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 82 of 107 FirstFirst ... 3272808182838492 ... LastLast
Results 811 to 820 of 1064

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

  1. #811
    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 Deegan
    Still on about this are we?

    Anyone ever find a logical reason that the same judge that threw out "under God" in the pledge, just himself earlier, asked, oh......sorry, told someone to put their hand on the bible, and ask for Gods mercy.

    The explanation so far has been, they only do this once in a long while, so it's perfectly o.k. I don't know about anyone else, but this is indeed hypocritical, no matter how you try and justify it.
    No, the reason for it, as I've explained time and time again, is because the pledge is mandatorily recited while recitation is encouraged to tens of millions of children each day. Swearing in on a bible is not a universal thing, and happens to adults. This is the clarification the court has made over and over and over.

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

  2. #812
    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 AlbqOwl
    Really? Don't you think your opinion is based on fact regardless of the fact that you haven't shown how it is? Can you show how you have qualified your opinion in any way? Those who agree with you are the reasonable ones, right? And there is no point in debating me because I hold a different point of view?
    It's not an opinion. It's a fact. A decided case. A given. A norm. A standard. If you want, I can cite you the case AGAIN where it explains how you're wrong, but I doubt it would do a thing for you.

    This is an amazing thing. The only productive debate is with people who agree with you or that you can persuade no matter how irrational an emotional rant may be? I'll have to give that some serious thought. It certainly is a new approach to the concept.
    No, the only productive debate is with people who are at least marginally willing to accept that they might be wrong about something.

    Debating with you is about as productive as:

    "Bush personally flew a plane into the world trade center"
    "Uh, no he didn't."
    "Yes he did and la la la la you cant convince me otherwise"
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #813
    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 AlbqOwl
    Unless you can show that religion is illegal--which the Constitution pretty much squashes that idea--then there is no way a cultural and historical metaphor alluding to it is illegal.
    The government endorsement of religion is illegal.

    Your personal ideology should not be able to dictate public policy than should mine. I have again and again invited the anti-under-God-prhase people to show how they are harmed in any way by the presence of those two voluntary words.
    Its been argued many times before. Jehova's witnesses feel that swearing something "under god" is against their religion. By being coerced into saying it by societal norms and government sponsorship, the first amendment is violated.

    In matters of personal preference, the majority should prevail. When you side is in the majority, you can take out the prhase, throw out the Pledge, do anything you want. Until that time, as the Pledge does you or nobody else no harm whatsoever and brings pleasure to many, I will go with the democratic principle that the people should decide what their Pledge will be.
    We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. And no, the majority should and will not prevail when something is unconstitutional.

    The rest should take lessons in anger management and study the definition of tolerance.
    I have tolerance for people of every belief, except for the "I could not possibly be wrong, so therefore I will ignore all the evidence presented before me that contradicts it" crowd. Attitudes like yours are what is wrong with our party, and why liberals find it easy to paint us as rigid dogmatists.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #814
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl
    Unless you can show that religion is illegal--which the Constitution pretty much squashes that idea--then there is no way a cultural and historical metaphor alluding to it is illegal.
    I didn't say religion is illegal. You should address posts instead of igniting strawmen.

    I said the words were illegal, ie, the "under God" words appended to the Pledge, which is what this thread is about. That violates the Establishment Clause, as you know perfectly well.

  5. #815
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    03-08-06 @ 04:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    567

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

    RE : RightatNYU
    It was Jehova's witness's that got the Supreme Court to say you didn't have to recite the pledge only stand respectfuly or leave the room.
    In the ancient days of my youth we had opening excercises.In which we had the pledge of allegiance,a reading from psalms in the KJV and we recited, out loud the lords prayer. It was the protestant version , so the Catholics stoped befor the protestants. You know what, no one fainted, had an epileptic fit, or was mentaly injured. You will note the Catholics and protestants reited the Lords prayers slightly diferently yet nothing catastrophic happened. So why can;t the Malcontents that dont like ' UNDER GOD ' just delete it when they say it. The way Catholics deleted the Protestant addiion to the Lords Prayer?

  6. #816
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JOHNYJ
    So why can;t the Malcontents that dont like ' UNDER GOD ' just delete it when they say it. The way Catholics deleted the Protestant addiion to the Lords Prayer?
    Because the issue isn't about voluntary utterances, it's about a federal law. To wit, the act of congress that added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.

  7. #817
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,115

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
    I didn't say religion is illegal. You should address posts instead of igniting strawmen.

    I said the words were illegal, ie, the "under God" words appended to the Pledge, which is what this thread is about. That violates the Establishment Clause, as you know perfectly well.
    I didn't say that you said religion is illegal. I was addressing the post. If you don't like the way I express myself, please feel free to ignore the expressions.

    You say that the words 'under God' included in the last of several amended Pledges of Allegiance--I did rewrite your sentence a bit here to make it more accurate--violates the establishment clause. You say that I know that perfectly well. Well, no I don't know that perfectly well. In order to show that it violates the establishment clause, you would have to show that every state Constitution is illegal because children of the respective states are expected to study their state constitutions and history.

    You would further have to show what religion is being established. What God is being referred to? What doctrine is being taught? What forms of worship are being required. What is the reward for supporting these beliefs? What are the consequences if you do not? Is this being presented as religious faith? Or as a voluntary patriotic exercise?

    And finally you would have to show how this is any way harmful to any person. You would have to show that somebody's livelihood, safety, security, or any unalienable right is being violated. The idea that the non-believing child might not like to have to hear the Pledge simply won't wash. Any child may have to hear any manner of things in school they don't like to hear, but there is no implied constiuttional right to be able to hear only what you like. If there was, schools wouldn't be able to teach much of anything.

    Take it from an old debate coach. You don't get points for saying something is or is not true with nothing to back it up. "Because I said so" works for Mom or Dad with the kids. It doesn't make your argument convincing.
    Last edited by AlbqOwl; 10-06-05 at 02:50 PM.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  8. #818
    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 JOHNYJ
    RE : RightatNYU
    It was Jehova's witness's that got the Supreme Court to say you didn't have to recite the pledge only stand respectfuly or leave the room.
    In the ancient days of my youth we had opening excercises.In which we had the pledge of allegiance,a reading from psalms in the KJV and we recited, out loud the lords prayer. It was the protestant version , so the Catholics stoped befor the protestants. You know what, no one fainted, had an epileptic fit, or was mentaly injured. You will note the Catholics and protestants reited the Lords prayers slightly diferently yet nothing catastrophic happened. So why can;t the Malcontents that dont like ' UNDER GOD ' just delete it when they say it. The way Catholics deleted the Protestant addiion to the Lords Prayer?
    Because the actions in the "ancient days" of your youth were unconstitutional, like "under god".

    I mean, seriously though, in my ancient days, blacks had to sit in the back of the bus. It wasn't that bad, they could still ride, there was no problem, so why can't they just deal with it now like they used to?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #819
    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 AlbqOwl
    I didn't say that you said religion is illegal. I was addressing the post. If you don't like the way I express myself, please feel free to ignore the expressions.

    You say that the words 'under God' included in the last of several amended Pledges of Allegiance--I did rewrite your sentence a bit here to make it more accurate--violates the establishment clause. You say that I know that perfectly well. Well, no I don't know that perfectly well. In order to show that it violates the establishment clause, you would have to show that every state Constitution is illegal because children of the respective states are expected to study their state constitutions and history.

    You would further have to show what religion is being established. What God is being referred to? What doctrine is being taught? What forms of worship are being required. What is the reward for supporting these beliefs? What are the consequences if you do not? Is this being presented as religious faith? Or as a voluntary patriotic exercise?

    And finally you would have to show how this is any way harmful to any person. You would have to show that somebody's livelihood, safety, security, or any unalienable right is being violated. The idea that the non-believing child might not like to have to hear the Pledge simply won't wash. Any child may have to hear any manner of things in school they don't like to hear, but there is no implied constiuttional right to be able to hear only what you like. If there was, schools wouldn't be able to teach much of anything.

    Take it from an old debate coach. You don't get points for saying something is or is not true with nothing to back it up. "Because I said so" works for Mom or Dad with the kids. It doesn't make your argument convincing.
    You used to be a debate coach? Right.

    Shouldn't you have learned then that you also don't get points for ignoring everything that contradicts your previously held notions?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  10. #820
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl
    I didn't say that you said religion is illegal. I was addressing the post. If you don't like the way I express myself, please feel free to ignore the expressions.

    You say that the words 'under God' included in the last of several amended Pledges of Allegiance--I did rewrite your sentence a bit here to make it more accurate--violates the establishment clause. You say that I know that perfectly well. Well, no I don't know that perfectly well. In order to show that it violates the establishment clause, you would have to show that every state Constitution is illegal because children of the respective states are expected to study their state constitutions and history.
    Very well, I slightly mis-interpreted your post. Happens to everyone. Won't fight over that.

    No. The United States Constitution not bounded by any state constitution. Quite the reverse. Nor is it necessary to demonstrate the lawfulness or lack thereof of any or all state constitutions to show that a federal act is in violation of the federal Constitution. Your harping on state constitutions is totally irrelevent and quite the stylish non sequitur.



    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl
    You would further have to show what religion is being established. What God is being referred to? What doctrine is being taught? What forms of worship are being required. What is the reward for supporting these beliefs? What are the consequences if you do not? Is this being presented as religious faith? Or as a voluntary patriotic exercise?
    It establishes the religion that God exists.

    It refers to any God, or all gods.

    It teaches that there is a god, and the the United States is subservient to It.

    It requires all forms or worship, or none. That is irrelevant. I just now invented a religion that establishes worship by saying the word "god". He's the Pledge God. The Pledge God will arrive on Earth when his name is said a trillion trillion times. Every failure to utter His Holy Name delays the day of his arrival.

    I can invent a religion as easily as Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Joseph Smith Jr, Charles Manson, L. Ron Hubbard, and Pat Roberston. I just did.

    The reward of the Pledge God is one's satisfaction that one's complied with Federal Law and brought the day of His arrival that much closer.

    The consequence of not worshipping the Pledge God as ordained is guilty knowledge that you have failed Him and delayed the day of His Coming.

    The utterance of the Holy Word in the Pledge is now part of a religious faith.

    It can't be a voluntary patriotic excercise when the form of that excercise is defined by federal law.


    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl
    And finally you would have to show how this is any way harmful to any person. You would have to show that somebody's livelihood, safety, security, or any unalienable right is being violated. The idea that the non-believing child might not like to have to hear the Pledge simply won't wash. Any child may have to hear any manner of things in school they don't like to hear, but there is no implied constiuttional right to be able to hear only what you like. If there was, schools wouldn't be able to teach much of anything.
    That's an easy one. My child is harmed because while I'm trying to teach her to use her mind, and she has a most excellent and sharp mind; while I'm trying to teach her to deal with the real world and understand how the real world operates, she's receiving conflicting signals from persons in authority she's been instructed to respect, her teachers.

    Thus she recieves, every morning at school, indoctrination from the government that God exists. So instead of teaching her about the right way to get the Charizard to battle the Pikachu on her Ninentdo, I have to take time to explain to her that God is no more real, but a lot less fun, than a Togepi.

    Now, you may not consider that teaching my child how best to defeat imaginary monsters is a good use of time. I could be spending the time teaching her about trees, or improving her dodgeball skills, or whatever, that's not the point. It's not your time. It's my time. It's her time.

    And any time lost because it's wasted by superstitious belief, is time lost forever, and that's harm. That's real, measurable, harm.

    Sure, I have to deprogram her from because she gets infections from her friends who are victims of their own parents superstitions. There's absolutely no reason why I should have to also fight the federal government, not when the federal constitution forbids exactly that kind of establishment.

    And that's because I said so. It is MY time.

Page 82 of 107 FirstFirst ... 3272808182838492 ... 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
  •