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 51 of 107 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361101 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 1064

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

  1. #501
    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
    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.
    I'm well aware that standard deviation is a math term. My point was that you used it in an out of place situation in an attempt to convey intelligence.

    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.
    What on EARTH are you talking about?

    a) I'm not a liberal, I'm a conservative
    b) I supported wholeheartedly John Roberts for the court
    c) You're right, this has nothing to do with prayer. That's not what I asked. I asked about precedent vs. Stare Decisis. That has nothing to do with religion, in the slightest. You completely and utterly missed the point and argued with yourself. Good work.

    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).
    Um, sort of. Those are the two most famous cases dealing with freedom of the press and libel, respectively. Both of them were famous for questioning the reach of the 1st amendment, a point which I guess you missed.

    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.
    Actually, that's not what the 6th amendment claims. The 6th doesn't mention the press. It offers the right to a fair trial, which can be challenged by a reporters right to confidentiality for sources.

    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.
    Let me be blunt. Your interpretation is misguided. Your analysis of the context in which the authors of the constitution is incredibly lacking in both facts and relevance. It doesn't matter what the founders were thinking when they wrote the constitution, it matters how what is on paper has been interpreted by the courts. And the courts have, since day one, disagreed with your interpretation.


    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.
    There IS a mandate. The recitation of the pledge is mandated by state and local school boards.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  2. #502
    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
    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.
    No matter your opinion on the NYT (I personally think it's a leftist paper, as is the WP), we're not discussing the NYT, we're discussing NYT vs US and NYT v Sullivan.

    The decisions in those cases are authored by the Supreme Court, a slightly more prestigious and influential source than any newspaper.

    But good to see that some conservatives (I should say republicans, because i doubt you're a conservative) are holding down the ignorance fort.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #503
    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
    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.
    While the constitution does not specifically define "god" as religion, the precedent of the court has determined that the form of the pledge is a religious activity. That is as effective as if it had been written into the constitution. Case set and match.
    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?
    The pledge IS mandated that it be read each day. You can pray however and whenever you want. However, no government or school board can mandate that a religious activity be recited daily. You can say the pledge however you like, but the board cannot require it to be read, as all school boards do now. Do you understand now?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #504
    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?

    I'm well aware that standard deviation is a math term. My point was that you used it in an out of place situation in an attempt to convey intelligence.
    Your telling me that when refering to math that a mathematical term isnt the right place and time for it? And I dont need to convey intelligence. Normal words can do just the same thing. Sometimes better.


    What on EARTH are you talking about?

    a) I'm not a liberal, I'm a conservative
    b) I supported wholeheartedly John Roberts for the court
    c) You're right, this has nothing to do with prayer. That's not what I asked. I asked about precedent vs. Stare Decisis. That has nothing to do with religion, in the slightest. You completely and utterly missed the point and argued with yourself. Good work.
    Well again you brought it up and I gave you a overview of it. I wasnt going to go waay off tangeant to prove to you senseless things. Likewise yo yourself were trying to convey intelligence were you not?

    But in any respect I really dont care about conveying to someone about how intellignet I or you are over the internet when yuo are over 3000miles away. To do this is senseless and is no more than a pi$$ing constest.

    Um, sort of. Those are the two most famous cases dealing with freedom of the press and libel, respectively. Both of them were famous for questioning the reach of the 1st amendment, a point which I guess you missed.
    Again I dont debate cases that have already been debated and settled over 40yrs ago to do this is senseless. So thats why it kinda went in one ear and out the other so to say. What I do care about is what the constitution itself means and says directly. Thats the point at hand. Not what some people discussed over 40yrs ago during a civil rights movement. Besides incase if you havent noticed times have changed just a tidbit since then. 100yrs ago a debate about school prayer wouldnt have even crossed peoples minds to go to a court room. So let me ask you something lets put all political affiliations and backgrounds and whatever else aside and lets just ask ourselves this one question and lets logically and ponderingly answer it.

    What does the unmandated phrase "under God" do? Does it hurt people physically or mentally in any way shape or form when they can simply say it however they like? Again put all gov aside for just a moment. Just ask yourself this. Now if it hurts people in a way thats harmful to their health then by all means we need to take all references to god and religion down everywhere whether its mandated or not. Now if its not going to hurt somone then whats the big deal? Its like arguing about the cross on Mt. Soledad. You have every right to look the other way.

    Actually, that's not what the 6th amendment claims. The 6th doesn't mention the press. It offers the right to a fair trial, which can be challenged by a reporters right to confidentiality for sources.
    True, but it is true that the press in its power cannot biasly report a trial. It could be caustic to the case. Thats why this was important in Kobys rape trial and Oj's and Jacksons trial. The press had to be very careful on what they said which is a prohibit on the first ammendment. But your right it doesnt directly mention the press.

  5. #505
    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?

    Let me be blunt. Your interpretation is misguided. Your analysis of the context in which the authors of the constitution is incredibly lacking in both facts and relevance. It doesn't matter what the founders were thinking when they wrote the constitution, it matters how what is on paper has been interpreted by the courts. And the courts have, since day one, disagreed with your interpretation.
    Ok you know as well as I do that this is just rhetoric speaking. Cause we both know in the ammendments the actual pledge itslef is technically unconstitutional. So to say they disagreed from day 1 is hogwash. CAUSE IF THATS THE CASE THEN THEY WOULDNT HAVE EVEN IMPLEMENTED THE PLEDGE AT ALL. Let alone ruled the phrase in it later. So again thats hogwash and you know it.

    Again whether you think im right or not doesnt matter casue the argument can go both ways buddy. We are only right by what we perceive to be as right. And you have a obviously different perception of whats right and wrong than whet I perceive to be right or wrong.

    There IS a mandate. The recitation of the pledge is mandated by state and local school boards.
    Where do you go to school again? NYU? So tell me MR. President of NYU? And whats your name? What time and in what class do you recite the pledge in and you were mandated to do so word for word correct? Also mabe your college is slacking when was the last time you have you recited the pledge word for word? Yeah like I thought. Its never been mandated you rhetoric loving bookie. It hasnt even been mandated at the grade school level for Christ sakes. I remember doing it once a week and then I even saw kids who didnt even recite it and never once were they ever punished for it. So that argument is voided too. Even currently at me college we never have " pledge of allegiance time." Anything else? Now when I go to the Air Force academy I will be mandated to do so. But that comes with the terrirtory.

  6. #506
    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
    Well again you brought it up and I gave you a overview of it. I wasnt going to go waay off tangeant to prove to you senseless things. Likewise yo yourself were trying to convey intelligence were you not?
    Actually, to be truthful, I brought it up and you gave me a poorly constructed overview of something totally different.

    But in any respect I really dont care about conveying to someone about how intellignet I or you are over the internet when yuo are over 3000miles away. To do this is senseless and is no more than a pi$$ing constest.
    So why was your first response to me headed "Oh don't make me debacle you?" or some other poorly worded, ill-advised taunt?

    Again I dont debate cases that have already been debated and settled over 40yrs ago to do this is senseless. So thats why it kinda went in one ear and out the other so to say. What I do care about is what the constitution itself means and says directly. Thats the point at hand. Not what some people discussed over 40yrs ago during a civil rights movement. Besides incase if you havent noticed times have changed just a tidbit since then. 100yrs ago a debate about school prayer wouldnt have even crossed peoples minds to go to a court room. So let me ask you something lets put all political affiliations and backgrounds and whatever else aside and lets just ask ourselves this one question and lets logically and ponderingly answer it.
    Wow. Um. I wasn't asking you to debate cases that were settled 40 years ago, I was asking you your opinion, as a constitutional scholar, of the cases that are currently before the court as they related to the precedent of the cases from 40 years ago.
    What does the unmandated phrase "under God" do?
    (for the 5th time, it IS mandated)

    Does it hurt people physically or mentally in any way shape or form when they can simply say it however they like?
    What it does do is take fed and state tax dollars and put them towards the endorsement of a religious activity. Which is unconstitutional. And harms me, because my money is being used to force the recitation of a religious prayer in a public school.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #507
    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?

    No matter your opinion on the NYT (I personally think it's a leftist paper, as is the WP), we're not discussing the NYT, we're discussing NYT vs US and NYT v Sullivan.
    Again my opinion was regarding the NYT not the cases.

    The decisions in those cases are authored by the Supreme Court, a slightly more prestigious and influential source than any newspaper.
    True cant argue there.

    But good to see that some conservatives (I should say republicans, because i doubt you're a conservative) are holding down the ignorance fort.
    Again, to say that I am ignorant for actually going with what the constitution says very explicitly is in direct correlation to your own ignorance and how little you really understand simple English and therefore the constitution. We can blow sunshine up our asses all night but the facts are as folllows: nowhere in the constitution does it prohibit God nor does it include, the pledge isnt mandated, and the gov endorsed it with the phrase some 50yrs ago. Hell if they enacted the phrase under jihad it still would be constitutional becasue its not mandated. Dont you get it? Your not made to say it therefore its constitutional. Those are the facts. I really hope you dont proclaim yourself to be a conservative casue conservatives are supposed to have common sense. Which you highly lack.

  8. #508
    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
    Ok you know as well as I do that this is just rhetoric speaking. Cause we both know in the ammendments the actual pledge itslef is technically unconstitutional. So to say they disagreed from day 1 is hogwash. CAUSE IF THATS THE CASE THEN THEY WOULDNT HAVE EVEN IMPLEMENTED THE PLEDGE AT ALL. Let alone ruled the phrase in it later. So again thats hogwash and you know it.
    What are you saying here? And just so you know, it was the legislature that added "under god" into the pledge, not the courts. The courts can still find that unconstitutional, which they will be doing shortly.

    Again whether you think im right or not doesnt matter casue the argument can go both ways buddy. We are only right by what we perceive to be as right. And you have a obviously different perception of whats right and wrong than whet I perceive to be right or wrong.
    And fortunately I have precedent and legal backing on my side.
    Where do you go to school again? NYU? So tell me MR. President of NYU? And whats your name? What time and in what class do you recite the pledge in and you were mandated to do so word for word correct? Also mabe your college is slacking when was the last time you have you recited the pledge word for word? Yeah like I thought. Its never been mandated you rhetoric loving bookie. It hasnt even been mandated at the grade school level for Christ sakes. I remember doing it once a week and then I even saw kids who didnt even recite it and never once were they ever punished for it. So that argument is voided too. Even currently at me college we never have " pledge of allegiance time." Anything else? Now when I go to the Air Force academy I will be mandated to do so. But that comes with the terrirtory.
    You're really missing the argument. In PUBLIC high schools (of which NYU is not one, being both private and a university) local school boards and state Regents boards mandate that the pledge of allegiance be announced over a loudspeaker or recited by the teacher every day at the beginning of class. While individual students are not mandated to recite the pledge, the courts have held in several cases that the coercive effect that a mandated recitaton of a prayer has on the children violates the establishment clause. It's not whether the kids are punished for it, or if there are negative effects. It's the fact that it's a mandated religious activity, funded by the government.

    If you have a problem with this, don't argue with me, argue with the Supreme Court. They're the ones disagreeing with you.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #509
    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 my opinion was regarding the NYT not the cases.
    And nowhere were we debating the NYT.

    Again, to say that I am ignorant for actually going with what the constitution says very explicitly is in direct correlation to your own ignorance and how little you really understand simple English and therefore the constitution.
    Actually, I was saying you were ignorant because of your foolish claim that all those who respected the work of the NYT or the WP had a "mental disorder." What my party really needs is more people making blanket accusations. Great.

    We can blow sunshine up our asses all night but the facts are as folllows: nowhere in the constitution does it prohibit God nor does it include, the pledge isnt mandated, and the gov endorsed it with the phrase some 50yrs ago. Hell if they enacted the phrase under jihad it still would be constitutional becasue its not mandated. Dont you get it? Your not made to say it therefore its constitutional. Those are the facts.
    I'll post this again for you, because you didn't seem to catch it:


    "Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause, of the First Amendment, both of which are operative against the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment."

    There it is, in black and white, LAW.

    Even though recitation is voluntary, religious activities that are imposed by a government entity in public schools are NOT constitutional. So you are, on all counts, unequivocably wrong. No debate. No interpretation. No discussion. I'm eagerly awaiting your acknowledgement of your error.

    I really hope you dont proclaim yourself to be a conservative casue conservatives are supposed to have common sense. Which you highly lack.
    What a shame that I "highly lack" something. You might want to give your extensive study of english another go-round.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  10. #510
    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?

    Actually, to be truthful, I brought it up and you gave me a poorly constructed overview of something totally different.
    Fair enough.

    So why was your first response to me headed "Oh don't make me debacle you?" or some other poorly worded, ill-advised taunt?
    Likewise to be honest with you, it was just a joke really. Do you really think I am that stupid to flame a moderator? All you would have to do is a couple clicks and I ma gone.

    Wow. Um. I wasn't asking you to debate cases that were settled 40 years ago, I was asking you your opinion, as a constitutional scholar, of the cases that are currently before the court as they related to the precedent of the cases from 40 years ago.
    O well again why would I even want to equivocate that? Thats senseless waisting of time on a keyboard . Besides I think there are more important things at hand other than equivocating cases to one another. And as I said before my major isnt law. I just am interested in the constitution itself. You must be a law major? Am I correct? Trying to be a lawyer or something?

    (for the 5th time, it IS mandated)
    No its not. This simple question will solidify this debate. Was there a century standing next to you at your college during "pledge of allegiance time" watching to make sure you recited it word for word? Ok now that thats finished next debate.



    What it does do is take fed and state tax dollars and put them towards the endorsement of a religious activity. Which is unconstitutional. And harms me, because my money is being used to force the recitation of a religious prayer in a public school.
    I didnt know it costs money to speak and recite a sentence?

    But with all money matters aside. You didnt answer the question. I asked you healthfully does it inflict any harm?

    It doesnt cost anymore tax money to recite a pledge in a public school due to it costing the same amount regardless whether you recite a pledge or not.

Page 51 of 107 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361101 ... 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
  •