• 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.
FredFlash said:
You are rejecting the absolute and exclusive authority of Christ over the things that are be rendered only to God.

No man can serve two masters. You need to decide who is the authority over your duties to God. Choose either the government or God?

Holy crap do people like you scare me. Didnt Christ say render to ceasar what is ceasar's and to god what is god's?

Your statements make me think that your loyalty is to your faith and if your faith demanded it you would commit treason against our government.
 
It was not in the original pledge of allegiance, so I wouldn't miss it.


In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
 
Dear Lachean:

Sorry to frighten you my friend. The verse you reference is where the separation of church and state came from.

If I had to chose between Christ or the government as my religious authority, the government would come in second. Keep in mind that my faith in Christ is similar to the faith of the founders in that it includes a belief that Christ ordained a Strict Separation of Church and State.
 
FredFlash said:
No man can serve two masters. You need to decide who is the authority over your duties to God. Choose either the government or God?

FVF

Doesn't God require a flat tax of 10%? Hmmm...... you may be on to something there Fred. Can we pick one or the other?
 
Lachean said:
Holy crap do people like you scare me. Didnt Christ say render to ceasar what is ceasar's and to god what is god's?

Your statements make me think that your loyalty is to your faith and if your faith demanded it you would commit treason against our government.

Why would this scare you?

We all do the same thing. For some people, their master is their own mind. For other's it is god.

I am definitely the former. I do what I think is right, regardless of what the goverment would have me think.

The ones that truly scare me our ones that look to goverment to decide what actions are acceptable.
 
Captain America said:
Doesn't God require a flat tax of 10%? Hmmm...... you may be on to something there Fred. Can we pick one or the other?

lol, thats a good point. but its my opinion that anyone of true faith trusts their god more than their government. unfortunately, there are radicals on both sides, those who follow god so closely that they dont see what he has given them through the government, and those who follow the government so closely that they dont see any faults in the government. its always good to keep a wary eye on the government, and to speak out when you deem it appropriate. (do the same for the church). Its also very important to separate the words church and faith. they do not always go together. any large organization is bound by corruption, and the church is no different than the government.faith is being connected with what ever you believe in. so if you believe in the same god that the pope does, then hurray for you, go and learn about him and grow your personal faith. the chuch is just a tool to do this, and unfortunately, it can be just as bad as our government.
 
Crispy said:
Just a point. that's all. Its as reasonable to view any group being lead by the wrong people, being sold the worng message, pushing them into the wrong actions. No group is beyond that.

Your point was just rendered moot. You can still have it if you like.

I don't need the government to back a religion and I'm really not religious myself. What we all do need though is toleration. When an issue like this is brought up not on its merit but in order to grandstand a point of view that belittles a group its counter productive and even if the ruling is successful and fair, the outcome is a divisive failure. I personally don't see Under God in the pledge as "controlloing," that's my personal opinion. I do see the religious rights debate on abortion and other matters that you mention below just as dangerous and divisive and I'll stand side by side with you guys to stop them when they're trying to push this stuff on the center and the left.

I do tolerate and encourage people to practice their faith, but there is not a single good reason as to why the government should get involved. You either have separation of church & state or you don't. Things like "under God" are routinely used by anti-gay, anti-womens' rights, anti-religious freedom, anti-American Christians to "prove" that church & state separation doesn't exist so that they can gain control of the govenment. They're banking on a large number of people being ignorant so that they can perpetuate their lies. That I don't tolerate. I'm just not that crazy about theocracy, just a pet peeve I guess.

Agreed, I see them as bad as Radical Islam but thankfully we're in a more Civil country. But the problem isn't the belief. The problem is the way the belief is practiced. I don't insult Christians, Jews or any other believers of any practice and to the contrary I respect them and respectfully disagree. I don't call them stupid, I don't call them ignorant and I don't use issues to open the door to belitteling them. And that's what this whole debate seems to be. If this was just being introduced into the pledge I'd say "yea it shouldn't be put there". But all the sudden, the christian right has made a power grab and right is loud so its time to attack the symbolism and belitte them, and not just the one's who are extreme but anybody who is "deluded", "ignorant", (add derrogatory terms here) enough to believe in this "irrational" imaginary god. That I disagree with. Talk about Pat Robinson yea, and the examples you brought up above, that's concise and that's attacking who needs to be attacked not the group that he's a part of.

The ones who are willfuly ignorant and especially those who prey on them are the problem. Where did I insult Christians? I just pointed out that Christians need to own up to the fact the Bible has been the cause of a lot of horrible things and that that must be acknowledged, especially if you're going to attribute the good that has come from it. Don't try to argue that freethought or Atheism causes people to do terrible things like the Bible did/does. It simply isn't comparable and saying that doesn't belittle anyone.

Its funny because I generally do support yours and Scarecrow's side on this, but, I can't support, and wouldn't want the support of those who can't discern their personal prejudice from their public stance no matter who's doing it. People don't disagree cause they veiw the world differently based on their ideology, they disagree because they can't accept others that view the world differently. That's the problem, not ideology. In every group there's leaders and followers. In every group there's the potential for Leaders who teach anti-social ways of practice what the group believes (some beliefs albeit more prone than others to this). In every group there's the protential leaders who teach socially admirable and benevolent ways of practicing their belief. I take the "anti-social" grandstanding ones whichever side of the fence they're on and point to them as the cause of violence and injustice not the belief they've distorted.

You must have meant to send this response to someone else.
 
Last edited:
"Among the most inestimable of our blessings, also, is that... of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support."

--Thomas Jefferson: Reply to John Thomas et al., 1807. ME 16:291

Religion (the duty which we owe to our Creator) that a man believes is most agreeable to God's will (rather than the recommendation or advice of the civil government) is good government's best support. In other words, those who trust in God, as recommended on the nation's coins and bills, by the U. S. Government, undermine, rather than support, good government. Let's remove "In God We Trust" from the coins and notes and improve our civil government.
 
No, the United States was founded as a non-religious nation. The founding fathers, who consisted of not only theists, but also deists and agnostics, purposely separated the new government and religion. Unfortunately, the United States is quickly becoming a Christian nation and our freedoms are rapidly diminishing. "One nation under God" or "In God we trust" were not included on the original pledge of allegiance or currency, but was later added in the 1950's during the Cold War (U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of"In God We Trust"). Christians complain when courts rule issues like this as unconstitutional, but the first amendment protects people's freedom from religion. Citing Christianity in classrooms, courts, and other public places alienates Muslims, Atheists, Jews, and any other form of opposing belief. Christians would be outraged if the pledge of the allegiance said "One nation under Muhammad" or if currency said "There is no God." This is exactly what Christianity foists upon Non-Christian citizens. This does not mean that Christians should not be allowed to practice their religion, but they should do it privately or in churches and not force their beliefs upon other people.
 
Well and activist liberal judge from the 9th circuit court in San Francisco has struck again today striking the word "Under God" from the Pledge of Alegiance....

It will go to the SCOTUS and be struck down but what are your thoughts?

I don't care, but considering that phrase wasn't originally in the Pledge of Allegiance I don't really see a problem with getting rid of it either. Personally, I think it's a whole lot of hoopla over nothing.
 
No, the United States was founded as a non-religious nation.This cannot be as most Americans at that time were religious, but most were not fanatics or extremists. The founding fathers, who consisted of not only theists, but also deists and agnostics, purposely separated the new government and religion.But the separation was simply a line, not a Berlin wall.. Unfortunately, the United States is quickly becoming a Christian nation and our freedoms are rapidly diminishing.A few rather meaningless words do not take away any freedoms. "One nation under God" or "In God we trust" were not included on the original pledge of allegiance or currency, but was later added in the 1950's during the Cold War (U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of"In God We Trust"). Christians complain when courts rule issues like this as unconstitutional, but the first amendment protects people's freedom from religion. Citing Christianity in classrooms, courts, and other public places alienates Muslims, Atheists, Jews, and any other form of opposing belief.Even if true, who cares, they will get over it.. Christians would be outraged if the pledge of the allegiance said "One nation under Muhammad" or if currency said "There is no God." This is exactly what Christianity foists upon Non-Christian citizens. This does not mean that Christians should not be allowed to practice their religion, but they should do it privately or in churches and not force their beliefs upon other people.
How a few words force anything, is beyond me..
Its those so-called missionaries, dressed in white shirts and natty suits gong from door to door who are trying this.. A door closed in the face solves this.
Then there is all the Christian broadcasting...a turn of the wrist solves this..But, like it or not, we are, more or less a Christian nation...Jesus may not recognize it....
Our nation needs reform and improvement in a hundred different areas...this would be the last....
Just let it go...
BTW, a man could say that I am an agnostic...But I detest labels..
 
Last edited:
Yessir..... :2wave:

Considering how we've gone Socialist and one of the main party candidates in the 2008 election was serious about a Communist mortgage plan, I say we remove the McCarthy era "we're not Communists" as we clearly are marching on that path.
 
Moderator's Warning:
No problem, folks...except a problem to the DP servers. Threads that go beyond 1000 posts tend to cause slow downs. We currently have 3 active threads with more than 1000 posts. I need to close them. Sorry about that. Please feel free to pick up this discussion in a new thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom