• 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.
The talking point does not entail The Pledge? Have you read the title of this thread? Your posts seem to just throw out irrational points with no basis. If the founding fathers wanted to make some acclamation to a god, then why write the Constitution without it? Why create the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
Click to expand...

Look you are misconstuing what I am saying. Of course you are entitled to your freedom of beleif or whatever you beleive. But the fact of the matter to say that this countries foundations werent founded under godly(not religion)principles is absurd. And to say its constitutional for the pledge to not have god in it is actually unconstitutional casue its the freedoms of the persons religion who wrote it who you will infringe upon. Does this make any sense?

If other people who dont agree that there is a god then they dont have to listen to it its just that simple. Its just like mt soledad. If they dont want to se the crosss then dont look at the mountain.
 
SKILMATIC said:
You cant just look at one piece of literature and conclude anything you must look at the whole picture. The fact is up and down the billl of rights and the ammendments were all provinged by Gods devine human rights.




Your right but God did.
Click to expand...

Making up more points. Prove this, any of it.

Here is the Bill of Rights:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

Where is there any mention of a god's divine human rights?
 
Its like when a athiest sees a church. Is the athiest going to get all hissy fitted casue he sees a church and becasue he sees one it offends him? No that would be rediculous. And if that was the case we would have to do away with all churches and other religious things. The point is its rediculous to say that.

And its the same instance on the pledge. No one makes you say the pledge nor does anyone make you watch a cross or look at a church.
 
You know?

I honestly don't think it makes a difference whether its there or not

"One Nation, Under God, Indivisible" or "One Nation, Indivisble" works for me. I think its more a waste of valuable Court time to rule on something that amounts ultimately to two words in the mountain of other more important words that we need to address in this day and age.

Our government was founded by people who believe in One god, the majority of americans believe in that god and it was these god believing people who had the wisdom to say you don't have to believe in my one god in first place. So why scrutinize an "american" tradition that although may contain "words" that reflect a certain religious belief, embody an "idea" that binds us together as americans.

I think its quite petty.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Look you are misconstuing what I am saying. Of course you are entitled to your freedom of beleif or whatever you beleive. But the fact of the matter to say that this countries foundations werent founded under godly(not religion)principles is absurd. And to say its constitutional for the pledge to not have god in it is actually unconstitutional casue its the freedoms of the persons religion who wrote it who you will infringe upon. Does this make any sense?

If other people who dont agree that there is a god then they dont have to listen to it its just that simple. Its just like mt soledad. If they dont want to se the crosss then dont look at the mountain.
Click to expand...

Prove that this country was founded under godly principles.

The act of writing the pledge is not being interfered with so the author is not having their freedom infringed upon. The act of Congress passing a law making the Pledge the official pledge of this country is unconstitutional as clearly expressed in our First Amendment. Making it mandatory for recitation is also unconstitutional as clearly stated in the same amendment.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Its like when a athiest sees a church. Is the athiest going to get all hissy fitted casue he sees a church and becasue he sees one it offends him? No that would be rediculous. And if that was the case we would have to do away with all churches and other religious things. The point is its rediculous to say that.

And its the same instance on the pledge. No one makes you say the pledge nor does anyone make you watch a cross or look at a church.
Click to expand...

A church is a private organization on private property. The government is not imposing it on anyone in this case. There is no law involved.
 
It is undeniably the intent of the founding fathers NOT to abolish all things religious from all things public, but to protect the states from a federal religion.

Besides, who needs it to not be there? No one is even affected. We were founded by Christians. Get over it.

You can't ask the rest of the world to bend over for your pathetic oversensitivity.

Great bumper sticker: "Protect the easily offended..Ban everything."
 
Awwe but would you say that the person who wrote the pledge is a private person and has private ideas and beleifs? Just like anyone else? The point I am trying to make is yes its on private property but the point is the same. You are not made to recite the pledge just like you arent made to look at churches. Now if gov enforced you to recite it then that would be different dont you think?
 
The government is not imposing it on anyone in this case
Click to expand...

The gov never imposed anything for you to recite the pledge. Show me they have imposed it?

It is undeniably the intent of the founding fathers NOT to abolish all things religious from all things public, but to protect the states from a federal religion.

Besides, who needs it to not be there? No one is even affected. We were founded by Christians. Get over it.

You can't ask the rest of the world to bend over for your pathetic oversensitivity.

Great bimper sticker: "Protect the easily offended..Ban everything."
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
Actually 'under god' wasn't originally in the pledge it was added during the cold war under, I believe Eisenhower, to use as a form of soft power against the athiest Soviets. But still I see no problem in it being in the pledge due to the fact that it doesn't specify which god we're under, that and where would it all end? With taking 'in god we trust' off of money or maybe not allowing kids to sing christmas songs on christmas, or even with keeping the basis for common law (the ten commandments for those of you not planning on going to law school) out of courtrooms, . . . wait a minute let me back up here for a sec, umm it looks as though the process has already begun.
 
Last edited:
aquapub said:
It is undeniably the intent of the founding fathers NOT to abolish all things religious from all things public, but to protect the states from a federal religion.

Besides, who needs it to not be there? No one is even affected. We were founded by Christians. Get over it.

You can't ask the rest of the world to bend over for your pathetic oversensitivity.

Great bumper sticker: "Protect the easily offended..Ban everything."
Click to expand...

If we were founded by Christians then why was it omitted from our Constitution? It is not possible for anyone living today to know what anyone believed who lived 200 years ago. To think otherwise is simply arrogant. We can know for sure that we were founded on the Constitution, not any religion.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Awwe but would you say that the person who wrote the pledge is a private person and has private ideas and beleifs? Just like anyone else? The point I am trying to make is yes its on private property but the point is the same. You are not made to recite the pledge just like you arent made to look at churches. Now if gov enforced you to recite it then that would be different dont you think?
Click to expand...

Yes, the person who wrote it is a private person with private ideas. The act of writing the Pledge is not being infringed upon. Our Constitution limits the government, not the people it governs. But when that pledge becomes a law from the government, it then becomes unconstitutional.
 
Yes, the person who wrote it is a private person with private ideas. The act of writing the Pledge is not being infringed upon. Our Constitution limits the government, not the people it governs. But when that pledge becomes a law from the government, it then becomes unconstitutional
Click to expand...

Ok I agree. So then would you say that its not unconstitutional for having god in the pleadge? At least thats what you said in that post. Just want to make sure.
 
SKILMATIC said:
The gov never imposed anything for you to recite the pledge. Show me they have imposed it?



Exactly
Click to expand...

There are laws that require the recitation of the Pledge in pubic school. That is why these cases are being presented to courts. With them are means to not recite it, but children in schools are a captive audience. To not recite it would mean branding themselves an outsider, who would then be open to ridicule and harm (mental in most cases, physical and authoritative in some). This is coercion. The students are pressured into reciting it to fit in. A student in Cincinnati was removed from class for refusing to recite the Pledge with "under god" in it. This student missed valuable class time because of it and the teacher has labeled him an outsider.

Source:
http://www.fox19.com/Global/story.asp?S=1179021&nav=0zHFEZGz

I have provided proof for my claims. I asked you to provide the proof of your claims and have gotten none.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Ok I agree. So then would you say that its not unconstitutional for having god in the pleadge? At least thats what you said in that post. Just want to make sure.
Click to expand...

I think we are still in disagreement. The point I am trying to make is that the Pledge itself is not unconstitutional. The law that makes it officially this country's pledge is unconstitutional. The laws that require it to be recited by a captive audience is unconstitutional. If a government passes a law that inserts "under god" in the Pledge, then they are establishing this country as a country "under god". This is passing a law that respects the establishment of religion. This is clearly unconstitutional.
 
Mixed View said:
I think it should be in there because it is a part of our history. Plus, if you are not a Christian I think "under god" is speaking of a higher power and not the Christian God.
Click to expand...
Sorry, it is NOT a part of our "history." It was added to the Pledge in the 50s during the height of McCarthyism to differentiate the US from the USSR.

It was not in the pledge for 100+ years....all way back when...
 
Stinger said:
Wasn't there to begin with, shouldn't be there now. Lots of citizens do not believe in the Judeo/Christian god so that entity should not be part of our national pledge which is for ALL citizens. Religious faith should not be a part of it.
Click to expand...
I agree with Stinger! WOW! Never thought I would type those words....
 
Sorry, it is NOT a part of our "history." It was added to the Pledge in the 50s during the height of McCarthyism to differentiate the US from the USSR.
Click to expand...

Wouldnt you say 50yrs ago was history? I beleive history is the past right? WEll whether it be 500yrs 50yrs or 5days ago its still history.

No the pledge doesnt refer to the judaeo god and where does it refer to it? Does it say that? And do we make everyone say it? I think not therefore its constitutional. Until the country makes each individual say it then it wont be unconstitutional.
 
Hoot said:
Since when do the rights of the few outweigh the rights of the many?

I see nothing wrong with keeping the term "under God" in the pledge. What about the vast majority of parents that prefer to have their children recite the pledge with "under God?" I guess their rights are thrown out the window?

What I find far more offensive is those of you on the right using terms like "liberal activist judge" whenever a decision is made that you don't care for. Who's to say he's not a conservative who is mistakenly, trying to interpret the constitution?
Click to expand...

The 9th circuit court in San Francisco is the most activisr appeals court in this country...About 40% of their rulings are overturned by the SCOTUS.......So will this one...........Take it to the bank.......
 
Thats ok world champs. The yanks have yet another all star lineup and they are for some reason in 4th place with boston in 1st(i think). And I suppose you still want to argue with facts again? :rofl
 
SKILMATIC said:
No the pledge doesnt refer to the judaeo god and where does it refer to it? Does it say that?
Click to expand...
Yes, it does refer to the Judeo-Christian god by its capitalization. In English, a generic god isn't capitalized, however,when it refers to a specific, such as the Judeo-Christian god, it is capitalized to be "God"

http://www.usconstitution.net/pledge.html
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.",


SKILMATIC said:
And do we make everyone say it? I think not therefore its constitutional. Until the country makes each individual say it then it wont be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
The appeals court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said students cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. But even when the pledge is voluntary, "the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge."
 
SKILMATIC said:
And do we make everyone say it? I think not therefore its constitutional. Until the country makes each individual say it then it wont be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I have on several occasions said the Pledge as written during a public recitation. "One Nation, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All." Of course that puts me ahead of everyone else. As a result I have had people turn around and say "Why don't you say RIGHT!" and "If you can't say it right to go somewhere else". Yes they are idiots but then the constitution is to protect us from the wrath of the idiots which sometimes are the majority.

The Pledge of Allegiance is for ALL citizens to pledge that allegiance to OUR COUNTRY. Not to acknowledge someone Else's faith or belief in supernatural beings. It has not place in our national pledge and splits the country rather than unites us.
 
This is just silly guys, come on, everyone one likes to shout tolerate everything as long as you don't mention God. If it offends you then don't say it, no one has a gun to your head. When I was a anarchist teen I never said the pledge so why can't anyone who is offended just omit that particular phrase and let the others say it if they want. How bout freedom of speech, shouldn't that protect the ones who prefer to say "under God". I just don't get it, why are some people so offended by this but they are the same people who would stand up for NAMBLA's right to talk about "loving" little boys. If we have to use separation of church and state then just say "ok little kiddies, some people are offended by the word God in our pledge so when we say the pledge if you are offended leave God out of it."
But honestly I just can't over how silly this all is, the pledge in no way says you must be religious, nor does it promote one religion over another (lots of religions capitalize the word God). The constitution gives us freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion, although you are free not to believe in a god you are also free to believe in which ever god you prefer, this is what I believe is meant by freedom of religion.
 
Alright I did my research and see that if we want to keep history straight we shouldn't have added "under God" so I will have to say that if they want to remove it then they should. I still don't like all this crap about tolerating everything exept God though, it's getting realy silly.

Anyways here is a little snippet about when the pledge was changed,

"In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there."

I like how this peace ends,

"If the Pledge's historical pattern repeats, its words will be modified during this decade. Below are two possible changes.

Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.'

A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'"

I say if we change it we should go back to the original,
'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]


Oh well,

source:
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
 
gdalton said:
This is just silly guys, come on, everyone one likes to shout tolerate everything as long as you don't mention God. If it offends you then don't say it, no one has a gun to your head.
Click to expand...
The problem goes a little deeper than that though.

I'm sure you've heard this example before, but read the twist.

Let's say that there are some changes in the government. They decide to change all major government sponsored holidays from Christian Holidays so that Christmas is no longer an official vacation day but Ramadan is. The pledge changes from "under God" to "under Allah". Coins change from "in Allah we trust". Etc. The USA does this because its population has become Muslim in majority.

So, would these changes be based on the population and its new sense of history, or would these be based on a religious agenda?

The point is, it's not the fact that it's a pledge and one may or may not say it. It's the deeper point that the government should not be endorsing one religious belief over another.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom