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 50 of 107 FirstFirst ... 40484950515260100 ... LastLast
Results 491 to 500 of 1064

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

  1. #491
    Banned SKILMATIC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    04-03-06 @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,407

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

    You are woefully ignorant of commonly held knowledge.
    This from a moderator?

    Ask 1000 Constitutional scholars if what you're claiming is true, and 1000 will tell you no.
    WELL its kinda funny you mentioned that casue I am one. Well mabe the rest 999 will go along with you on that one. But remember if you are going to take a poll you must do so failry and calculate the standard deviation accordingly. So what makes you a scholar on the constitution? Have u ever done any extensive research on it? Do you even know what our first constitution was? Or how about this, tell me the first 2 parties that existed in america? Just a little pop quiz if you dont mind participating?

    I've heard of people interpreting the Constitution differently, but this is something else.
    Yes your right its called reading thoroughly and having a fond common knowledge of what the nglish language means. Most cannot and haven't done this. Which btw the panelists were scholars as well of the constitution and or early and modern american history. So in actuality they knew more than I.

    It has NOTHING to do with places of religion in that sense of the word establishment.
    Then why is it right next to the word religion and the only definiton in regards to the dictionary states a place of religion when in regards to the word establishment? Kinda funny isnt it? Please look back at the dictionary post I encourage you. You know I ma handling a debate with both of you. And its getting to the point that its going in circles. Dont you 2 have anything else to debate with? Cause this is the same argument I had with an individual earlier on the thread.

  2. #492
    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
    You know I ma handling a debate with both of you. And its getting to the point that its going in circles. Dont you 2 have anything else to debate with? Cause this is the same argument I had with an individual earlier on the thread.
    You know what, I think I'm going to have to give up. You make about as much sense as a Brothers Quay film without LSD: none.

  3. #493
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SKILMATIC
    This from a moderator?
    Yes?

    WELL its kinda funny you mentioned that casue I am one. Well mabe the rest 999 will go along with you on that one. But remember if you are going to take a poll you must do so failry and calculate the standard deviation accordingly. So what makes you a scholar on the constitution? Have u ever done any extensive research on it? Do you even know what our first constitution was? Or how about this, tell me the first 2 parties that existed in america? Just a little pop quiz if you dont mind participating?
    This is amusing. You think because you throw around a phrase like "standard deviation" that it makes you a scholar on the Constitution. Extensive research that I've done? Well, I'm taking my 3rd and 4th classes on the Constitution now, took Con Law last summer, and am gearing up for law school with a seminar taught by the former dean of NYU's law school and current president of the university. What do you mean "what our first constitution was?" You mean the Articles of Confederation, which weren't actually a constitution? And the first two parties? Federalist and Dem/Rep. Why don't you try asking me things I didn't learn in 11th grade civics.

    How about this: As a fellow constitutional scholar, what do you think about the prospects for the future court based on Roberts' endorsement of historical precedent, but refusal to unconditionally accept stare decisis? And in a completely different vein, what do you think about the insistence of some parties on the right to an unsullied reputation even in the wake of NYT v US and NYT v Sullivan? Or, in yet another vein, what solution do you propose in cases where the 6th amendment and the 1st contradict each other, such as in cases where confidential sources of reporters could exonerate defendents?

    Yes your right its called reading thoroughly and having a fond common knowledge of what the nglish language means. Most cannot and haven't done this. Which btw the panelists were scholars as well of the constitution and or early and modern american history. So in actuality they knew more than I.
    I don't doubt that they knew more than you.

    Then why is it right next to the word religion and the only definiton in regards to the dictionary states a place of religion when in regards to the word establishment? Kinda funny isnt it? Please look back at the dictionary post I encourage you. You know I ma handling a debate with both of you. And its getting to the point that its going in circles. Dont you 2 have anything else to debate with? Cause this is the same argument I had with an individual earlier on the thread.
    And he probably gave up out of frustration too.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #494
    Banned SKILMATIC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    04-03-06 @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,407

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

    YOU show me how God is not connected to religion. The only one that comes close that I can think of is the God of Deism. Although I am a Deist myself, it wouldn't be right or constitutional for the government to favor It.
    Again I never said this and neither is it even apart of this argument. Like I said before God is a spirit not a religion or a establishment of it. God himself isnt even an establishment. "Respecting an establishment of religion" where in that does it imply to God? They couldbe talking about Buddhists for crying out loud who have no God, . Religions are religions not people or spirirts although they worship under them.

    I beleive the constitution is implying that it shoudnt give waiver to a single religion as a mandate in any of its gov. Becasue if you know history the problem wasnt becasue religions but A religion. It was the fact that gov had given mandate to one powerful religion that had no other competition to even out the tyranny. Now in our case becasue the founding fathers knew that there were many religions here becasue thats why this country got started in the forst place casue of freedom of religion. They knew that they couldnt implement one religon in gov becasue 1)they knew that it wouldnt be fair to those other religions and beleifs, 2)but that it will also end up being like all those regimes in early europe that were controlled by religion. This couldnt happen. So in that was the constitution written and very clearly defined as the different establishments or types of religions couldnt be favored. Now all this was predicated on religion not god. God is a interpreted thing. If someone just says god without another word around it what would you think? Well of course you would think your god whoever that may be. If you are an atheist then of course there is no god. But in your case becasue its not mandated you have the choice to not say it. And the god beleivers have every right to think of what god they want. Therefore it is constitutional it doesnt breach the constitution while still being fair to the public of all religious genres.

    Remember the constitution is interprable in many different ways. And becasue of this is why there are debates. Rightfully so. However, no one can totally refute a definition of it unless its unrerasonable of course.

  5. #495
    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 RightatNYU
    And he probably gave up out of frustration too.
    I have had to go back and explain the same things over and over. You can see he still doesn't get the problem with the pledge. I already pointed out it is the government endorsement that is a problem (he used endorse and enforce as though they were interchangeable), not forced recitation by students. Basically nothing is getting through. Well, one big thing. He went from 'no separation of chruch and state' to his current position, but I don't think he's willing to make another big change in his beliefs like that. Not anytime soon, at least. (How'd you like my joke? I was going for something Dennis Millerish. So if you don't get it, good. )
    Last edited by Columbusite; 09-27-05 at 02:27 AM.

  6. #496
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SKILMATIC
    Again I never said this and neither is it even apart of this argument. Like I said before God is a spirit not a religion or a establishment of it. God himself isnt even an establishment. "Respecting an establishment of religion" where in that does it imply to God? They couldbe talking about Buddhists for crying out loud who have no God, . Religions are religions not people or spirirts although they worship under them.

    I beleive the constitution is implying that it shoudnt give waiver to a single religion as a mandate in any of its gov. Becasue if you know history the problem wasnt becasue religions but A religion. It was the fact that gov had given mandate to one powerful religion that had no other competition to even out the tyranny. Now in our case becasue the founding fathers knew that there were many religions here becasue thats why this country got started in the forst place casue of freedom of religion. They knew that they couldnt implement one religon in gov becasue 1)they knew that it wouldnt be fair to those other religions and beleifs, 2)but that it will also end up being like all those regimes in early europe that were controlled by religion. This couldnt happen. So in that was the constitution written and very clearly defined as the different establishments or types of religions couldnt be favored. Now all this was predicated on religion not god. God is a interpreted thing. If someone just says god without another word around it what would you think? Well of course you would think your god whoever that may be. If you are an atheist then of course there is no god. But in your case becasue its not mandated you have the choice to not say it. And the god beleivers have every right to think of what god they want. Therefore it is constitutional it doesnt breach the constitution while still being fair to the public of all religious genres.

    Remember the constitution is interprable in many different ways. And becasue of this is why there are debates. Rightfully so. However, no one can totally refute a definition of it unless its unrerasonable of course.
    "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to each of practice religion."

    Reynolds v. Supra

    A) The pledge, as currently read, is a religious activity, as agreed by the Supreme Court.
    B) Because the reading of it is mandated by school boards, that is time during the teaching day that is allotted to a religions activity.
    C) Schools are funded by tax revenue.
    D) Therefore, tax revenue is directly levied to support a religious activity.
    E) That's unconstitutional.

    You're right, many interpretations of the Constitution are allowed. EXCEPT in cases where the court has already enumerated exactly what specific clauses mean. That precludes debate.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #497
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Columbusite
    I have had to go back and explain the same things over and over. You can see he still doesn't get the problem with the pledge. I already pointed out it is the government endorsement that is a problem (he used endorse and enforce as though they were interchangeable), not forced recitation by students. Basically nothing is getting through. Well, one big thing. He went from 'no separation of chruch and state' to his current position, but I don't think he's willing to make another big change in his beliefs like that. Not anytime soon, at least. (How'd you like my joke? I was going for something Dennis Millerish. So if you don't get it, good. )
    Hahaha, it seemed a bit out there. I was like "I don't even know who Dennis Quay is!?!"

    nice work.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  8. #498
    Banned SKILMATIC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    04-03-06 @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,407

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

    This is amusing. You think because you throw around a phrase like "standard deviation" that it makes you a scholar on the Constitution.
    Actually that has nothing to do with the constitution. It was a mathematical term. I guess you arent a math guy either, but thats ok. I will still work on you.

    How about this: As a fellow constitutional scholar, what do you think about the prospects for the future court based on Roberts' endorsement of historical precedent, but refusal to unconditionally accept stare decisis?
    Why does this not suprise me? I knew you, being a liberal, were going to bring up John Roberts in this sometime or another. First off this has nothing to do with the constitutional matter of prayer in that him performing his judicial duties as a supreme court judge by upholding the law as its very difinitevely defined much like the constitution is. Alot of mental disorders are unwiavered in anything that Roberts exclaims as if they never listened to his answers. But you know what? The thing is it doesnt matter since the vote is predominantly conservative he is already admitted anyway. Is this enough, or do I have to write you a book? Which btw I am not going to do anyway casue its getting late.

    And in a completely different vein, what do you think about the insistence of some parties on the right to an unsullied reputation even in the wake of NYT v US and NYT v Sullivan?
    IS THAT THE MONTGOMERY ALABAMA ONE? Its been a long while so bare with me on this one. This was like 3 yrs ago. The trial was held somewhere in the mid 1960's and it was about the civil rights movement. Sullivan was a commissioner and it was Brennan who was the justice. Lets see what else do I remember? And they awarded somethig like a .5million bucks? Thats seriously all I remember from that case. IM not a law guy I am a history guy but I also study the constitution and mostly just the constitution. I do poli sci for fun and History is my hobby(well war stuff).

    Or, in yet another vein, what solution do you propose in cases where the 6th amendment and the 1st contradict each other, such as in cases where confidential sources of reporters could exonerate defendents?
    You mean the point that the first claims that congress shall not abridge freedom of speech in the press, but in the 6th it claims that press shall have no influence or a biased view in that trial? Which in a way limits speech. Yeah I have heard argiments both ways for that as well. Again I am not going to write a book. But your much abliged to for me if you want.

    I don't doubt that they knew more than you

    Well at least we agree on something.


    And he probably gave up out of frustration too.
    Well not really. I just read repetatively what the constitution says word for word in regarding this matter then exlained what it meant very deligently. I broke it down in regards of English and dissection therof. And I broke it down to them as far as the context in which they wrote it and why they wrote what they did. Because in no shape or form doen it imply God at all being unconstitutional. Just religions which were the threat. God isnt a threat its the religions who consistently have a problem with using God as their reasoning. And not to mention as you said before that there needs to be a mandate for it to be illegal. So there you go you just solved your own argument. If you dont ahve anything else then I think I ma going to bed. I am tired. But it was good debating with you.

  9. #499
    Banned SKILMATIC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    04-03-06 @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,407

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RightatNYU
    Hahaha, it seemed a bit out there. I was like "I don't even know who Dennis Quay is!?!"

    nice work.
    Well in his post he proclaims I had a problem with the difference between 2 very different words. But infact I didnt. I told him to define them for me. Which when he finally did he got all upset after I debacled him again. Also I have always beena huge supporter of seperation of chirch and state but God isnt a religion and has no ties with such. Its the religions who use God as their reasoning. God has nothing to do with it. God is a spirit. How many times do I have to tell you.

    You know the comment can go both ways that nothing is getting through. But when it all comes down to it. Does the constitution ever mention one thing about God whether it should be extradited or included? No so therefore the argument can go both ways. Religion doesnt equal God. There arent the same.


    Due to the pledge not being mandated then the pledge is constitutional as is. Just like since prayer is mandated in a public school(which is a gov endorsed establishment) we can still pray however and whenever we want. Just like the pledge even though its endorsed by Gov we can say it however and whever we like. So theres no argument. Its ok as is. Any questions?

  10. #500
    Banned SKILMATIC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    04-03-06 @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,407

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

    Btw the NYT is garbage. You actually beleive that crap? Let me guess, you love and beleive everything you hear from the washington post? If you say yes, I am quitting this argument becasue I refuse to debate against mental disorders its a waiste of time.

Page 50 of 107 FirstFirst ... 40484950515260100 ... 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
  •