• 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.
independent_thinker2002 said:
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.!

No song will fix that. We will unify better as a country as soon as Iran releases their 40000 suicide bombers on us as they threatened to today.


independent_thinker2002 said:
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 still watch those too but the feeling isnt the same.

independent_thinker2002 said:
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?.!

Never mentioned need. Makes me feel better though. I like it. sue me.

independent_thinker2002 said:
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!

Perhaps singing O'Canada or El himno nacional mexicano out of the blue does it for you. Good for you. Teacher really enjoys this one.


Not for me. If I was canadian or mexican that would be different. The national anthem of Liberia also does not evoke an emotion from me. So yeah that is ethnocentric of me. I have lived in Europe and Asia and spent time in nearly all the United States. In my opinion Texas, New Mexico, and Hong Kong(Pre China) are some of the coolest places to live.
 
star2589 said:
there is nothing unconstitutional about the pledge of alligiance. forcing people to say it is another matter.

Where in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution is Congress given the power to sign off on an official pledge of allegiance?
 
tryreading said:
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?

My point was just that it was indicative of our history. Also, it might just help to instill morality into young people. If the effects of it are positive, which I believe they are for the most part, I don't see why we should remove it.
 
Columbusite said:
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?

See you proved my point. I have trouble understanding how some feel this way....yet they do. I think the pledge of allegiance in the morning is nice and teaches kids respect for their country and pride in their country. Clearly not everyone believes pride and respect for ones country is good.


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.

Patriotism is a dirty word because liberals have made it that way.

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.

Someone who honestly feels patriotism is a dirty word probably doesn't know anything about a "real patriot."

Pushing for religion in government is not one of those actions and is in fact very anti-American.

Some would argue that insisting God be pushed completely out of sight is anti-American. I'm not religious but I'd agree with those people. It's freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

To me it seems ridiculous that liberals are running around trying to get the pledge of allegiance thrown out of schools and what not. Seems to me that consumers have no trouble consuming despite the "In God we Trust" money. Why not go after that first? Seems to me as long as God is on the money than clearly we are a nation under God whether we like it or not.
 
talloulou said:
Patriotism is a dirty word because liberals have made it that way.

And why shouldn't it be a dirty word? What exactly is the virtue of patriotism?

talloulou said:
To me it seems ridiculous that liberals are running around trying to get the pledge of allegiance thrown out of schools and what not. Seems to me that consumers have no trouble consuming despite the "In God we Trust" money. Why not go after that first? Seems to me as long as God is on the money than clearly we are a nation under God whether we like it or not.

We should get rid of that phrase too. It's not insisting "God be pushed completely out of sight," as you said. It's simply insisting that the government has no business taking sides on matters of faith.
 
George_Washington said:
My point was just that it was indicative of our history. Also, it might just help to instill morality into young people. If the effects of it are positive, which I believe they are for the most part, I don't see why we should remove it.

Forcing kids to recite an obvious lie is going to instill "morality" in them?

What instills morality in children is observing moral behavior in adults, and having moral behavior expected of them. And explaining morality to them.

Morality cannot be explained in terms of religion.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Forcing kids to recite an obvious lie is going to instill "morality" in them?

What instills morality in children is observing moral behavior in adults, and having moral behavior expected of them. And explaining morality to them.

Wow, another thing I agree with you on.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Forcing kids to recite an obvious lie is going to instill "morality" in them?

What instills morality in children is observing moral behavior in adults, and having moral behavior expected of them. And explaining morality to them.

Morality cannot be explained in terms of religion.

You may think it's a lie but many people don't. The bottom line is, is that it doesn't endorse any particular religion. It's just indicative of the history of our nation. Morality can absolutely be expressed in terms of religion. Not just the Christian religion but rather, all the major religions of the world include things about morality. I believe you simply choose not to acknowledge this fact based on your own obvious prejudices towards Christianity and religion in general, of which you have expressed so thoroughly on this forum time and time again.
 
Kandahar said:
And why shouldn't it be a dirty word? What exactly is the virtue of patriotism?

It's about community. My family comes first. That does not mean I don't care about others but when you get right down to it my family comes first. Then my neighborhood, my community, my city, my state, and then my country. Doesn't mean the rest of the world is less important or I don't care about the rest of the world but when push comes to shove I put mine first. What's wrong with that?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Morality cannot be explained in terms of religion.

I'm not religious personally but this line is a load of horse manure. Morality certainly can be expressed and explained in terms of religions and many many people use religion as their moral guide. It serves some very well and makes others crazy. But I found your statement quite frankly....absurd.
 
George_Washington said:
You may think it's a lie but many people don't. The bottom line is, is that it doesn't endorse any particular religion. It's just indicative of the history of our nation. Morality can absolutely be expressed in terms of religion. Not just the Christian religion but rather, all the major religions of the world include things about morality. I believe you simply choose not to acknowledge this fact based on your own obvious prejudices towards Christianity and religion in general, of which you have expressed so thoroughly on this forum time and time again.


No. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. This nation isn't "under God". Never has been. If you think it has ever been under God, place tell us where on the map we can find the print of Her Holy Buttocks.

No religion is moral. All religions base what they claim is morality on threat of devine wrath rather than on any recognition of other persons as equals. Christianity is one of the worst offenders, second in this only to the dog-do religion of Islam.
 
talloulou said:
I'm not religious personally but this line is a load of horse manure. Morality certainly can be expressed and explained in terms of religions and many many people use religion as their moral guide. It serves some very well and makes others crazy. But I found your statement quite frankly....absurd.


The Judeo/Christian/Islamic "morality" includes the tale of Lot tossing his virgin daughters out to the angry mob to be raped so the mob won't bother God's angels. God's angels, nearly all-powerful beings themselves, accept this. God hisself, in a fit of pique, murders everyone on the planet, except for Noah and his family. Yet, descended though we are from incest, according to this silly tale, it's immoral to boink your sister. So much for consistency. Jesus hisself gets pissed off at a tree for not bearing fruit...we won't mention that it was out of season, and he kills it.

People may use religion as a moral guide. That merely means their incapable of defining their own morality and incapable of seeing the glaring flaws in all religions. People use crescent wrenches, too.

Real morality, a coherent set of logical principles of free-choice that does not violate the freedom of others to choose their own way without interference, cannot reside in any religion demanding the mob control the individual or imposing metaphysical punishments for deviation.
 
It doesn't matter what words or phrases are in the pledge of alligance. What matters is that students be allowed to refuse to recite the pledge and or leave their classroom if they choose during it.
 
Saboteur said:
It doesn't matter what words or phrases are in the pledge of alligance. What matters is that students be allowed to refuse to recite the pledge and or leave their classroom if they choose during it.

What matters is that government established a religion and it doesn't matter if people are free to not recite it. People were free to utter those silly words before the government violate the First Amendment to make them law.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. This nation isn't "under God". Never has been. If you think it has ever been under God, place tell us where on the map we can find the print of Her Holy Buttocks.

You can use those crude analogies but they don't really accomplish much. The vast majority of our founding fathers were theists, not to mention that the vast majority of our Presidents and politicans have been religious. This also not mentioning the fact that many of our country's bright people in the arts, sciences, and business have been religious: Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, etc. So is religion is definitely a historical aspect of our country.



No religion is moral. All religions base what they claim is morality on threat of devine wrath rather than on any recognition of other persons as equals. Christianity is one of the worst offenders, second in this only to the dog-do religion of Islam.

Again, your personal opinions on religion don't amount to a hill of beans, Elsa. It doesn't change the fact that America has had a history of theism in her mists.
 
Religion is the duty which we owe to our Creator...no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.... Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body.

--James Madison - Memorial and Remonstrance - 1785

When it passed the bill that recommended a belief in "one Nation under God", Congress foolishly and sinfully took cognizance of a disputed issue pertaining to the duty which we owe to our Creator. That isssue being whether there is or is not a God, and whether he is over us.

Leave the religion of the people as free as the air they breathe from government influence. Let each man decide for himself if God does actually exist and if God is over him.

If Christianity is the true religion it needs no help from the government. If not, let it wither and blow away.

When has Christ ever asked the government to help him promulgate his Gospel? When he stood before Pilate, Christ did not tell him that he was under the Savior's authority, or that the nation he ruled was under God. He said, "My Kingdom is not of the world..."

The Savior also told us to "Render unto Caesar the things which belong to Caesar, and unto God the things which belong to God"; thus clearly intimating that the temporal and eternal governments were not only distinct from each other, but that the distinction should be perpetual; and that the laws of Caesar, or of the governments of the nations, had to do with men as citizens of the temporal world; and that the things of God were not to be rendered to Caesar - but only unto God.

If you believe in God because the government made a law that told you to believe it, you are in a fast car on the Highway to Hell.

FVF
 
talloulou said:
Some would argue that insisting God be pushed completely out of sight is anti-American. I'm not religious but I'd agree with those people. It's freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

I'm not going to bother refuting the other garbage in your post since you have demonstrated your lack of reasoning abilites. There are plenty of other people who will do so.

Yes, some people do argue that "God be pushed completely out of sight is anti-American", but what does that even mean? Who is trying to do this? In this country this is just a ridiculous claim. Christians make up over 80% of the population. Are they persecuting themselves? God out of the government is what organizations like AU, ACLU, PFAW, etc are talking about and that leaves plenty of other places for God (whichever one you're talking about). You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. We are based on a secular document that allows for the greatest amount of religious freedom and not just "liberals" support this, but any decent American. Saying that you MUST pick a religion is NOT freedom. Unlike you, I am pro-freedom, pro-America. Your religious beliefs or lack thereof is up to you and you should be able to express your thoughts honestly without a government stepping in and punishing or preventing you for doing so. I am very skeptical of your claim that you are not religious especially considering what you are arguing for.
 
George_Washington said:
It doesn't change the fact that America has had a history of theism in her mists.

I don't see anyone here denying the role religion has played in our history, but it played that role because of the religious freedom guaranteed by our secular AND religion friendly Constitution. You're not going to have that continue if you mix religion into the government for which there is no good reason to do and to advocate this is to go against our Constitution and the USA.
 
George_Washington said:
You can use those crude analogies but they don't really accomplish much. The vast majority of our founding fathers were theists, not to mention that the vast majority of our Presidents and politicans have been religious. This also not mentioning the fact that many of our country's bright people in the arts, sciences, and business have been religious: Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, etc. So is religion is definitely a historical aspect of our country.

Religion is certainly a historical aspect of this country. So what? The phrase in the Furniture Polish of Allegiance doesn't say "One Nation, that was formed by a bunch of guys that had a feeling that there was a god but we don't know for sure", it says "one nation, under god". That's an affirmation that their figment of imagination was not only real, but still is.

Since it can't be proven that there is a God, it can't be proven that God had anything whatsoever to do with the founding of this country. It can only be said that some people believing in the tooth fairy in the sky took actions on the basis of that belief that were successful in shaping this country.

Again, that some people of higher than average intelligence have a belief in no way makes that belief reality. So what if Einstein believed in God? He also believed that God didn't shoot craps. He was wrong.


George_Washington said:
Again, your personal opinions on religion don't amount to a hill of beans, Elsa. It doesn't change the fact that America has had a history of theism in her mists.

Again, it doesn't matter what the history of the country is. The fact is that the affirmation in the Pledge is not only not provable, significant numbers of Americans think it's hooey.
 
Columbusite said:
I don't see anyone here denying the role religion has played in our history, but it played that role because of the religious freedom guaranteed by our secular AND religion friendly Constitution. You're not going to have that continue if you mix religion into the government for which there is no good reason to do and to advocate this is to go against our Constitution and the USA.

Well, I might argue that there is a difference between having the nation as a whole or the government if you will, containing elements of religion versus the entire legislative body endorsing or forcing individuals to practice a certain religion. For example, over in England there are many art forms, symbols, figures, etc. that are reminiscent of a monarchy. However, England does not currently still have a monarchy, nor do these decorations force any of the English people to live under one.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Again, it doesn't matter what the history of the country is. The fact is that the affirmation in the Pledge is not only not provable, significant numbers of Americans think it's hooey.

But is there a difference between government endorsing or establishing a religion over its, people rather than itself as a seperate entity? I think there might be.
 
George_Washington said:
But is there a difference between government endorsing or establishing a religion over its, people rather than itself as a seperate entity? I think there might be.


Maybe, except in this country the government is the people. That the formal trappings of government are a bunch of seats in Washington, a few buildings here and there doesn't alter the fact that the government of this nation resides in the people themselves. So when the government speaks, it speaks for all of us.

That's why the lie in the Furniture Polish of Allegiance is so glaring. Because not all of share that particular delusion.

Why is it in there? Because the people with the delusion managed to force it in to remind the whole world that some people in this nation aren't only deluded, but they're bad poets, too. That's it. And for the last few weeks, I've had to deal with my daughter telling me that her first grade buddies, all of whom obviously suffer some form of criminal brainwashing form of child abuse, won't play with her because she hasn't also been simonized.

And the lie in the Furniture Polish of Allegiance adds to the problem.

You guys can have your delusion, you know, but the very purpose of the First Amendment is to restrict you guys from spreading that delusion with the power of the federal government.

Save the little girls, restore honesty to the Furniture Polish of Allegiance, get rid of the lie about "under god".
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Maybe, except in this country the government is the people. That the formal trappings of government are a bunch of seats in Washington, a few buildings here and there doesn't alter the fact that the government of this nation resides in the people themselves. So when the government speaks, it speaks for all of us.


So, our government is solely in the hands of the people, in the sense that new laws should be passed at the whim of the majority's opinion? So what if the majority of people think the pledge should stay?


Why is it in there? Because the people with the delusion managed to force it in to remind the whole world that some people in this nation aren't only deluded, but they're bad poets, too. That's it. And for the last few weeks, I've had to deal with my daughter telling me that her first grade buddies, all of whom obviously suffer some form of criminal brainwashing form of child abuse, won't play with her because she hasn't also been simonized.

And the lie in the Furniture Polish of Allegiance adds to the problem.

You guys can have your delusion, you know, but the very purpose of the First Amendment is to restrict you guys from spreading that delusion with the power of the federal government.

Save the little girls, restore honesty to the Furniture Polish of Allegiance, get rid of the lie about "under god".

While I do feel sympathy for your daughter, I can't help but think your analogy is kind of weak. Kids get made fun of and excluded from groups far apart from religion. When I was a kid, I knew people who weren't very religious, who committed crimes. What does that mean? Does that mean that atheism is the root cause of children's school problems?

So if the government is simply just the people as you said, than what if the people want to keep the pledge?
 
George_Washington said:
So, our government is solely in the hands of the people, in the sense that new laws should be passed at the whim of the majority's opinion? So what if the majority of people think the pledge should stay?

You know, that's the most amazing thing about this country. It was founded by geniuses who knew that the majority is a mindless boob that gives sour milk almost all the time, so they created a document that placed limits on what the majority could do...and...bear with me, this is the most incredible thing you've ever seen... the first changes they made to this constitution thingy specifically states that the congress, which is the gang the majority elects every couple of years to work for them, simply CANNOT pass laws like the one they passed making the majority's delusion a law of the land.

Didn't I tell you those people way back then were absolute geniuses? Makes me wonder why THEY never drafted a flag-selling poem and then made it the official rote statement of allegiance to the country. Truly a mystery, I must say.



George_Washington said:
While I do feel sympathy for your daughter, I can't help but think your analogy is kind of weak. Kids get made fun of and excluded from groups far apart from religion. When I was a kid, I knew people who weren't very religious, who committed crimes. What does that mean? Does that mean that atheism is the root cause of children's school problems?

Yeah, when I was a kid, Andrea Yates hadn't been born yet. Driving off the cliff of irrelevancy to avoid the issue? The issue is that because the delusion is part of federal law, and that law requires the teacher to recite it in front of the class every day, with the expectation that the kids will follow along, that the delusion of the many is re-inforced and used as a weapon against those with better brains. Which is EXACTLY what the First Amendment is intended to prevent.

So if the government is simply just the people as you said, than what if the people want to keep the pledge?[/QUOTE]
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You know, that's the most amazing thing about this country. It was founded by geniuses who knew that the majority is a mindless boob that gives sour milk almost all the time, so they created a document that placed limits on what the majority could do...and...bear with me, this is the most incredible thing you've ever seen... the first changes they made to this constitution thingy specifically states that the congress, which is the gang the majority elects every couple of years to work for them, simply CANNOT pass laws like the one they passed making the majority's delusion a law of the land.

Didn't I tell you those people way back then were absolute geniuses? Makes me wonder why THEY never drafted a flag-selling poem and then made it the official rote statement of allegiance to the country. Truly a mystery, I must say.

So, our founding fathers were geniuses who knew the majority of people are stupid? I agree they were smart but some of them had conservative views, nonetheless. I suggest you look at this quote by Alexander Hamilton:

"It is a harsh doctrine that men grow wicked as they improve and enlighten their minds."

I would say that Hamilton, if he were alive today, would probably be in favor of God in our pledge, considering he had advocated the creation of a national Christian church. You obviously don't agree with this concept, which means you've just contradicted yourself. Unless of course you think we should have a national church. :mrgreen:

So you can't lump all of our founding fathers into one category, they all had different views. If they were alive today and debating, there'd be just as much crossfire as there was back then. Considering some of them believed in dueling, it'd probably be much worse than how our politicans behave nowadays...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom