers cheering him on (including rightwing Christians), at the same time he hasn't demonstrated that he is a threat to the Constitution and I haven't seen enough to show he is. If one were to dissent though, I would guess Scalia, and I wouldn't be surprised. I'm hoping he'll surprise me. :lol:
Click to expand...

One of my professors went to law school with Roberts, edited the Harvard Law Review with him, and clerked for Chief Justice Burger at the same time that Roberts clerked for Rehnquist. The professor is a moderate-leftie who was nominated to DC Appeals Court by both Clinton and Bush II, and he says that Roberts is, in his opinion, one of the finest possible candidates in the country for that position. From the anecdotes he tells us about clerking together, he seems to be a pretty affable guy, and I don't doubt that he'll be an asset to the court for the next few decades to come, surprising many.
 
RightatNYU said:
The fact that the Liberty Bell has a biblical quote on it does make it religious in nature. However, this does not necessarily mean that it is not proper for government to be endorsing of it. There are special exemptions for religion in the public arena that have been deemed constitutional by the courts.

A) In cases of conflict between Establishment and Free Exercise
B) Establishment and Exercises in legislative bodies
C) Non-Devotional use of the Bible in the Public Schools
D) Uniform tax exemptions incidentally available to religious institutions
E) Religious considerations in public welfare programs
F) Activities which, though religious in origin, have ceased to be religious in nature

The last one there is what the Liberty Bell would fall under. It is also the same precedent that the defendents in the "under God" case will be claiming exonerates them, but the circumstances point pretty clearly toward the pledge not falling under this clause.
Click to expand...

Well, that is interesting to know. I just figured that it was OK since the quote taken out of context is harmless on it's own.
 
Columbusite said:
Well, that is interesting to know. I just figured that it was OK since the quote taken out of context is harmless on it's own.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, well, that too. But if for some reason, someone did sue, and it went to the courts, rest assured that it'd be affirmed! :lol:
 
RightatNYU said:
One of my professors went to law school with Roberts, edited the Harvard Law Review with him, and clerked for Chief Justice Burger at the same time that Roberts clerked for Rehnquist. The professor is a moderate-leftie who was nominated to DC Appeals Court by both Clinton and Bush II, and he says that Roberts is, in his opinion, one of the finest possible candidates in the country for that position. From the anecdotes he tells us about clerking together, he seems to be a pretty affable guy, and I don't doubt that he'll be an asset to the court for the next few decades to come, surprising many.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me. I don't know why, but he just didn't really have me worried much, unlike some liberals.
 
Columbusite said:
Sounds good to me. I don't know why, but he just didn't really have me worried much, unlike some liberals.
Click to expand...

It's cause he has that winning grin and such adorable children...
 
The phrase "under god" in the Pledge of Allegience is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

No its not as for even columbusite has staated the constitution word for word which states the establishments of religion not the phrases of religion. So your wrong already. Shall I debacle you too? I really hate to do this to a moderator. But you asked for it

The insertion of religious phrases into daily life in public schools was deemed unconstitutional by Engel v Vitale, and was affirmed by many, many cases to follow.
Click to expand...

Give me a link to a ammendment or a bill or something where it says that word for word.

The truth(fact) is that I can pray at my school and hold discussions of religious conatations and debates. I can recite partsof the Bible if I wanted to for it is in some books and pamphlets in public school and college in History courses. I would appreciate it if you brought facts to the table not opinions and rhetoric.

The fact that the phrase was instituted by a democratically elected Congress does not change the fact that it was illegal to do so:
Click to expand...

Again they didnt do anything illegal due to it being totally and fully constitutional for the constitution never once said otherwise.

"Our Founders were no more willing to let the content of their prayers and their privilege of praying whenever they pleased be influenced by the ballot box than they were to let these vital matters of personal conscience depend on the succession of monarchs." - Justice Black, majority opinion, Engel v. Vitale
Click to expand...

This is bologna due to the fact being before every meeting in the continental congress they started the day by holding prayer. So now tell me that prayer had nothing to do with the foundations and in the making of the constitution. Even prayer isnt unconstitutional. Now if they make you say prayer then it becomes unconstitutional. Remember this is public school not gov. school. So in public places people are allowed to pray wherever they sit and read whatever they would like. So a public place where people meet to learn and teach is no different.

I think that a lot of people will be surprised when this case comes before the SC and is decided in favor of the petitioners by a margin of 9-0. There's no Potter Stewarts left on the court.
Click to expand...

I think you'll be suprised to find out that SKILMATIC stepped up and debacled all their arguments. I have debated this topic before in debate club at my local college and debated this very topic against 3 prominent professors and won 7-3 and 1 was neutral out of 10 panelists.
 
RightatNYU,

One more thing, any ideas for raising public awareness of our Constitution? We, as a country, are terribly (dangerously?) ignorant of the Constituiton as you can see in this thread alone. (Maybe this should be another thread...)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom