• 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:
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?

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.

Your the one who's rant is emotional.
I guess you haven't read the constitution to see where our "opinion" is based on, and backed up by, fact.
Your rant is based on your Christianity. Otherwise, you wouldn't want to sit here and debate whether god is in the pledge, you wouldn't TRULY care. Its okay, I know your going to say your not really all that religious. But, then, why would it matter?

So yes, our position is based on, and backed up by fact that the constitution has the establishment clause which is to put a seperation between church and government, and official pledge talking about a god used to coerse children into respecting a divine being is definately in violation.
 
Caine said:
Your the one who's rant is emotional.
I guess you haven't read the constitution to see where our "opinion" is based on, and backed up by, fact.
Your rant is based on your Christianity. Otherwise, you wouldn't want to sit here and debate whether god is in the pledge, you wouldn't TRULY care. Its okay, I know your going to say your not really all that religious. But, then, why would it matter?

So yes, our position is based on, and backed up by fact that the constitution has the establishment clause which is to put a seperation between church and government, and official pledge talking about a god used to coerse children into respecting a divine being is definately in violation.

The constitution also has a prohibition clause that says that the government cannot say that I cannot say 'under God' in a voluntary Pledge of Allegiance. You guys seem to always want to overlook that part.

You must also show what God and what religion is being established (or even favored) by the phrase , and you must be able to show in a substantive way how you are inconvenienced or deprived of any legal or unalienable right, in order for it to be a violation of the establishment clause.

You must also prove that this phrase is used to coerce children into respecting a divine being, show that children are not capable of understanding the cultural and historical significance of the phrase, and you must also ignore all the history that preceded it, to make your point of view anything other than one based on emotionalism.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The constitution also has a prohibition clause that says that the government cannot say that I cannot say 'under God' in a voluntary Pledge of Allegiance. You guys seem to always want to overlook that part.

You must also show what God and what religion is being established (or even favored) by the phrase , and you must be able to show in a substantive way how you are inconvenienced or deprived of any legal or unalienable right, in order for it to be a violation of the establishment clause.

You must also prove that this phrase is used to coerce children into respecting a divine being, show that children are not capable of understanding the cultural and historical significance of the phrase, and you must also ignore all the history that preceded it, to make your point of view anything other than one based on emotionalism.

Ummm. Nobody is saying you can't voluntary say it.
Im saying, the OFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF-IIIIICCCIIIAAAALLLLLL ( did you get it this time?) version has god in it, and it doesn't belong there.

God damn, are you church people stupid? Ive not only showed you that it is official, told you the date of which it became official....geez, what the hell.

And, we on the side of REMOVAL of "under god" shouldn't have to prove anything except that its addition was unconstitutional, which it clearly is.
 
Caine said:
Ummm. Nobody is saying you can't voluntary say it.
Im saying, the OFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF-IIIIICCCIIIAAAALLLLLL ( did you get it this time?) version has god in it, and it doesn't belong there.

God damn, are you church people stupid? Ive not only showed you that it is official, told you the date of which it became official....geez, what the hell.

And, we on the side of REMOVAL of "under god" shouldn't have to prove hing except that its addition was unconstitutional, which it clearly is.

You haven't shown how it is unconstitutional. Several others have shown how it is. But you are basing your opinion on emotionalism.....naw.......

A practical point however: what is more disruptive to a social exercise?: A couple of people leaving a couple of words out of a group recitation? Or a couple of people inserting words that aren't there into a group recitation? If it is a matter of a voluntary recitation, who should prevail? The many or the few?
 
AlbqOwl said:
You haven't shown how it is unconstitutional. Several others have shown how it is. But you are basing your opinion on emotionalism.....naw.......

A practical point however: what is more disruptive to a social exercise?: A couple of people leaving a couple of words out of a group recitation? Or a couple of people inserting words that aren't there into a group recitation? If it is a matter of a voluntary recitation, who should prevail? The many or the few?

The few, cause its thier right not to have to listen to or be coerced to recite government official religious garbage.
 
Caine said:
The few, cause its thier right not to have to listen to or be coerced to recite government official religious garbage.

And there you have it folks. If you don't like the choice of music or the decor or the clientele or the rules or the layout or the wording of anything, all you have to do is say is it your right to not have to listen to it or see it or be exposed to it, and your will shall be done no matter how many others want it just the way it is. Yep. That's real American democracy for you.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I believe that most people who strongly object to 'under God' in the Pledge because they have a deep seated revulsion for religion altogether. Some seem to relate it to Christianity for which they have a deep seated revulsion.

I don't care what religion these people profess to be. Their MO suggests that if they could, they would wipe anything remotely religious completely out of the public experience altogether. I think such people, if they could, would wipe anything remotely religious from the public experience altogehter.

Of course you have to define what you mean by "public experience". I really don't mind the lunatic on the corner in downtown LA reading his bible at the top of his lungs to all. It's a free country.

But why should my tax dollars go to promoting other people's delusions? The Ten Suggestions have no place in public schools. Nor in courts and legislative chambers. The only Suggestion that should be a Commandment is the one against bearing false witness. THAT one should be branded on every politician in six inch letters.

But no one I know desires to outlaw religion. Quite the contrary. Religion is a huge business that should be taxed at the same rate as any other. How many billions of dollars of tax revenue could be recovered by federal, state, and local authorities if the religion scam exemption was repealed?

Of course, I do suppose the laws requiring advertisers be able to proof their claims would have to be ignored for the God industry, but perhaps something similar to the Surgeon General's warning for cigarettes could be posted on the doors of houses of worship and religious books:

Warning: It has never been determined if anything promoted or taught in this place has ever happened or if promises made have ever been fulfilled. The user is cautioned that repeated use may result in the loss of reason and the possible departure from reality.

We have to protect the children, don't ya know?
 
AlbqOwl said:
You haven't shown how it is unconstitutional. Several others have shown how it is. But you are basing your opinion on emotionalism.....naw.......

A practical point however: what is more disruptive to a social exercise?: A couple of people leaving a couple of words out of a group recitation? Or a couple of people inserting words that aren't there into a group recitation? If it is a matter of a voluntary recitation, who should prevail? The many or the few?

The government forcing words in that don't belong.

If the illegal words weren't put there in the first place, this thread would not exist.

Since those extra words were installed by only 500 people, clearly it's the few inserting the words that's the problem, not the millions that weren't saying them before the few interfered.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The government forcing words in that don't belong.

If the illegal words weren't put there in the first place, this thread would not exist.

Since those extra words were installed by only 500 people, clearly it's the few inserting the words that's the problem, not the millions that weren't saying them before the few interfered.

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. 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. So far nobody has. I get a lot of gobblygook reflecting their personal feelings such as your previous post. But I get nothing specific to indicate that anybody's unalienable or civil rights are being challenged or compromised in any way.

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.

The rest should take lessons in anger management and study the definition of tolerance.
 
RE ; Caine
Some would relegate Religion to a shelf somewhere to be taken out rarely. They would drive it out of the public square completly. They are sucjh fanatics about it that they edit history .So even there you can't mention religion, that shows who the extremists are.
 
Deegan said:
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.:roll:

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.
 
AlbqOwl said:
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"
 
AlbqOwl said:
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.
 
AlbqOwl said:
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.
 
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?
 
JOHNYJ said:
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.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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:
JOHNYJ said:
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?
 
AlbqOwl said:
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?
 
AlbqOwl said:
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.



AlbqOwl said:
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.


AlbqOwl said:
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.
 
RightatNYU said:
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?

Hey I've been asking for responses to the criteria that would make two words in the pledge constitutionally illegal. So far not one person has decided to take up that challenge. And yes, any good debater will ignore the 'It's so because I said so' argument.
 
JOHNYJ said:
RE ; Caine
Some would relegate Religion to a shelf somewhere to be taken out rarely. They would drive it out of the public square completly. They are sucjh fanatics about it that they edit history .So even there you can't mention religion, that shows who the extremists are.

This doesn't make any sense.
Again, thats why we have THE CONSTI-MUTHA-****ING-TUTION.

Jesus Christ people (And I dont even belive in the hippie)!!!!!!

All Im saying is, take religion out of government.
Leave religion in Church, Home, Billboard signs reminding you to fear god, and all that other crap that influences one to give away thier money to the church.

Government.... GOV-ERN-MENT. say it with me....
RE-LI-GION DOES NOT BE-LONG IN GOV-ERN-MENT.

Yaay!!!
 
I do believe that the topic "Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?", is currently the daftest waste of time on DP. IMO of course.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Hey I've been asking for responses to the criteria that would make two words in the pledge constitutionally illegal. So far not one person has decided to take up that challenge. And yes, any good debater will ignore the 'It's so because I said so' argument.


Yes, thats why.
Its illegal not because "I" said it is.
But because this little document created by our "founding fathers" ( I know you pledge nuts love using that one).
This document formed our system of government, and placed the limits of the power of the government. One of those limits was not to endorse religion. NOT A SPECIFIC RELIGION. Religion in general.

How is that so hard to understand?

(The next argument will be why does the majority have to bow to the minority, I betcha)
 
robin said:
I do believe that the topic "Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?", is currently the daftest waste of time on DP. IMO of course.

Yes, thats why it has over 800 posts on it.

Why, what is your opinion?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom