• 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.
alex said:
You did not upset me. I love debating this topic and I guess I got a little caught up in it. If I made you feel I was upset, that was not my intention. The apology is from me to you. :2wave:

Now I have to correct you on something. The Supreme Court ruling that you are referring to did not outlaw school prayer. Students are free to pray as they wish. The ruling struck down a law that required mandatory teacher-led recitation of prayer in schools. There is no such law that prohibits students from praying in schools.

Source:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&friend=oyez&friend=oyez&vol=370&invol=421
Click to expand...

ok. thanks for clarifying!
 
Re; Trajan Octavian
The Pledge was written in 1892 it was amended in 1954 to add " UNDER GOD' to it.
There is more Freedom of Religion in the USA than any country in the world.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Actually the facts go both ways. So you mean to say jesus never walked the earth too huh?
Click to expand...
I'm Jewish and I definitely do not believe that Jesus was the son of God, sorry. You believe that, fine, but our government must stay totally neutralin all matters re religion which is why the Supremes will never reverse this decision....hell, they may never even rule on it...
 
Thanks for the name calling, does it make you feel better? Maybe next time you'll actually respond to the point that I was making in my post? Give it a try, it's really not that tough.
Click to expand...

Likewise my yank losing friend. I know the yanks arent doing so well but you dont need to take it out on me. Please wise up sir.

Read those words a couple of times? I read those words to mean that because of illegal immigrants who do not attend church because they speak Spanish and churches do not that the number of people in the USA claiming to not be church-goers is incorrect. That is how I interpret those words.

If you don't like my interpretation of those words then rebut them. I think those words are wrong, really, really wrong. I think that to believe those words to be true is stupid. I have not called you anything, my comments are about the words in that post and my opinion of those words.

I call them as I read them, and those words to me are ugly generalizations about a group of people. I find those words to be untrue. If you think those are intelligent words that is your opinion and you're welcome to it.

I think those words translate to prejudice, and that is my opinion. Sorry if you disagree. Maybe you took my words personally because they struck a chord? Who knows?
Click to expand...

:rofl Thats all I have to say about that.
 
I'm Jewish and I definitely do not believe that Jesus was the son of God, sorry. You believe that, fine, but our government must stay totally neutralin all matters re religion which is why the Supremes will never reverse this decision....hell, they may never even rule on it...
Click to expand...


Well I concede to your beleifs and I respect them just please respect mine. And your right they might not even rule onit. But at least thanks for being logical on it.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Likewise my yank losing friend. I know the yanks arent doing so well but you dont need to take it out on me. Please wise up sir.
Click to expand...
The NY Yankees have exactly ONE loss more than the World Champion Boston Red Sox. ONE loss. By the end of action tonight it's possible they will have the same amount of losses. They are playing quite well right now, thank you.

Baseball is a marathon, not a sprint, so l strongly suggest that you allow the season to unfold before making inaccurate and uninformed comments about the Yankees or any other team.

For what it's worth, the Cards have been the best team by far this year and I think they will win the Series this year....
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth, the Cards have been the best team by far this year and I think they will win the Series this year....
Click to expand...

I think your right

Tha pads dont have what it takes and they never have. I think our team is just not there. I also know the yanks have always been a dynasty but thats no reason for the personal they have to not be in first place everytime. I know if I was a yank fan I would be very disappointed.
 
SKILMATIC said:
I think your right

Tha pads dont have what it takes and they never have. I think our team is just not there. I also know the yanks have always been a dynasty but thats no reason for the personal they have to not be in first place everytime. I know if I was a yank fan I would be very disappointed.
Click to expand...
When your pitchers are on the disabled list for extended periods of time it hurts, literally. They're playing quite well these days and it looks like they will make the playoffs again, and after that anything can happen....
 
Let's clear up one thing right now! This ruling does not take away the pledge. It is simply going to back to the way it used to be, which is inclusive and something that all citizens may feel comfortable saying. If you want to add "under God" you can do that, but the state shouldn't be doing that for anyone. The state has no business showing preference of any "God" specific or not (and I'm Deist to boot). Personally, let's just get rid of it. It's obvious by reading or watching the reactions to this ruling shows the pledge only serves to be divisive. It is not a measure of how patriotic you are, but for lazy people it takes only seconds and somehow makes you godly AND patriotic without really doing a damn thing. I just think that to be a patriotic American you need only to follow the Constitution. But what do I know? :roll:
 
This Newsweek poll was published in June 2002:

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Nearly nine in 10 Americans believe the phrase "under God" should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance, and most believe it is acceptable for the government to promote religious expression, as long as no specific religion is mentioned, according to a Newsweek poll.
Click to expand...

Now 9 of 10 doesn't indicate much diviseness wouldn't you say? So the question is, why should one anti-religious person get to dicate how nine others will say the Pledge of Allegiance when it is neither unconstitutional nor coercive in any way and infringes on nobody's rights?
 
AlbqOwl said:
This Newsweek poll was published in June 2002:
Now 9 of 10 doesn't indicate much diviseness wouldn't you say? So the question is, why should one anti-religious person get to dicate how nine others will say the Pledge of Allegiance when it is neither unconstitutional nor coercive in any way and infringes on nobody's rights?
Click to expand...
Sorry, meaningless and trivial "facts" mean nothing when discussing the constitutionality of something, which is one of the things that makes the Constitution such a great document.

Anyone can say the pledge, it is not outlawed. Are you pledging allegiance to your country or not? If its to your country then why can't you respect the fact that our government is NEUTRAL on religions, all of them.

To all of you so offended by the removal of "under God" from the "Pledge" does that mean you're going to stop reciting it?
 
26 X World Champs said:
Sorry, meaningless and trivial "facts" mean nothing when discussing the constitutionality of something, which is one of the things that makes the Constitution such a great document.

Anyone can say the pledge, it is not outlawed. Are you pledging allegiance to your country or not? If its to your country then why can't you respect the fact that our government is NEUTRAL on religions, all of them.

To all of you so offended by the removal of "under God" from the "Pledge" does that mean you're going to stop reciting it?
Click to expand...

I do not see that reciting the Pledge with the phrase "under God" in it negates the neutrality of the government re religion in any way. I do not believe acknowledging, heritage, culture, tradition, and history in any way is an establishment of religion and it in no way violates the Constitution.

Did I say I was offended by the removal of 'under God' from the Pledge? I have specifically said I don't personally feel I have in a dog in the fight re the phrase itself, because I honestly don't care if they take it out or leave it in. But if they take it out, I want it to be because most Americans want it out. And if they leave it in, I want it to be because most Americans want it in.

It isn't a matter of fairness or equity or civil rights or Constitution. It has everything to do with people's full constitutional rights to be religious or not religious as they choose. You can interpret the phrase anyway you wish or refuse to say it at all. But I do not think you should have the right to tell me I can't have it when almost 90% of Americans want it to be there and it takes nothing at all away from you.
 
Again who cares. We can say it however we like it under the freedom of speech right. So you say it your way I will say it my way.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Again who cares. We can say it however we like it under the freedom of speech right. So you say it your way I will say it my way.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, I agree with that EXCEPT. . .

I am sick and tired of a handful of militant anti-religion types chipping away at our constitutional rights. Piece by piece, little by little, they get their judges to rule that you can't have this image here....you can't sing that song there....you can't have a prayer for the safety and good sportsmanship of the football team....you can't celebrate the origins of the Christmas celebration in public....etc. etc. etc. None of these things took anything away from the anti-religious types, but they sure as heck are taking rights and enjoyment away from the 90+% of Americans who had no problem with them.

They do it little by little and we give in because it doesn't seem important to make a big deal out of something so small. And one day we'll wake up and realize we've lost something huge.

At some point we have to put on the brakes and say enough.
 
wow. AlbqOwl, that's what I was getting at, sort of. you were able to put into words what I could not. I completely agree with you.
 
Read the first post in this thread


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...


Now what the federal court judge had to say


Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in PUBLIC SCHOOLS is unconstitutional, a federal court judge ruled today, saying that the pledge’s reference to “under God” violated school children’s right to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.”


No one is denying your freedom of religion. You just can't force it on someone else in a GOVERNMENT FUNDED institution.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/09/14/MNpledge14.DTL
 
BWG said:
Now what the federal court judge had to say

Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in PUBLIC SCHOOLS is unconstitutional, a federal court judge ruled today, saying that the pledge’s reference to “under God” violated school children’s right to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.”

No one is denying your freedom of religion. You just can't force it on someone else in a GOVERNMENT FUNDED institution.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/09/14/MNpledge14.DTL
Click to expand...
EXACTLY! Well written! Why people have to write things like the "anti-religion crowd" is beyond me!

I am against the pledge containing the words "Under God" but I am PRO-RELIGION and I bet that is true for most Americans who object to the UNDER GOD portion that used to be in the Pledge.

What IS wrong is that people can't simply live with their religious freedoms without imposing them on others. That really sucks. Why should a Jewish kid or Muslim kid or a Buddhist kid have to sing Christian songs in Public School?

Can you imagine how these same people would react if Muslim & Jewish songs were sung in schools? They'd protest to the nth degree.

It is so simple really. Leave ALL religion out of public schools and public institutions and everyone is treated equally. Include religious songs, words, symbols etc. and you are then treating people UNEQUALLY.

I find it outrageously selfish for people to force religion onto anyone.
 
wow. AlbqOwl, that's what I was getting at, sort of. you were able to put into words what I could not. I completely agree with you.
Click to expand...

He does this to me all the time:lol: . Albqowl is truly a intellectual individual.

One that I have come to admire very vehemently.

Anbd I agree too al
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWG
Now what the federal court judge had to say

Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in PUBLIC SCHOOLS is unconstitutional, a federal court judge ruled today, saying that the pledge’s reference to “under God” violated school children’s right to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.”

No one is denying your freedom of religion. You just can't force it on someone else in a GOVERNMENT FUNDED institution.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNpledge14.DTL

EXACTLY! Well written! Why people have to write things like the "anti-religion crowd" is beyond me!

I am against the pledge containing the words "Under God" but I am PRO-RELIGION and I bet that is true for most Americans who object to the UNDER GOD portion that used to be in the Pledge.

What IS wrong is that people can't simply live with their religious freedoms without imposing them on others. That really sucks. Why should a Jewish kid or Muslim kid or a Buddhist kid have to sing Christian songs in Public School?

Can you imagine how these same people would react if Muslim & Jewish songs were sung in schools? They'd protest to the nth degree.

It is so simple really. Leave ALL religion out of public schools and public institutions and everyone is treated equally. Include religious songs, words, symbols etc. and you are then treating people UNEQUALLY.

I find it outrageously selfish for people to force religion onto anyone.
Click to expand...


Well some could say the same about teachers teaching our kids about the big bang theory. Something which I have never even beleived in. And shouldnt I as a student are entitled to hear all forms of views? I think its only constitutional to teach kids all forms of beleif and values(except radical islam). That means teach kids about all religions and evolution theories. Is this fair?
 
To me the big bang theory is a better name for a porno but thats my opinion:rofl
 
RE; 26X World series.
Lets be clear about this the main attack is against christianity. Judaism is usualy given a pass by thses leftists because Reform Judaism is their house religion.
Prospect park in NYC puts up a menorah the size of a barn every Hannukah, The ACLU says nothnig. If it was Nativity scene the size of a thermos they'd be in federal court crying.
I learned the draddle song in public school along with Rock of Ages I am Catholic. Did it harm me,hel no.
 
26 X World Champs said:
EXACTLY! Well written! Why people have to write things like the "anti-religion crowd" is beyond me!

I am against the pledge containing the words "Under God" but I am PRO-RELIGION and I bet that is true for most Americans who object to the UNDER GOD portion that used to be in the Pledge.
Click to expand...

No, if you are truly pro-religion and are against the 'under God' clause, you are practically an island unto yourself..

What IS wrong is that people can't simply live with their religious freedoms without imposing them on others. That really sucks. Why should a Jewish kid or Muslim kid or a Buddhist kid have to sing Christian songs in Public School?

Can you imagine how these same people would react if Muslim & Jewish songs were sung in schools? They'd protest to the nth degree.
Click to expand...

Nope. Been there and done that. When my sister, a highschool choral teacher taught her students a deep appreciation for the classics including Bach, Handel, Mozart and others who wrote some of the most beautiful Christian music out there. When she became aware that some of the students in the choir were Jewish, she included Jewish songs. When an exchange student came in from Nigeria, she had him sing some of his native songs, arranged them for choir and they sang that. They all learned something of each other's culture and appreciation of each other's heritage and her annual multicultural Christmas concert drew people from miles and miles around. Then the ACLU made them stop almost all of it. And all were the poorer for it.

It is so simple really. Leave ALL religion out of public schools and public institutions and everyone is treated equally. Include religious songs, words, symbols etc. and you are then treating people UNEQUALLY.
Click to expand...

Nope again. If you remove all evidence of religion from the public sector, you are treating everyone unequally but those who hate religion.

I find it outrageously selfish for people to force religion onto anyone.
Click to expand...

So do I and I in no way advocate that. I find it equally outrageous to deny people their constitutional right to the free exercise of their religious faith.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Well some could say the same about teachers teaching our kids about the big bang theory. Something which I have never even beleived in. And shouldnt I as a student are entitled to hear all forms of views? I think its only constitutional to teach kids all forms of beleif and values(except radical islam). That means teach kids about all religions and evolution theories. Is this fair?
Click to expand...

Umm, no...not in a science class. The theory must be scientifically sound and sorry to say (well, not really), science isn't democratic. Comapartive religion? Sure.
 
Umm, no...not in a science class. The theory must be scientifically sound and sorry to say (well, not really), science isn't democratic. Comapartive religion? Sure.
Click to expand...

Well again I am talking about beleifs here. And some people beleive it or not beleive in the big bang theory. So in order to be fair all beleifs must be taught.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Well again I am talking about beleifs here. And some people beleive it or not beleive in the big bang theory. So in order to be fair all beleifs must be taught.
Click to expand...

This I agree with 100%. As no science re origins of the universe is much better than educated guesses of how it all exactly came about, it is important to know how science evolved beginning with religious explanations that morphed into the earlier incomplete (and often erroneous) scientific theories such as a flat earth and the sun revolving around the earth, etc. Little by little man, forever insatiably curious, kept questioning, kept wondering, kept observing, and kept experimenting until we arrived at the science we have today. And you know what? A hundred or a thousand years from now, much of the science we have now will have been proved to also be imperfect and incomplete.

For those few fundamentalist students who have been taught the earth is 6000 years old or some such as that, all the teacher has to do is tell them they are free to believe what they believe, but they're going to have to pass the test on science too. He does not have to destroy their faith to teach science.

The more students learn how science, as well as religion, and other theories of human behavior and development have evolved over the millenia, the better we understand, the more we realize how far we have come and that there is infinitely more possibilities and potential to be discovered yet.

To think that we have all the science now that we will ever have is as naive and narrow minded as those who think God is not the author of science. :smile:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom