• 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.
akyron said:
Meh the sheer promotion of unity within both the anthem and the pledge are a basic benefit inherent to them both.

You can cultlike chant anything you like with a thousand people but I will never forget or that wonderful tingly feeling of unity when the flag raises and you finish the anthem knowing people gave their lives for the opportunities presented to you and you know you are about to hit someone as hard as you possible can at the beginning of a football game. Its like a good feeling spell that uplifts your spirits and makes you stronger realizing others are backing you up.

If you dont know what that feeling is I cannot explain it to you.
You will not ever "get it".

Go sing O' Canada. Not quite the same.
Click to expand...

The unity promotion is true to an extent. I highly doubt that reciting these things would solve the division in the country right now though.

And yes, I do know about the tingly feeling associated with the anthem. It is purely an emotional response. I used to get the same thing as a child from the Star Wars theme (I know, it sounds corny, but I was a kid).

I doubt that an athlete would be weaker for not hearing the anthem before the game though. If you need a song to get jacked up for a game, then perhaps you have issues with where you get you motivation from. BTW, does the anthem give you a feeling of unity with your opposition or just your own team?

O' Canada? Are you saying that our national anthem is the only one that instills feelings of loyalty and pride in a country. How ethnocentric of you!
 
When the Pledge of Allegiance was originally written, it did not contain the words "Under God".

It was written for a youth group sponsored by a church. Congress added the words "Under God" in 1954 because they apparently thought it would make Communists incapable of saying it.

The people who want the phrase in the Pledge damned well do not mean "a higher power"-- they are referring specifically to their god and their god alone. Declaring this nation to be subservient to their god means that worshippers of other gods are not a part of this nation, and that they are not welcome here.

I was born of this land and of these people, and I will not turn my back on either. I am sure as Hel not going to allow either to be taken from me by these narrow-minded reactionaries.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
When the Pledge of Allegiance was originally written, it did not contain the words "Under God".

It was written for a youth group sponsored by a church. Congress added the words "Under God" in 1954 because they apparently thought it would make Communists incapable of saying it.

The people who want the phrase in the Pledge damned well do not mean "a higher power"-- they are referring specifically to their god and their god alone. Declaring this nation to be subservient to their god means that worshippers of other gods are not a part of this nation, and that they are not welcome here.

I was born of this land and of these people, and I will not turn my back on either. I am sure as Hel not going to allow either to be taken from me by these narrow-minded reactionaries.
Click to expand...

The pledge was written by a socialist and the song "God Bless America" by an Atheist who made no secret of his nonbelief. Declaring that we are a nation ruled by a Christian God displays a hatred of this country. We were founded on a secular document in which "We the people" rule. I wonder why they hate America so much.
 
George_Washington said:
True but then how do you account for the words, "Year of our Lord" in our Constitution?
Click to expand...

That's how they did dates. It's really no different than AD or BC. Not to mention it's extraneous, as we're not going to base our laws on how a date was written.
 
George_Washington said:
True but then how do you account for the words, "Year of our Lord" in our Constitution?
Click to expand...

That's just the English translation of anno domini (AD), which was merely the standard way of writing years at that time. Don't read too much into it.
 
FredFlash said:
If George Washington and Thomas Jefferson wanted "under God" in the Pledge, they would have included those words when they wrote the Pledge back in 1492.
Click to expand...

a) The pledge was not written in 1492.

b) Overly simplistic logic.

"If the founders wanted blacks to be free, they would have put that in the constitution."

"If the founders wanted women to vote, they would have put that in the constitution"

"If the founders wanted a right to abortion, they would have passed a law"



We have a Separation of Church and State because the founders were Christians. It came from the Bible don't you know?

That all depends on how you define the word "religion." How do you define it for First Amendment purposes?
Click to expand...

For first Amendment purposes, religion is "Any sincere belief based upon a power or being or upon a faith to which all else is subordinate or upon which all else is ultimately dependent. Any belief which rests at least partly upon moral or ethical principle, not wholly upon considerations of policy, pragmatism, or expediency."
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
When the Pledge of Allegiance was originally written, it did not contain the words "Under God".

It was written for a youth group sponsored by a church. Congress added the words "Under God" in 1954 because they apparently thought it would make Communists incapable of saying it.

The people who want the phrase in the Pledge damned well do not mean "a higher power"-- they are referring specifically to their god and their god alone. Declaring this nation to be subservient to their god means that worshippers of other gods are not a part of this nation, and that they are not welcome here.

I was born of this land and of these people, and I will not turn my back on either. I am sure as Hel not going to allow either to be taken from me by these narrow-minded reactionaries.
Click to expand...

This is one of the few times in which I'll admit to agreeing with Justice Breyer. When faced with issues like 10 Commandments, etc, he chooses to follow the path of least resistance. In cases where the commandments were there and someone was suing to remove, he voted to leave them. In cases where they weren't and someone was suing to install them, he voted to keep them out. I'm mostly the same way when it comes to the pledge. If someone wanted to put that in the pledge now, I'd be against it. But considering its been there for 50 years, im still up in the air about removing it.
 
RightatNYU said:
a) The pledge was not written in 1492.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he was joking about that.

RightatNYU said:
b) Overly simplistic logic.

"If the founders wanted blacks to be free, they would have put that in the constitution."

"If the founders wanted women to vote, they would have put that in the constitution"

"If the founders wanted a right to abortion, they would have passed a law"
Click to expand...

What is wrong with those statements? The founding fathers DIDN'T want those things. The tenth amendment pretty much spells out that the states can decide anything that isn't given to the feds. How is that an oversimplification?
 
Kandahar said:
I'm pretty sure he was joking about that.



What is wrong with those statements? The founding fathers DIDN'T want those things. The tenth amendment pretty much spells out that the states can decide anything that isn't given to the feds. How is that an oversimplification?
Click to expand...

Sorry if my intent wasn't clear, perhaps I should have included some examples that made it more clear what I was trying to say.

"If the founding fathers wanted us to have free speech over the phone or internet, they would have mentioned that."

"If the founding fathers wanted us to have freedom from electronic surveillance, eavesdropping, and having every movement on the internet tracked, they would have mentioned that."

My point was to show that just because the founding fathers didn't mention something in the constitution then, doesn't mean they wouldn't support it now. Anyone who looks at it reasonably can see that the 1st amendment logically applies to speech over the phone or internet, even if they didnt specifically elucidate it.
 
RightatNYU said:
The pledge was not written in 1492.
Click to expand...

I always thought it was taken from that letter that Thomas Paine wrote to George Washington Carver about Virgil Cain robbing the Danvile Train and giving the money to the Danbury Baptists to build the mounds of separation.

RightatNYU said:
For first Amendment purposes, religion is "Any sincere belief based upon a power or being or upon a faith to which all else is subordinate or upon which all else is ultimately dependent. Any belief which rests at least partly upon moral or ethical principle, not wholly upon considerations of policy, pragmatism, or expediency."
Click to expand...

"Religion is the duty which we owe to our Creator."

--Draft of Virginia Bill of Rights by George Mason (1776)
--Draft of Virginia Bill of Rights by Patrick Henry (1776)
--The Virginia Bill of Rights (1776)
--A Memorial and Remonstrance by James Madison (1785)
--Blackston Commentaries by Saint George Tucker (1803)
--U. S. Supreme Court in Reynolds V. U. S. (1878)

Fred
 
Kandahar said:
That's just the English translation of anno domini (AD), which was merely the standard way of writing years at that time. Don't read too much into it.
Click to expand...

It was somewhat of a, "standard" back then, yes. But it still implies that they were Christian. If they weren't, they could have just not put that in there. The constitution itself contained so many revolutionary aspects for that time, things that flew in the face of the European monarchies, don't you think they would have been also as defiant if they had been atheists or agnostics?
 
Navy Pride said:
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?
Click to expand...

As an agnostic atheist, I skip the words "under god" every morning when the pledge is recited. What is the big deal? I’m not offended, just don't force me to say "under god"

It's just another wedge issue. There are bigger fish to fry; like Rumsfeld for example.
 
galenrox said:
I've come to a conclusion about this issue, at that is "under God" should be taken out of the pledge. Not only do I view it in direct opposition to what this nation is supposed to be, but also as a christian it really pisses me off.

"Under God" was placed in the pledge in the 50's, essentially to show the godless communists how godly we were. Any way about it, broadcasting your christianity as a way to either get glory or as a tactic in a war is a misuse of it.
Click to expand...

The gentelman from Galveston said that "religion and politics are things that must forever run in parallel lines which never meet; for whenever they meet, there is contamination, and religion has in it much more of earth than heaven. Delegate William Brown, Page 177, Debates of the Texas Constitutional Convention of 1845.

http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/pdf/pdf1845debates/00000016.pdf

hipsterdufus said:
As an agnostic atheist, I skip the words "under god" every morning when the pledge is recited. What is the big deal? I’m not offended, just don't force me to say "under god"
Click to expand...

Why do you forbid the government to use force but allow it to use recommendations? What principle of religious liberty did you apply?

hipsterdufus said:
It's just another wedge issue. There are bigger fish to fry; like Rumsfeld for example.
Click to expand...

I got your back in that fight.

George_Washington said:
It was somewhat of a, "standard" back then, yes. But it still implies that they were Christian. If they weren't, they could have just not put that in there. The constitution itself contained so many revolutionary aspects for that time, things that flew in the face of the European monarchies, don't you think they would have been also as defiant if they had been atheists or agnostics?
Click to expand...

If using the European dating ritual implies they were Christian, does the fact that the First U. S. Congress did not use it imply that they weren't?

FVF
 
the phrase "Under God" has been in the pledge long enough that I dont see much reason to remove it now. by now it has historical meaning.

my bigger concern is how elementry schools force students to recite it, without ever explaining what it means. its rather silly to me. this is what I thought I was saying in elementry school:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
And to the republic for witchit stands
one nation, under god, indivisable
with liberty and justice for all"

I didnt know what any of the bolded words meant. I thought "witchit" had something to do with witches...
 
Well the "under God" part was added but also the whole "United States of America" part was an added addition as well. If you throw out the "under God" because it wasn't included in the original than you ought to throw out the "United States of America" too for the same reason.

I think rather than screw around with it we might as well come up with something new or forget the whole thing all together. Many people don't think kids should be forced to memorize anything anymore so maybe we should let it go and not have the little children recite anything in the morning since memorization is icky.

And even if you came up with a new pledge....what would it be? How would you satisfy everyone? Fact is....some don't want to pledge allegiance to anything. And disrespecting the President has become almost common place in schools across the nation anyway and "patriotism" has become almost a dirty word! Some people are actually ashamed of this country and some people think it's stupid to have pride in where you were born. So in the end.....why even bother?
 
George_Washington said:
It was somewhat of a, "standard" back then, yes. But it still implies that they were Christian. If they weren't, they could have just not put that in there. The constitution itself contained so many revolutionary aspects for that time, things that flew in the face of the European monarchies, don't you think they would have been also as defiant if they had been atheists or agnostics?
Click to expand...

Didn't imply anything. I bet you every athiest and agnostic in this country uses 2006 on the checks they write.

Also in the Constitution you'll find the words January and March. January comes from Janus, the god of doorways who had two faces, and March from Mars, the God of war, but I don't think the Signers were implying that they believed in these gods, were they?
 
talloulou said:
Well the "under God" part was added but also the whole "United States of America" part was an added addition as well. If you throw out the "under God" because it wasn't included in the original than you ought to throw out the "United States of America" too for the same reason.
Click to expand...

We're talking about Constitutional issues, and that doesn't include children saying the phrase 'United States of America.' A teacher can direct her students to recite this phrase anytime, but can't direct them to use religious phrases.
 
star2589 said:
the phrase "Under God" has been in the pledge long enough that I dont see much reason to remove it now. by now it has historical meaning.
Click to expand...

Oh, well since we've had it so long it makes in Constitutional? We had slavery even longer, so I guess we should reinstate that then. Apply that argument to other things this country has done and you'll see how bad it is.
 
Columbusite said:
Oh, well since we've had it so long it makes in Constitutional? We had slavery even longer, so I guess we should reinstate that then. Apply that argument to other things this country has done and you'll see how bad it is.
Click to expand...

there is nothing unconstitutional about the pledge of alligiance. forcing people to say it is another matter.
 
What was “the successful experiment” in the "XYZ" or "Eternal Hostility" letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to Benjamin Rush?

FRED
 
talloulou said:
I think rather than screw around with it we might as well come up with something new or forget the whole thing all together. Many people don't think kids should be forced to memorize anything anymore so maybe we should let it go and not have the little children recite anything in the morning since memorization is icky.
Click to expand...

Pledges to the state are so Nazi-ish and Soviet-like that we should just not have them. The children of this nation should not be coerced to recite a pledge like a robot. It also does nothing but display false patriotism. What actual values do a pledge instill in children?

And even if you came up with a new pledge....what would it be? How would you satisfy everyone? Fact is....some don't want to pledge allegiance to anything. And disrespecting the President has become almost common place in schools across the nation anyway and "patriotism" has become almost a dirty word! Some people are actually ashamed of this country and some people think it's stupid to have pride in where you were born. So in the end.....why even bother?
Click to expand...

Patriotism is a "dirty word" because so many people in this country don't know the first thing about what it means to be American. Many just think slapping a bumper sticker with the American flag with "under God" and other displays "patriotism" makes them a patriot. How about knowing what's in the Constitution and standing up for it? A real patriot has no need to wrap themselves in the flag since their actions show that he/she is a patriot, which is more than just being proud of the fact that you were born here. Pushing for religion in government is not one of those actions and is in fact very anti-American.
 
star2589 said:
there is nothing unconstitutional about the pledge of alligiance. forcing people to say it is another matter.
Click to expand...

The government has no right to even have a pledge in the first place, especially one that acknowledges a diety. There is simply no good reason for it in the first place. It is there to force people to show their outward loyalty to the state (you're a good American, right?). I don't see how it is constitutional.
 
Last edited:
FredFlash said:
What was “the successful experiment” in the "XYZ" or "Eternal Hostility" letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to Benjamin Rush?

FRED
Click to expand...

I believe that was the creation of a government separate from the rule of religion, where neither was suported by the other, and based only on the rule of law. I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Columbusite said:
The government has no right to even have a pledge in the first place, especially one that acknowledges a diety. There is simply no good reason for it in the first place. It is there to force people to show their outward loyalty to the state (you're a good American, right?). I don't see how it is constitutional.
Click to expand...

I see it as being no different from the national anthem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom