• 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.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

If it is illegal to recite the Pledge in school, it certainly is illegal to study the your state constitution that acknowledges God in a much more specific way than does the Pledge. This is why I bring up the state constitutions that are NOT illegal to teach in school. You will have to do better than that to prove to me that the Pledge is unconstitutional.

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.
Click to expand...

And how does it do this? Show me the specific phrase that spells that out. My teachers and my kids' teachers taught the significance of each part of the Pledge and what it meant. Did your teachers not do that? Did your teachers not teach you what metaphors are or symbols or icons? Did your teachers not teach you to decipher the imagery of poetry and how words can have different meanings and purposes? If your teachers did not teach you all that, you should sue for malpractice.

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.
Click to expand...

Really. All that from two little words representing the historical and cultural background of our nation's development. You'll excuse me if I think that is overreaching just a whole big bunch.

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

Unless the 'holy word' is intended and taught to be symbolic of the religious history that is a fact of the development of this country and should not be ignored.

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

Unless the law specifically says it is voluntary. Which it does.

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.
Click to expand...

There is no requirement that you put your child in a school that is not teaching what you consider to be acceptable for your child. But if your child is being warped, damaged, corrupted, indoctrinated, or having her time usurped by two little words in a Pledge of Allegiance, you have far greater problems that two words in the Pledge. I wonder why all the children of parents who don't take such an interest are not speaking in tongue, or preaching on the playground, or rushing to tent meetings after such indoctrination? Come on. Get real. I have had to explain to my children many facts to correct information that their teachers taught that I knew to be erroneous, and I was able to do that without undermining the authority of the teacher. You have a lot more time with your kids than those teachers do. I recommend you pay attention to everything they are learning and worry less about two little words in a Pledge.

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

It's everybody else's time too. And if the majority enjoys it, who are you to deny them that small pleasure? And if it is so offensive to you, why don't you make other arrangements for your child so you can be sure he/she is never exposed to anything that makes him/her think or that s/he never has to learn tolerance for anything? Exposure to more than one point of view is not a bad thing in itself.
 
Caine said:
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)
Click to expand...

An acknowledgment of religion is neither an endorsement of nor an establishment of religion.
 
AlbqOwl said:
An acknowledgment of religion is neither an endorsement of nor an establishment of religion.
Click to expand...

Stating that we are "Under God" yes that is. How do we not endorse the establishment of religion when we are "Under God". How can we possibly NOT be endorsing the establishment of religion when we place our trust in god ("In God We Trust).

Answer those questions directly and stop getting off subject.
 
Caine said:
Stating that we are "Under God" yes that is. How do we not endorse the establishment of religion when we are "Under God". How can we possibly NOT be endorsing the establishment of religion when we place our trust in god ("In God We Trust).

Answer those questions directly and stop getting off subject.
Click to expand...

Who's getting off subject? I've been precisely on subject. I haven't even brought in Dred Scott or any of a dozen other 'comparisons' that some of the rest of you have dredged up trying to make your point. And what does "In God we Trust" have to do with the Pledge of Allegiance (speaking of getting off subject.)?

Again, what religion is being established? What is its doctrine? What are the rules for its congregation? It's priests or ministers or rabbis? What advantage do you gain by being an adherent of it? What consequence is there for you if you reject it? How does this 'religion' affect your ability to make a living? Own property? Conduct your daily affairs? Impact on your livelihood or affect any of your legal or unalienable rights?

Acknowleging that people are religious, that there were religious considerations that went into the foundations of the Constitution, that our laws and our history cannot be separated from our religious heritage, and that many people in government are people of faith is NOT an establishment of religion. A slogan is NOT a religion. A phrase in a Pledge is NOT a religion. A symbol is NOT a religion.

It is okay if I am religious or somebody else is religious. You are not required to be religious. You have a constitutional right to not be religious and nobody has a shred of power to require you to be religious or act religious.

And neither are you given power to prevent others from being religous or acting religious.

Common decency requires that we respect that you are a non believer. Common decency requires that you respect that most Americans do not share your non belief.

Those two little words in the Pledge harm nobody and are satisfying to most. A little tolerance please. The country is not becoming a theocracy. The Inquisition isn't headed your way. The words in the Pledge are okay. Get over it.
 
RE; Right at NYU # 820
At the time ! opening excercises were Constitutional .
You and others that oppose Religion in the public square,Make it sound like their are gangs of chriostians roaming shool buildings beating up atheists and JW.
In acient days we had no roaming gangs of protestants attacking Catholics for not reciting their version of the Lords prayer.
It would be so simple,you dont like the line,don't say it,but. That wouldn't satisfy malcontents that want to drive religion out of public life.
 
JOHNYJ said:
RE; Right at NYU # 820
At the time ! opening excercises were Constitutional .
You and others that oppose Religion in the public square,Make it sound like their are gangs of chriostians roaming shool buildings beating up atheists and JW.
In acient days we had no roaming gangs of protestants attacking Catholics for not reciting their version of the Lords prayer.
It would be so simple,you dont like the line,don't say it,but. That wouldn't satisfy malcontents that want to drive religion out of public life.
Click to expand...

I think in your own way you've probably nailed it Johny. These anti-Pledge folks aren't stupid or completely uneducated. I can't believe they are really so exorcised over two little words in a Pledge that nobody is required to say.

We don't know for sure, but every now and then they let something slip to make me believe that their real agenda is to strip all religion from all public arenas and make this a totally godless society.

I don't think they understand how much more bleak the world will be if they ever should succeed.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Who's getting off subject? I've been precisely on subject. I haven't even brought in Dred Scott or any of a dozen other 'comparisons' that some of the rest of you have dredged up trying to make your point. And what does "In God we Trust" have to do with the Pledge of Allegiance (speaking of getting off subject.)?

Again, what religion is being established? What is its doctrine? What are the rules for its congregation? It's priests or ministers or rabbis? What advantage do you gain by being an adherent of it? What consequence is there for you if you reject it? How does this 'religion' affect your ability to make a living? Own property? Conduct your daily affairs? Impact on your livelihood or affect any of your legal or unalienable rights?

Acknowleging that people are religious, that there were religious considerations that went into the foundations of the Constitution, that our laws and our history cannot be separated from our religious heritage, and that many people in government are people of faith is NOT an establishment of religion. A slogan is NOT a religion. A phrase in a Pledge is NOT a religion. A symbol is NOT a religion.

It is okay if I am religious or somebody else is religious. You are not required to be religious. You have a constitutional right to not be religious and nobody has a shred of power to require you to be religious or act religious.

And neither are you given power to prevent others from being religous or acting religious.

Common decency requires that we respect that you are a non believer. Common decency requires that you respect that most Americans do not share your non belief.

Those two little words in the Pledge harm nobody and are satisfying to most. A little tolerance please. The country is not becoming a theocracy. The Inquisition isn't headed your way. The words in the Pledge are okay. Get over it.
Click to expand...


You just don't get it do you?
What makes you think it was legal for the government to put god into our pledge and motto in the first place?
Explain to me how it was legal.
 
For all you people who are for "Under God"
Explain how it was legal for the US GOV. , supposedly seperated from religion (NOT SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS), to put under god in the pledge and replacing a good motto with "In God We Trust".

Until you can answer this, you have no valid argument for its constitutionality.

Not like you do anyways, but this way it will keep you from your arguments that don't make any sense... (Historic, Cultural, Symbol)
 
Caine said:
You just don't get it do you?
What makes you think it was legal for the government to put god into our pledge and motto in the first place?
Explain to me how it was legal.
Click to expand...

It was legal because the President wanted it there and Congress concurred. It was the thus the will of the people. It was legal because it is not an establishement of religion but an acknowledgement of the historical and cultural religious heritage of our country and is based on the belief of the founders that we all have certain God-given rights that no one can take away. It is legal because Congress made it a voluntary exercise with no reward or consequence for participation.
It is legal because it has no impact of any kind on any legal or unalienable rights of any person. These are the reasons it is legal.

You have come up with no reason for why it is illegal other than you want it to be.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I think in your own way you've probably nailed it Johny. These anti-Pledge folks aren't stupid or completely uneducated. I can't believe they are really so exorcised over two little words in a Pledge that nobody is required to say.

We don't know for sure, but every now and then they let something slip to make me believe that their real agenda is to strip all religion from all public arenas and make this a totally godless society.

I don't think they understand how much more bleak the world will be if they ever should succeed.
Click to expand...

1. Care to explain how what I have said makes you think I want the churches bulldozed and bibles burned?

2. In removing god from the government? If your god needs government support to get children's attention in schools, your religion or any religion isn't worthy of following in the first place.
 
AlbqOwl said:
It was legal because the President wanted it there and Congress concurred. It was legal because it is not an establishement of religion but an acknowledgement of the historical and cultural religious heritage of our country and is based on the belief of the founders that we all have certain God-given rights that no one can take away. It is legal because Congress made it a voluntary exercise with no reward or consequence for participation.
It is legal because it has no impact of any kind on any legal or unalienable rights of any person. These are the reasons it is legal.

You have come up with no reason for why it is illegal other than you want it to be.
Click to expand...

1. Is that how we make laws in this country? Throw out the constitutionality as long as the president and congress agree? I think not.

2. We have gone over this before, me and several others who can explain it better than me. A. The clause isn't refering to a specific denomination but religion in general. B. No-where do I remember god being mentioned in our inalienable rights.

3. Not when its an official representation of our nation. When it is our Official Motto. I should not, nor should children of this nation be compelled to think that what best describes our nation's value is our trust in an imaginary false idol.
 
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.
Click to expand...

That's because you can't see your nose in front of your face. It's all over this forum.

1) It's a law.

2) It's a law passed by Congress.

3) It establishes religion in that it affirms that a religion is valid.

3) It's denies people the free exercise of their religion, it. This includes both the poly-theists, since the offending law only says "god", and the atheists, who don't have a religion but are now constrained in the formulaic patriotic utterance to say words to the contrary.

The First Amendment says that the CONGRESS shall make no LAW regarding the ESTABLISHMENT of religion or the FREE EXERCISE thereof.

Where you been this last 800 posts?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Where you been this last 800 posts?
Click to expand...


Read its Bible...
 
AlbqOwl said:
Common decency requires that we respect that you are a non believer. Common decency requires that you respect that most Americans do not share your non belief.
Click to expand...

How are you respecting me when you're requiring that the proper form of patriotic utterance include a positive affirmation of your beliefs?

How am I disrespecting you when I protest your rude usurpation of my patriotism?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
How are you respecting me when you're requiring that the proper form of patriotic utterance include a positive affirmation of your beliefs?

How am I disrespecting you when I protest your rude usurpation of my patriotism?
Click to expand...

How did I usurp your patriotism? You aren't required to repeat a Pledge that is objectionable to you. But for more than 50 years now, Americans have been reciting the Pledge with no distinguishable ill effects on anyone, and to the best of my knowledge, not a single person has been punished for refusing to participate. Is your patriotism contingent on saying a Pledge that is worded as you wish it to be worded?

P.S. I didn't write it.
 
AlbqOwl said:
P.S. I didn't write it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we know........

In an 1955 Affidavit before a Notary Public of Cook County, Illinois, Louis A. Bowman (1872 - 1959) officially claimed to be the first person to initiate the practice of reciting "under God" in the Pledge. He was a member of the Board of Governors of the Illinois Society of the Sons of the American Revolution and served as its Chaplin. He lived in Oak Park, a suburb of Chicago.

http://pledgeqanda.com/
 
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.
Click to expand...

It's so because the court said so in Engel v. Vitale, Abington v. Schempp, and numerous others.

You just don't get it, do you?
 
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.
Click to expand...

No, that post was the biggest waste of time. Ever.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Unless the law specifically says it is voluntary. Which it does.
Click to expand...

No, no, no, no, no, oh my god, NO!

There can be no doubt that New York's state prayer program officially establishes the religious beliefs embodied in the Regents' prayer. The respondents' argument to the contrary, which is largely based upon the contention that the Regents' prayer is "non-denominational" and the fact that the program, as modified and approved by state courts, does not require all pupils to recite the prayer but permits those who wish to do so to remain silent or be excused from the room, ignores the essential nature of the program's constitutional defects. 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. Although these two clauses may in certain instances overlap, they forbid two quite different kinds of governmental encroachment upon religious freedom. The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not. This is not to say, of course, that laws officially prescribing a particular form of religious worship do not involve coercion of such individuals. When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain. But the purposes underlying the Establishment Clause go much further than that. Its first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion.
Click to expand...
 
JOHNYJ said:
RE; Right at NYU # 820
At the time ! opening excercises were Constitutional .
You and others that oppose Religion in the public square,Make it sound like their are gangs of chriostians roaming shool buildings beating up atheists and JW.
In acient days we had no roaming gangs of protestants attacking Catholics for not reciting their version of the Lords prayer.
It would be so simple,you dont like the line,don't say it,but. That wouldn't satisfy malcontents that want to drive religion out of public life.
Click to expand...

Maybe if back when you attended school, they had taught proper grammar and argument rather than wasting time on trying to teach religion, you wouldn't write like a functional illiterate.

Your posts are the best arguments I've seen so far for not letting schools go back to the way they were...
 
AlbqOwl said:
But for more than 50 years now, Americans have been reciting the Pledge with no distinguishable ill effects on anyone,
Click to expand...

I'm sorry.

Didn't I just write an explanation of how those illegal words in the Pledge of Allegiance harm me and my child?

Yes, I know I did.

So I"m either not "anyone", or nobody. Which isn't what the Constitution says.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I'm sorry.

Didn't I just write an explanation of how those illegal words in the Pledge of Allegiance harm me and my child?

Yes, I know I did.

So I"m either not "anyone", or nobody. Which isn't what the Constitution says.
Click to expand...

No, what you wrote was an emotional dissertation on why you didn't like the Pledge and that you were required to 'unindoctrinate' your child as a result of the Pledge. First, any child that could be 'indoctrinated' by hearing the proper recitation of the Pledge has far more problems than anything that could be contained in such recitation. Second, your child is being exposed to far more unacceptable (in your eyes) things in school than anything in the Pledge. Thirdly, if you want your child to never be exposed to any ideology but your own, you will save yourself a lot of hassle in not having to bother to teach, yes. You'll also give your child a very unrealistic view of the world and put him/her in line for some very confusing times when you can no longer control his/her world.

There is no constitutional right to be 'comfortable' or satisfied or unconfused. You have not shown in any credible way how the Pledge interferes with your property, health, security, safety, or any unalienable right that you have.

If you take 'under God' out of the Pledge, I could as easily say that my child is traumatized by not being able to recite the Pledge in the way s/he wishes to say it. That would be just as absurd.
 
AlbqOwl said:
No, what you wrote was an emotional dissertation on why you didn't like the Pledge and that you were required to 'unindoctrinate' your child as a result of the Pledge. First, any child that could be 'indoctrinated' by hearing the proper recitation of the Pledge has far more problems than anything that could be contained in such recitation. Second, your child is being exposed to far more unacceptable (in your eyes) things in school than anything in the Pledge. Thirdly, if you want your child to never be exposed to any ideology but your own, you will save yourself a lot of hassle in not having to bother to teach, yes. You'll also give your child a very unrealistic view of the world and put him/her in line for some very confusing times when you can no longer control his/her world.
There is no constitutional right to be 'comfortable' or satisfied or unconfused. You have not shown in any credible way how the Pledge interferes with your property, health, security, safety, or any unalienable right that you have.

If you take 'under God' out of the Pledge, I could as easily say that my child is traumatized by not being able to recite the Pledge in the way s/he wishes to say it. That would be just as absurd.
Click to expand...

1. So, if we forced children to recite "Hail to thee Satan!" while saluting a flag of the US of A, and the child grows up to be a Satanist, this is okay too? Would you like for that to happen to your child? Would you think your child has problems because you felt the need to unindoctrinate your child? This is an invalid argument.

2. But there is a constitutional clause that states the Government will keep religion seperate of any government issues. An Official pledge, which is stated in the US Flag Code as such, has god in it, thus it is unconstitutional.

3. That would be absurd, but nothing could be done about it because putting god back into the pledge would be unconstitutional.
 
Caine said:
1. So, if we forced children to recite "Hail to thee Satan!" while saluting a flag of the US of A, and the child grows up to be a Satanist, this is okay too? Would you like for that to happen to your child? Would you think your child has problems because you felt the need to unindoctrinate your child? This is an invalid argument.
Click to expand...

The Founding Fathers had no illusions that our unalienable rights came from Satan. So this is a straw man analogy and not worth discussion. Can you name one person who has been 'indoctrinated' by the Pledge of Allegiance in the last 50+ years? I can't. I don't think anybody who is honest can. I was taught what 'under God' in the Pledge means. Any good school will teach it. If your school doesn't, you should insist on it.


2. But there is a constitutional clause that states the Government will keep religion seperate of any government issues. An Official pledge, which is stated in the US Flag Code as such, has god in it, thus it is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the Constitution or in any of its supporting documents that state the Goverment will keep religion separate of any government issues. There is a clause that says government can neither require you to believe anything religious nor forbid you to believe anything religious. That is a huge difference. The phrase 'under God' in a voluntary Pledge is not unconstitutional any more than the references to God in the state constitutions are unconstitutional because none of them have any force or authority regarding you in any manner. They are not an establishment of religion.

3. That would be absurd, but nothing could be done about it because putting god back into the pledge would be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

This whole discussion has become absurd. Surely there are more pressing concerns to be explored than the attempt by an angry few to deny a lot of people the right to say a patriotic pledge that means a great deal to them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom