• 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.
SKILMATIC said:
Again this source is highly inaccurate. The statistic you just quoted was interpreting this by how many people subscribed to a religion. Well what the hell does that mean SUBSCRIBE? You mean church congreagations as to apposed the american population? The fact is the reason why the number is going up between 1990-2000 is becasue the more illegals we get the more non church goers becasue they dont have very many spanish speaking churches to harvest this large quatity of illegals which we do notice as population in america. However, the question isnt about who attends church the question is who beleives in God and thats not what the stat said. Majority of people beleive in God but dont attend or subscribe to a church. So that stat is entirely inacurate. And your talking 30million people in the span of 300million americans. I thnk you have along way to go buddy. Good luck
Click to expand...

You are making up more facts. Back it up, any of it.

The primary question was, “What is your religion, if any?” Then, when appropriate, the same was asked about the spouse/partner. The interviewer did not provide a list of suggested answers; respondents were expected to answer on their own. How is this inaccurate?

Same source.
 
Last edited:
SKILMATIC said:
I would kindly as you to post a non aeithistic link to this claim please otherwise I will just disregard how I disregard other liberal posts. I wil not be suprised if you tried to give me some atheistic link. Good luck.

Now next issue at hand



If I really have to explain this to you then I am sorry you are in the wrong thread to speak upon these matters.
Click to expand...

Making up more facts and not being able to back up the ones you claim. No surprise as you have not been able to prove anything you post.
 
SKILMATIC said:
otherwise I will just disregard how I disregard other liberal posts.
Click to expand...
Got a question for you, SKILMATIC, are you here to debate and learn, or just only read stuff that agrees with your point of view?
 
SKILMATIC said:
Vice versa buddy. Say it without the phrase on your own time then if it bothers you that much.
Click to expand...
Fortunately the rights of people who want to shove god down people's throats who do not want the intrusion have been restricted.
SKILMATIC said:
Another fact is that the overwheling majority of this world is God beleivers. So if the world was in a democracy guess who would win?
Click to expand...
Fortunately, again, our forefathers were smarter than those people who claim that majority rules when it comes to personal freedoms and separating our government from religion. They were wise enough to know what so many bible thumpers seem not to know, namely that religion is a private matter and has no right intruding into the public lives of Americans.

The more that god is removed from the public sector the better off all of us are as Americans because we are then all equal. Privately anyone of you can practice any religion you choose. It is your freedom to do so, one that will never be taken away from you. Conversely, the right to not practice any religion is equally important.

Making people have god in their lives when they do not want god to be involved is very wrong IMHO. This excellent ruling separates god from all of those who want to be away from god in the public arena.

Hooray for the new "old" pledge!
 
Last edited:
Got a question for you, SKILMATIC, are you here to debate and learn, or just only read stuff that agrees with your point of view?
Click to expand...

Well actually I am debating and reading but you havent taught me anything yet that I dont already know. I have heard all this saame rhetoric before and it doesnt phase me one bit.

How many times do I have to spit facts to you people to understand that this pledge isnt unconstitutional? I mean no one makes you recite it. You dont get punished for not doing so. So whats the fuss? Again simply just say it without the god part on your own time. Is that too hard of a fact to understand? Or are you going to argue to me someone holds a gun to your head and makes you recite it. C'mon people you have no argument. If it was we this phrase wouldve been deleted already so get a clue.
 
Fortunately, again, our forefathers were smarter than those people who claim that majority rules when it comes to personal freedoms and separating our government from religion. They were wise enough to know what so many bible thumpers seem not to know, namely that religion is a private matter and has no right intruding into the public lives of Americans.
Click to expand...

True I wont argue there. But this is what democracy is based upon majority not minority. If you want minority go to a communist state casue minority rules there.

The more that god is removed from the public sector the better off all of us are as Americans because we are then all equal.
Click to expand...

Please explain to me how just removing god we are all equal? I thought we are all equal with or without God? I really dont understand this notion. Also how does removing God improve americans life? I thought the stats say that once god and prayer were removed from schools teen pregnancy and drug use inflamed? Do I really need to provide a stat for you on this fact? Murder rate and domestic crime rose as well. Also school shootings came about. I cant see how you can make that claim. We have had god in our schools since the first pilgrims came over, and since the late 50's I belevie they removed it and in the last 50some odd years look where no god left us. I would love to hear the argument on this.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Well actually I am debating and reading but you havent taught me anything yet that I dont already know. I have heard all this saame rhetoric before and it doesnt phase me one bit.

How many times do I have to spit facts to you people to understand that this pledge isnt unconstitutional? I mean no one makes you recite it. You dont get punished for not doing so. So whats the fuss? Again simply just say it without the god part on your own time. Is that too hard of a fact to understand? Or are you going to argue to me someone holds a gun to your head and makes you recite it. C'mon people you have no argument. If it was we this phrase wouldve been deleted already so get a clue.
Click to expand...

See post #39 in this thread.
 
SKILMATIC said:
The fact is the reason why the number is going up between 1990-2000 is becasue the more illegals we get the more non church goers becasue they dont have very many spanish speaking churches to harvest this large quatity of illegals which we do notice as population in america.
Click to expand...
I cannot believe that anyone would post words like this. These words are as ANTI-AMERICAN and IGNORANT as any ever posted in this forum. AMAZING!

Why are these words ANTI-AMERICAN? IMHO they are prejudiced, aka bigotry. Bigotry in this country is so obviously alive today, all around us, and until posts like this one are universally condemned for what they are we will still be subject to generational ignorance. Bigotry is passed down from father to son, mother to daughter and this type of post is a fine example of how bigotry can mix with religion. Nasty, nasty, nasty....
 
SKILMATIC said:
Separation from chruch and state never occured. That is a fact.
Click to expand...
of course there is no state sponsered church or religion. it never defines GOD or which god. so, to the athiest out there, its a god of nothing. besides if they dont believe in GOD, then what do they care if it is in the pledge of allegience or not.
wasn't the POA created during the Cold War?? if so, then it would make sense since the communists were athiests and what better way to ensure patriotic americans then to make them pledge to God.
 
Bottom line this country was founded on judo-christian principles and that will never change...........
 
Haven't read the whole thread. How about we let those who don't want to say it.....not say it. Or is that too simple. Don't have a moment of prayer in school. Have a silent moment to think about whatever the hell you want to. In god we trust on money. Ah, too damn bad. Don't use the money.
 
Haven't read the whole thread. How about we let those who don't want to say it.....not say it. Or is that too simple. Don't have a moment of prayer in school. Have a silent moment to think about whatever the hell you want to. In god we trust on money. Ah, too damn bad. Don't use the money.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Now I suppose the sore losing yank is going to call that bigotry and racism and prejudiceness too? World champs, you are a typical bigotting lib. When someone debacles your argument you result to racist, bigotry, andprejuceness comments. Your argumnet will not fly and has never flied on this forum I know casue I have debacled everyone of you arguments you wanna know how I know? Cause in everyone of your ending comments it ends in a flamatory fassion. And its evident of this here again today. I cant beleive a father of a 18yr old lady is this DERROGATORY
 
Navy Pride said:
Bottom line this country was founded on judo-christian principles and that will never change...........
Click to expand...

Our country was not founded on Judo-Christian principles. It was founded on The Constitution.


Prove that it was founded on Judo-Christian principles. Just spewing out statements without any basis means nothing.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Thank you. Now I suppose the sore losing yank is going to call that bigotry and racism and prejudiceness too? World champs, you are a typical bigotting lib. When someone debacles your argument you result to racist, bigotry, andprejuceness comments. Your argumnet will not fly and has never flied on this forum I know casue I have debacled everyone of you arguments you wanna know how I know? Cause in everyone of your ending comments it ends in a flamatory fassion. And its evident of this here again today. I cant beleive a father of a 18yr old lady is this DERROGATORY
Click to expand...

[mod gaval]

:smash:

SKIL, no name calling. Take it to the basement if you want to call someone a bigot.

And flied is not a word.

[/mod gaval]
 
Kelzie said:
[mod gaval]


And flied is not a word.

[/mod gaval]
Click to expand...

Just had to throw that in there, didn't you? LOL.
 
Oh cmon kel, If you look at champs post he clled me one first. And if you read my post properly it says

you are a typical bigotting lib
Click to expand...

I said bigotting not that he was a bigot. They are different. Its like me saying your lying. Now is that the same thing as calling you a liar? I think not.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Oh cmon kel, If you look at champs post he clled me one first. And if you read my post properly it says



I said bigotting not that he was a bigot. They are different. Its like me saying your lying. Now is that the same thing as calling you a liar? I think not.
Click to expand...

Dude you used it as an adjective. It'd be the same if you said I was a lying lib. Now that would be calling me a liar.

And I calls em as I sees em. If you wanna report his post, feel free.
 
Judge: Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional

Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost an earlier case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. At that time, the Court ruled against the plaintiff on grounds that the plaintiff did not have legal standing to bring the case.

Now U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God," and will sign an order making public school subject to the order.

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

Request from thread author: Let's make this more than what each of us personally would like or not like or how terrible or not terrible are the groups that support what we like or don't like. This is surely going to wind up with the Supreme Court again. I would like to see some well reasoned arguments for or against the Pledge of Allegiance as it now reads.

Discuss
 
Dude you used it as an adjective. It'd be the same if you said I was a lying lib. Now that would be calling me a liar.

And I calls em as I sees em. If you wanna report his post, feel free.
Click to expand...

I already reported it. And exatly it was an adjective not what he is. Theres a difference between the 2. now i have brown hair is that all I am? Its just a deascriptive term. I wasnt name calling. Name calling is what ban electoral and billo does. I describe not name call
 
SKILMATIC said:
I already reported it. And exatly it was an adjective not what he is. Theres a difference between the 2. now i have brown hair is that all I am? Its just a deascriptive term. I wasnt name calling. Name calling is what ban electoral and billo does. I describe not name call
Click to expand...

God I hate arguing semantics.

In the sentence "Skil is a stubborn, conservative person.", there are two adjectives...can you pick them out? You're both of them.
 
In the sentence "Skil is a stubborn, conservative person.", there are two adjectives...can you pick them out? You're both of them.
Click to expand...

Hey at least i am stubborn for you, hehe. Call me what you want babe;) :2wave:
 
Re: Judge: Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional

I would first of all like to state that I am extremely displeased by this decision. It is my belief that taking away ones right of saying the pledge in school is as wrong. The fact that a few people disliked "under God" should not have been enough to persuade the courts. I say this because, the kids don't have to say it nor do they have to believe it. At my school, they teach the catholic religion. And, they do not force you to believe it or pronounce it, however, what they do require is that you can explain it.

The fact of the matter is the Pledge of Allegiance has had the line "Under God" since 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words. His reasoning behind this was, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war." http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html

The fact is, that line is part of our history, and you can not remove it that easily. An example that I use often is, a friend of mine who went to catholic school was not catholic. Because of this, he did not do the sign of the cross while the rest did. My point is, the people who do not believe in "under God" or wish to not say it, need not.
 
Liberal ideologues never seem to learn .The Liberal hack mayor of San Francisco was a help in the Re-election of President Bush .His illegal marrying of thousands of Gays on Tv was a help to the President.It galvanised Maybe hundreds of thousands of christians to come out and vote Republican. Oh yes toight on TV this same Liberal ideologue mentioned .That as mayor of San Francisco no Earthquake proofing of any major structure in San Francisco has been done,not one.
Gay Marriage he worries about. Public safety not so important.
Now we have a very liberal judge who gives those supporting judge Roberts appoinment a gift. He couldn't have timed it any better. When Repulicans are saying how moderate and Traditional a jurist he is and how danerous liberal judges are.This San Francisco leftist Judge shows the American People what they are talking about. I bet Kennedy and Finstine could clobber this judge.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Thank you. Now I suppose the sore losing yank is going to call that bigotry and racism and prejudiceness too? World champs, you are a typical bigotting lib. When someone debacles your argument you result to racist, bigotry, andprejuceness comments. Your argumnet will not fly and has never flied on this forum I know casue I have debacled everyone of you arguments you wanna know how I know? Cause in everyone of your ending comments it ends in a flamatory fassion. And its evident of this here again today. I cant beleive a father of a 18yr old lady is this DERROGATORY
Click to expand...

That is champs your going at it with? Give it up. He'll never concede. Even with solid proof. As pointed out in "The Great Monkey Fiasco". Located in the basement. Top ten Thread. Post # 57-58 I think. If interested I got more on him around here somewhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom