• 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.
AlbqOwl said:
This whole discussion has become absurd. Surely there are more pressing concerns to be explored than the attempt by an angry few to deny a lot of people the right to say a patriotic pledge that means a great deal to them.

Your exactly right, this whole discussion has become absurd. You refuse to answer many posts, and continue to use the Founding Fathers and "historical, cultural, and symbological" to explain your illogical reasoning.

Your real problem is the fact that you think removing Under God is a way to let the Athiests win. Why don't you go hangout with Pat Robertson and read a few Jerry Farwell books.
Then go out and kill some gays and pro-choice people, because your "GOD" says Gays must be killed.
 
AlbqOwl said:
There is no requirement that you put your child in a school that is not teaching what you consider to be acceptable for your child.

My tax dollars are taken at gunpoint to finance those schools. That's "enforcement" if there ever was any.
 
AlbqOwl said:
You have come up with no reason for why it is illegal other than you want it to be.

Hmmmm...86 pages so far, 854 posts, and AlbqOwl can't see any reasons why he's wrong...

...he should try reading the posts that disagree with him.
 
Didn't I just write an explanation of how those illegal words in the Pledge of Allegiance harm me and my child?

AlbqOwl said:
No, what you wrote was an emotional dissertation on why you didn't like the Pledge and that you were required to 'unindoctrinate' your child as a result of the Pledge.

Then you're not reading what I wrote. Try doing that.


AlbqOwl said:
If you take 'under God' out of the Pledge, I could as easily say that my child is traumatized by not being able to recite the Pledge in the way s/he wishes to say it. That would be just as absurd.

She won't be able to say "under God" if she wants to? Do you send her to school with her mouth taped shut?
 
Caine said:
Stating that we are "Under God" yes that is. How do we not endorse the establishment of religion when we are "Under God". How can we possibly NOT be endorsing the establishment of religion when we place our trust in god ("In God We Trust).

Answer those questions directly and stop getting off subject.

And I suppose "under no god" would certainly NOT be government endorsement of Atheism, heavens no! :doh
 
Caine said:
2. In removing god from the government? If your god needs government support to get children's attention in schools, your religion or any religion isn't worthy of following in the first place.

A relevent Ingersoll quote!

"Religion is an individual matter, and each soul should be left entirely free to form its own opinions and to judge of its accountability to a supposed supreme being. With religion, government has nothing whatever to do. Government is founded upon force, and force should never interfere with the religious opinions of men. Laws should define the rights of men and their duties toward each other, and these laws should be for the benefit of man in this world."

(bold emphasis added)
 
AlbqOwl said:
It was legal because it is not an establishement of religion but an acknowledgement of the historical and cultural religious heritage of our country and is based on the belief of the founders that we all have certain God-given rights that no one can take away.

Umm, then the phrase should read, "one nation, under Nature's God" as that is the one specifically mentioned in the DoI.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer.

Oy.

Yes, I'm well aware. The case cited was Engel v. Vitale, dealing with a non-denominational prayer in NY schools.

The reason I cited it was not because of the prayer, but because of the court's stance on mandatory v non mandatory recitations.

The court has held that even if something is not mandatory, if it is recited each day, it is coercive.

Therefore your inane argument of "if they dont want to say it they don't have to " is irrelevant. So stop using it.

As a side note, that decision also had a few choice things to say about religion and government entanglement.
 
I have read every post, and every one on the anti-under-God side has said pretty much the same thing. Despite repeated requests to do so, nobody can show how the phrase establishes religion, and nobody has given any credible evidence that the phrase is in any way coercive any more than anything else taught in school. Nobody has shown me any credible case of their livelihood, property, safety, security, or any unalienable right being compromised by the words 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I have not responded to every post because I do have a life to live outside of this message board and it becomes tedious giving the same responses to the same unsubstantiated points stated again and again. But I have responded to every issue, some several times. My specific arguments have been ignored or dismissed as each of you return to the mantra of "It is unconstitutional because I say it is (or because a liberal activist judge said it was.)"

When you boil it all down to the elemental concepts, the one thing any of you have as defense is that you don't like the phrase and you would deny everybody else the option of saying it or require them to be disruptive if they chose to insert it. The proof of the emptiness of your arguments is your turning away from even the pretense of seriously debating the issues to a let's-beat-up-on-Owl approach. That pretty well signals that you're out of what little ammunition you had.

And now since you seem to be out of what limited arguments you offered, and you have come up with nothing additional that is constructive to contribute, I'll conclude that my arguments stand without refutation. I accept that you all think they have been completely refuted.

I will now look for a new good discussion on a different topic that is a bit more challenging that the game of "Is too, is not". Have a good weekend everybody.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
The Founding Fathers had no illusions that our unalienable rights came from Satan.

But because they DID have illusions that these "unalienable rights" came from what they called "God", it's okay to violate the Constitution those very same people wrote, right?
 
I find that "pledging allegiance" to an inanimate object is like worshipping a golden calf. That is a contradiction by putting a god's name with it. People think that god is patiriotic yet the promised land of america is not mentioned in the bible. lol god is not American. I am sure he wouldn't want his name on money (being the root of all evil). It's someone else's mythology or superstition, but I was raised with it, so I know of what I speak.
 
Navy Pride said:
I am saying if they hear it, and I am not sure they will, that they will strike down the 9th circuit court opinion as they usually do.......
You really, really need to stop your posts that contain bold faced lies! What is it about the truth that eludes your capacitiy to write?

It is a FACT that the Supremes do not "usually" overturn rulings by the 9th Cicuit Court AND it is a FACT that statistically the 9th Circuit Court's decisions that are overturned are done so at virtually the same rate as the other Cicuit Courts.

You really need to stop making posts that are totally filled with lies and that source whacko right wing bloggers as your source. We've been down this road before and I clearly posted links that prove your posts are full of $hit/lies so why do you insist on reposting these lies when you've already been proven to be wrong? Are you really that stupid or do you only read your own posts and remain clueless to the factual posts that are in this community?

I think the only "whacko" is someone who ignores proven fact to further their beliefs, for it must surely be a sign of ignorance at best or mental incapacity at worst, or maybe both?
 
Navy Pride said:
It is a democratic form of government that is a republic and elections are decided by the majority......
Incredible! Navy's posts define the laws of probability! I think it is statistically impossible that one poster can make so many posts that contain so many errors! Even if random words are typed together in a "jumble" those posts would not be as wrong factually as Navy's posts are! His posts are a freak of nature!

Imagine the brain power it takes to write that elections in the USA are decided by the majority? Imagine that when cornered, again, by others in this community that take you to task for again posting untruths that your response is "get a life"? Navy Pride, you're a frickin' genius!

Do you think that someone who is so consistently factually incorrect in their posts doesn't know that virtually everyone in this community cracks up when those posts are read due to the amazing ineptitude?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
But because they DID have illusions that these "unalienable rights" came from what they called "God", it's okay to violate the Constitution those very same people wrote, right?

Not just any god, "Nature's God".
 
Columbusite said:
Not just any god, "Nature's God".

Care to elaborate on this "Nature's God?"
 
Caine said:
Care to elaborate on this "Nature's God?"

I'd say it is clearly referring to the God of Deism. The connection between nature and Deism is shown in Deist literature such as Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason", (available online for free). This God does not interfere in the affairs of men and in fact, gave man the gift of reason which was obviously what was appealed to when drafting our Constitution, not revelation/superstition.
 
In light of all the hurricanes were having, we should probably keep it in there a little longer.
 
How can a "god" be all-powerful and man have freewill? It is a zero-sum gain.
 
If the founding fathers wanted "under God" in the pledge, they would have put it there.

FVF
 
FredFlash said:
If the founding fathers wanted "under God" in the pledge, they would have put it there.

FVF

Francis Bellamy's pledge postdates the founding fathers by a century.
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

And to tell the truth, I may well have been against this "under God" addition back a half century ago when it was introduced, however, it is here to stay unless the atheists and their supporters become dominate..
 
earthworm said:
Francis Bellamy's pledge postdates the founding fathers by a century.
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

And to tell the truth, I may well have been against this "under God" addition back a half century ago when it was introduced, however, it is here to stay unless the atheists and their supporters become dominate..

The pledge has outlived it's usefullness (if it ever was usefull). Who says the pledge anyway?
 
Where's the option for WHO CARES? There are so much more important things we could be worrying about. The pledge barely even means anything to anyone anymore, since we say it every day in school. It's not pledging allegiance to your country, it's just something we rattle off half-heartedly every morning before class.
 
Lizai said:
Where's the option for WHO CARES? There are so much more important things we could be worrying about. The pledge barely even means anything to anyone anymore, since we say it every day in school. It's not pledging allegiance to your country, it's just something we rattle off half-heartedly every morning before class.

I haven't said the pledge since 5th grade. The funny thing about it is that it is more like a prayer. Tell me you have never heard someone say "amen" at the end of just out of habit from reciting common prayers in unison.
 
earthworm said:
Francis Bellamy's pledge postdates the founding fathers by a century.
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

And to tell the truth, I may well have been against this "under God" addition back a half century ago when it was introduced, however, it is here to stay unless the atheists and their supporters become dominate..

"One Nation Under God' was taken from the 1702 letter that John Adams wrote to the Danbury Baptists.

FVF
 
Yes, the pledge, "Under God" should definitely be in the Pledge of Allegiance. It is not the government trying to shove religion down peoples' throats as it is a symbol of our national history. When our founding fathers signed the Consitution they put, "In the year of our Lord" at the bottom. Obviously, Christianity is a part of our history. But the phrase, "God" doesn't even have to mean an endorsement of the Christian faith. It could mean virtually any faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom