• 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:
I already reported it.

You told? Tattled? Narced? Finked? Squealed? Rolled? Turned? Informed? Any respect I may or may not have had for you is gone. It's just a text web site. Gees, suck it up soldier. And now they know you can be gotten to. Even Billo doesn't rat. You wouldn't do well in the big house would you. But now that I think about it, thanks. TT material.

Please tell me I'm mistaken and I will retract and say sorry.
 
Please tell me I'm mistaken and I will retract and say sorry.

Your mistaken. I never did such a thing. A matter of fact i dont even know how.
 
I don't want my god-damn tax dollars being used to discuss this bullshit. This is a non-issue to me. I could care less about this. There are more important things to discuss. I don't have any problem if it is, and I don't care if it isn't.
 
Billo_Really said:
I don't want my god-damn tax dollars being used to discuss this bullshit. This is a non-issue to me. I could care less about this. There are more important things to discuss. I don't have any problem if it is, and I don't care if it isn't.

it doesn't help me and it doesn't hurt me so who gives a ****? Oh ya, the ACLU
 
I can't believe he expected you to apologize Mr. Dixon. It's like telling a chick, "I know I've lied in the past, but I'm not lying now!" "I promise!" Where's Henry Rollins when you need him. Probably in Room 222.

Hell BA, I'll take your apology!
 
wouldn't taking "UnderGod" out of the pledge of allegiance, doesn't that violate my rights as a Christian? I mean, if you are an atheist, then don't say it. If you are Islamic then put in Allah. But don't take it away. It's like, the more you give atheists, the more they want. first the pledge, then the Moses 12 laws. what next? no church meetings on wendsdays?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
it doesn't help me and it doesn't hurt me so who gives a ****? Oh ya, the ACLU
The ACLU hasn't done anything on this case.
 
t125eagle said:
wouldn't taking "UnderGod" out of the pledge of allegiance, doesn't that violate my rights as a Christian? I mean, if you are an atheist, then don't say it. If you are Islamic then put in Allah. But don't take it away. It's like, the more you give atheists, the more they want. first the pledge, then the Moses 12 laws. what next? no church meetings on wendsdays?
No. No, it wouldn't.
 
Stinger said:
I certainly don't so where do you get that broad paint brush. I guess I could say then that those who do support it are the ones who would stand up to put all women back in the home subservient to their husbands. Both are absurd statements.

I just wanted to clear up this little bit, I did not want to imply that everyone who is against the pledge are the same who support people like NAMBLA. I may not have made that distinction clear enough in my previous post.

gdalton said:
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.

My first reaction was this is silly, but after researching and thinking it through I can see the argument is apt. But my personal opinion is, this is just silly, but that is my personal opinion and as such I can not expect everyone to share it nor do I want to shove it down any ones throat. I hate to say it but I'm going to have to say let them remove "under God", I don't like it but there it is.
 
Re: Judge: Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional

I think you've pretty well nailed it, Pretender. The term "God" is a pretty broad and non-specific term and pretty generic so far as religion is concerned. A reference to God is not an establishment of religion, more certainly because nobody is required to cite the Pledge nor say God if they choose not to. I support laws that do not require a child to say the pledge if they have moral objection to it (such as Jehovah Witnesses), but it is just as wrong for a few anti-religionists to try to tell me I can't say it if I want to, either.

Mod note
This post is from a merged thread
Mod note.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Judge: Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional

AlbqOwl said:
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.
This judge is smoking crack.

No-one is coersed into saying the pledge. It is not forced by any means. The term "under God" is even less forced.
 
shuamort said:
The ACLU hasn't done anything on this case.


Not yet anyhow.......:roll:

I guess they already have now.........
 
Navy Pride said:
Bottom line this country was founded on judo-christian principles and that will never change...........

And what principles unique to and indicitive of jews and christians was this country founded on? Principles which non-jews and non-christians do not have.
 
Alright, here is my logic. Basically, it falls under three categories.

1.) History. We only put it into the pledge when we were fighting communists so that we could show that we were different than the, I believe an exact quote from people like McCarthy at the time was, "Godless Commies who want to steal our way of life from us..." but I may be mistaken. That was why it was put into the pledge of allegiance. It was not put in to show taht we have a history of religiosity, or to show that our founding fathers were religious (which many of were not, but that is another topic entirely), but merely to fight an enemy. That serves no historical or even practical purpose now. Thus, in a legal argument, it would hold no ground because a lawyer could not argue that it had been in for 200 years and thus showed our religious roots when all it was meant to do was fight an enemy.

2.) Direct Funding. This is honestly the weakest argument of the three I have to make. This is because it is hardest to prove that all students in the country are forced to say all parts of the pledge, though it is common practice (for those of us who went to public school) to be forced to say the entire thing or suffer detention-and please, little kids don't say anything about it, no matter how much we would like to think they do. I would love to think a daughter of mine would tell me if a teacher forced her to say it, but I doubt that would happen because it is just common practice from what I have seen. It is also hard to prove because it happens at the beginning of the school day, sometimes even before school begins when teachers are technically not paid (thus no taxpayer money...). As I said, it is the hardest part to make, but if you want, I will try and make it....just honestly don't have the patience at this point.

And 3.) Seperation. Probably the easiest to prove in front of the liberal 4 of the Supreme Court, but harder in front of others. In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the court set up a test to test out what was constitutional and what was not.
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." (This is a synopsis of what the test is)
Under God does not serve a secular purpose at all any more which is proven under the history section, but if that argument does not fly with you, then there is another one. Under god also doesn't serve a legislative purpose at all. Think about it. What does it serve...that's right. After the first one is proven, the rest don't really matter because it is an all or nothing.

But Lemon also allowed for some entanglement of church and state which meant that under god might be theoretically ok if, I believe, it matched up with history, which is a main thing for justices lately. Look, a lot of justices lately, have been going back to original intent of the founders...it wasn't there. That simple.

Dissect this, have fun with it, and I look forward to your comments because this is one of my favorite topics.
 
Hey Mods.....my first post up there was intended as a thread starter and looks kind of silly where it got moved. I don't mind that it was moved at all....but could there be a note or something indicating it was moved from another thread so it wouldn't look so out of context?

Just a suggestion. (I noted there was a 'merged threads' note--it just didn't fix my 'out of synch' problem there. )
 
If the Pledge stated: "......,under the God of Isaac, Jacob, and Abraham,. . ." or "The all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent God. . ." or "The Creator God of all ages" or "the one and only God", etc., that would be one thing. That would in fact be acknowledging or affirming a specific religion or religions. But the Pledge neither says nor implies that.

The Jew may think of the God of Abraham, the Christian may think of the God preached about in church, the Moslem may think of the English word for Allah, the athiest may think of a generic source of our inalienable rights, the anti-religionist may think of superstitious myth, or whatever. The Pledge does not specify. The word could be anything or nothing at all.

Whether or not you like the phrase in the Pledge, it is not an establishment of religion and neither favors nor denies a religious belief. I think it is a virtual certainty that the SCOTUS will see it that same way I do. (Or I them, which sounds a little less egotistical>)
 
t125eagle said:
wouldn't taking "UnderGod" out of the pledge of allegiance, doesn't that violate my rights as a Christian? I mean, if you are an atheist, then don't say it. If you are Islamic then put in Allah. But don't take it away. It's like, the more you give atheists, the more they want. first the pledge, then the Moses 12 laws. what next? no church meetings on wendsdays?

Now you are just going to extremes. What makes you a higher class citizen that the pledge of our country should include your religion? I am just as American as you are. It does not violate your rights as a Christian because you have the right to profess your faith in any private matter. To be told that our nation is a nation under a god when I do not believe in such myths is a violation of my freedom from religion. Your freedom of religion is not being violated if it was removed. The Pledge is for the general public, therefore it must remain nuetral in religious matters. Our country is too diverse in religions and lack of religions. Would you be alright with the pledge stating "one nation, under caucasians"? What about when non-religious persons are the majority in this country? Would you be alright with "one nation, under no god"? I will not violate your Christian rights, do not violate my Atheist rights. You are not any better than any other person because of your religion.
 
AlbqOwl said:
If the Pledge stated: "......,under the God of Isaac, Jacob, and Abraham,. . ." or "The all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent God. . ." or "The Creator God of all ages" or "the one and only God", etc., that would be one thing. That would in fact be acknowledging or affirming a specific religion or religions. But the Pledge neither says nor implies that.

The Jew may think of the God of Abraham, the Christian may think of the God preached about in church, the Moslem may think of the English word for Allah, the athiest may think of a generic source of our inalienable rights, the anti-religionist may think of superstitious myth, or whatever. The Pledge does not specify. The word could be anything or nothing at all.

Whether or not you like the phrase in the Pledge, it is not an establishment of religion and neither favors nor denies a religious belief. I think it is a virtual certainty that the SCOTUS will see it that same way I do. (Or I them, which sounds a little less egotistical>)

People also believed this about mandatory public-school prayer. We'll see.
 
AlbqOwl said:
If the Pledge stated: "......,under the God of Isaac, Jacob, and Abraham,. . ." or "The all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent God. . ." or "The Creator God of all ages" or "the one and only God", etc., that would be one thing. That would in fact be acknowledging or affirming a specific religion or religions. But the Pledge neither says nor implies that.

It is clearly God of the Judeo/Christian belief, not any other God that is preciesly whom everyone who supports it mistakenly claims we were founded under. It is not Budda, it is not Alla, it is not any other God than the one the supports claim. And it clearly respects religion which is prohibited. Does have to "a" religion, the constitution says religion period, any and all.

It is very telling who weak your point is though that you have to try and claim that "it depends on the meaning of God".
The Jew may think of the God of Abraham, the Christian may think of the God preached about in church, the Moslem may think of the English word for Allah, the athiest may think of a generic source of our inalienable rights, the anti-religionist may think of superstitious myth, or whatever.

It should apply to any although it only applies to the one God, if it meant Allah it would say Allah, the law clearly says God, captial G the Judeo/Christian god. But then any religious reference should not be part of the law in the first place.

The Pledge does not specify. The word could be anything or nothing at all.

Yes it does and it seems you have lower yourself to denying your own god.

Whether or not you like the phrase in the Pledge, it is not an establishment of religion

It most certainly is stating we are a nation under that particular supernational being known as God. Well lots of us don't believe that.

and neither favors nor denies a religious belief.

It most certainly favors God of the Judeo/Christian faith. But if we take you position on it's face then lets rewrite the law to say Allah and have that receited in the schools and before sporting events and you can just pretend in means God.

I think it is a virtual certainty that the SCOTUS will see it that same way I do. (Or I them, which sounds a little less egotistical>)

They might which is a shame. We ALL should reciet the same pledge to our country TOGETHER in UNISON. One that does not put one group above the other based on their religious faith. It's too bad there are those who are so intent in injecting THEIR faith into it they are more than willing to split us apart and seem to forget the "indivisable" part.
 
alex said:
People also believed this about mandatory public-school prayer. We'll see.

And religious test to hold office.
 
Stinger said:
It is clearly God of the Judeo/Christian belief, not any other God that is preciesly whom everyone who supports it mistakenly claims we were founded under. It is not Budda, it is not Alla, it is not any other God than the one the supports claim. And it clearly respects religion which is prohibited. Does have to "a" religion, the constitution says religion period, any and all.

Clearly? Show me where it says that. Show me where it even implies that. Show me where the word 'god' is used by only Christians and Jews. (In fact Jews don't ever say the word "God" directly prefering G-d or YHWH.)

Further there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits religion. It is definitely in the Consitution that religion may not be prohibited. What religion or requirement is being established by the phrase 'under God'? Do you suppose your understanding of God mirrors mine? I would doubt that a great deal.

It is very telling who weak your point is though that you have to try and claim that "it depends on the meaning of God".

There is no meaning of God specified so it has nothing to do with the meaning of anybody's God.

It should apply to any although it only applies to the one God, if it meant Allah it would say Allah, the law clearly says God, captial G the Judeo/Christian god. But then any religious reference should not be part of the law in the first place.

Allah is an Arabic word, not English no matter how familiar we may be of it. We have already established that the Jews do not use the word God as Christians use it. And Jehovah Witnesses don't say God either but prefer the Biblical term of Jehovah. Native Americans might say "Great Spirit". The Hindus accept a concept of God by various names and also the concept of many gods. Buddhists do not think of God as Christians do, but Buddha is almost certainly who comes to mind when the concept of God is expressed.

God seems to be the most practical word to use as culturally, that is the one most Americans are familiar with. But there is absolutely no requirement or suggestion of any kind to attach any particular diety to that term nor any requirement or suggestion that one must attach a concept of a diety to it at all.

Yes it does and it seems you have lower yourself to denying your own god
.

You just couldn't get it said without an ad hominem could you. :smile: '

You don't know me and you have no idea in what manner I do or do not deny my own god.



It most certainly is stating we are a nation under that particular supernational being known as God. Well lots of us don't believe that
.

There is no requirement in the Pledge that you believe that.



It most certainly favors God of the Judeo/Christian faith. But if we take you position on it's face then lets rewrite the law to say Allah and have that receited in the schools and before sporting events and you can just pretend in means God.

Again show me the claus or phrase that relates it to the Judeo/Christian god.



They might which is a shame. We ALL should reciet the same pledge to our country TOGETHER in UNISON. One that does not put one group above the other based on their religious faith. It's too bad there are those who are so intent in injecting THEIR faith into it they are more than willing to split us apart and seem to forget the "indivisable" part.

There are those who are just as militant about anti-Americanism who things we should not have to say any form of pledge to our country. And they are not required to do so.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom