• 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.
Inuyasha said:
If you don't like the phrase "under God" just don't say it.
So if we don't like other laws and edicts issued by the government, we should ignore them too?
 
Damn AlbqOwl that is a very good argument towards religion and state, I guess "they" are going to have to re-write a lot of constitutions.


shuamort said:
So if we don't like other laws and edicts issued by the government, we should ignore them too?

What law tells you that you must say the pledge or face legal recourse?



I say let it be, but if this is going to be an issue it should be argued that the original version did not contain the phrase.
 
shuamort said:
So if we don't like other laws and edicts issued by the government, we should ignore them too?

PLease show me where saying the pledge to the flag is a law. It is not even a law in the military. There fore your comment denys all logic and is simply meant to be divisive with little or no practical purpose. Laws that are on the books must be obeyed. If not you will be punished by the stae, either by imprisonment or by fine, NO ONE has ever been arrested and incarcerated or fined for not saying the pledge. Please don't p¡ss on my leg and try to tell me it's raining.
 
gdalton said:
What law tells you that you must say the pledge or face legal recourse?
Inuyasha said:
PLease show me where saying the pledge to the flag is a law
I'll kindly ask both of you where I said that. Or we could just skip to the fact that since I didn't say that saying the pledge was a requirement by law, then we could just ignore your strawmen.

Moreover, it may not be in law at a federal or state level, but may be requirement of the public school districts. Should a school district, which is an adjunct companion of the government, require this proselytization into the belief of the supernatural, then they are in fact in violation of the constitution. The same would apply to a school district requiring the bowing to Mecca in the middle of the school day. These school districts do not require the students to participate, but they do require the teachers to lead that. Which, of course, could interfere with the teacher's personal beliefs as well as forcing them into this indoctrination. "Under God" is a de facto declaration that all other religious paradigms (atheism, polytheism, pantheism, animism, ancestor worship, non-theistic spirutualities like Buddhism, etc.) are false.


Of course, following your lines of logic, there have been attempts to get that made law in my home state:
Minnesota governor vetoes Pledge of Allegiance requirement
Saying patriotism should come from the heart, Gov. Jesse Ventura yesterday vetoed a bill that would have required public school students to say the Pledge of Allegiance at least once a week.

Ventura had hinted he would veto the bill, saying on several occasions he had seen no problem with patriotism in the United States, particularly after Sept. 11. And he compared a pledge requirement to the indoctrination practiced by the Nazis and the Taliban.

"I am vetoing this bill because I believe patriotism comes from the heart,” Ventura said in his veto message. “Patriotism is voluntary. It is a feeling of loyalty and allegiance that is the result of knowledge and belief. A patriot shows their patriotism through their actions, by their choice."

Half the states now require the pledge as part of the school day, and half a dozen more recommend it, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures
 
shuamort said:
So if we don't like other laws and edicts issued by the government, we should ignore them too?

These are your words. "Other laws" is the operative phrase here and indicates that you consider the reciting of the pledge a law or a legal obligation. if you don't understand what you have said, i cant make it any clearer. The proof is that TWO plople answered you wuth the same thought and I don't even know the other guy nor he me.
 
shuamort said:
I'll kindly ask both of you where I said that. Or we could just skip to the fact that since I didn't say that saying the pledge was a requirement by law, then we could just ignore your strawmen.

Sorry, I thought that your question of

shuamort said:
So if we don't like other laws and edicts issued by the government, we should ignore them too?

was suggesting we had a law that required us to say the pledge, so I guess I have no idea of what, if any, point you where trying to make with this question.

And, for the last time, I agree that the phrase "under God" should be removed but only because it was not originally written that way.
 
Inuyasha said:
These are your words. "Other laws" is the operative phrase here and indicates that you consider the reciting of the pledge a law or a legal obligation. if you don't understand what you have said, i cant make it any clearer. The proof is that TWO plople answered you wuth the same thought and I don't even know the other guy nor he me.
Let's pare this down a bit. The pledge of allegiance as it currently is, with "under God", was put into law in 1954.

"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." President Eisenhower (1954) after signing into law a bill to have "under God" added to the original pledge

So, Ike signed the new PoA into law. A law stating that the PoA includes the words "under God". Your proposal is to ignore this law. My rebuttal to that would be that since you're choosing to ignore the law that states that the PoA is sans "under God", then what other laws and edicts issued by the government should we ignore. The point, albeit a silly one, is to show that simply ignoring the law isn't a good, or in this constitutional, recourse for the problem.
 
Well then according to what you say it is a law.
 
shuamort said:
So if we don't like other laws and edicts issued by the government, we should ignore them too?
shuamort said:
I'll kindly ask both of you where I said that. Or we could just skip to the fact that since I didn't say that saying the pledge was a requirement by law, then we could just ignore your strawmen.
shuamort said:
So, Ike signed the new PoA into law. A law stating that the PoA includes the words "under God". Your proposal is to ignore this law. My rebuttal to that would be that since you're choosing to ignore the law that states that the PoA is sans "under God", then what other laws and edicts issued by the government should we ignore. The point, albeit a silly one, is to show that simply ignoring the law isn't a good, or in this constitutional, recourse for the problem.

Damn Shuey, your making my head hurt.:doh
 
Well then according to what you say it is a law.

However it is in thought rather like the law in Iowa prohibiting the hanging of men's and womens under garments on the same clothes line. These are laws that could be enforced but probably never will be. Would you uphold and practice that law?

http://www.dullmen.com/silly_laws.htm
 
Inuyasha said:
Well then according to what you say it is a law.

However it is in thought rather like the law in Iowa prohibiting the hanging of men's and womens under garments on the same clothes line. These are laws that could be enforced but probably never will be. Would you uphold and practice that law?

http://www.dullmen.com/silly_laws.htm
I was in Pryor OK in college for a week. It's a tiny town Northeast of Tulsa and small enough where people would exchange 4 digits when asked for their phone numbers as the area code and prefix were the same. In that city, a law sat on the books that stated that a person needs to walk in front of the car on Main Street so as not to scare the horses. Sure enough, on Friday night, which is when cars would filled with teens would cruise the streets, they would get out and walk in front of the car on Main Street. Not out of ironic respect, but because the police were enforcing and ticketing those who didn't.

The lesson: it would behoove the public to remove these silly laws.
 
Navy Pride said:
As I already said it does not matter what the people say that want God out of everything in this country.......The 9th circuit court is a radical court filled with activist jusdges whose decisions are constantly overturned by the SCOTUS and that is what will happen in this case........

You can take it to the bank.....

Under God has been in the Pledge since 1949, and I can't see that it hurts anyone or forces anyone to be a christian. The pledge does not mention Christ, and it pledges one's allegiance to the United States, not God.

Besides we all know that as long as the Fascist Right is in power that no matter how we speak of God, we are on our way to Satan, and disaster for the United States.

Thank you God, for the 9th Circuit Court, and while you are at it Lord, please drop George Bush , Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Rush, and Lars Larson into the middle of the Newest Hurricaine, about a hundred mile off the coast, and without a life jacket.. Also Lord save our troops by bringing them home from Bush's War, and return our democracy to it roots. Please don't allow the United States to become Fascist Right Wing dictatorship. Amen
 
Last edited:
Stinger said:
Well it is rediculous because it is a completely bogus statement. Those who do not believe in Chrisitanity are certainly trying to get churches torn down and not has a "hissy fit" as you so childishly put it. It has nothing to do with you PRIVATE worship in your church or home or other private property. It has to do with our NATION our collective NATION whcih ALL of us are citizens of and not just YOU. But again it is telling that your side has to so completely misrepersent the other side when you know full well it has nothing to do with your private worship.



No it is not it is completely different, you can't make the intellicual distinctintion between the private religious and the public gatherings where YOU want YOUR religious practices injected?





Fine then let's take out the references to faith and then you don't have to say it anymore. Or let's change it to Allah and you don't have to say it anymore.

Why do YOU insist of making the pledge, as codified under law, devisive when it clearly states we should be indivisable.

Tell me why you insist on the under God phrase even being in there.



Which has nothing to do with the issue.

When did I ever insist of "under god" being in the pledge? I beleive I made it clear that I was insisting that this argument is unconstitutional casue you arent made to recite the pladge. Until you are made to then it is totally legal in all aspects. Just say the plege without the phrase or supplement it with what you beleve in. Simple as that. ;)

Any questions?
 
dragonslayer said:
Under God has been in the Pledge since 1949, and I can't see that it hurts anyone or forces anyone to be a christian. The pledge does not mention Christ, and it pledges one's allegiance to the United States, not God.
I'm assuming that you've read the whole thread then? Feel free to counter any of the points I've already made.
 
SKILMATIC said:
When did I ever insist of "under god" being in the pledge? I beleive I made it clear that I was insisting that this argument is unconstitutional casue you arent made to recite the pladge. Until you are made to then it is totally legal in all aspects. Just say the plege without the phrase or supplement it with what you beleve in. Simple as that. ;)

Any questions?
Sure, the fact that it was made into law, what does that have to do with recitation or not. The law is the law and the establishment clause in the Constitution prevents such laws from being made.
 
AlbqOwl said:
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.)

So let's see on the one hand you want to argue that since we were founded on Christian principles the under God should be there and then you want to argue on the other hand that God doesn't mean God it means Budda.

Your arguement is to phoney to take seriously.

Further there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits religion.

In the private sector no, and I defend your right to worship the religion of your choice and in the church of your choice and government can't interfer. But then regilion and faith has no place in government nor it is required to be a citizen and to take part as as citizen.

It is definitely in the Consitution that religion may not be prohibited.

No one has said otherwise why do you harp on the point?

What religion or requirement is being established by the phrase 'under God'?

It is codified into law respecting God, capital "G" clearly the Christian God else it would say Budda or Allah or Mohammed or and of the hundreds of other dieties.

But your Clintonian "It depends on the meaning of God" is silly at best when you read the historical perspective the reason you on your side give otherwise as to why the phrase should be there.

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

But the fact remains that NO God or other religious supernatual being should be part of our national pledge which is for ALL of us not just SOME of us.

God seems to be the most practical word to use as culturally, that is the one most Americans are familiar with.

Oh I see the principle of " we win because there is more of us than you" which is preicisely what the establishment protects the country from.
.

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

So the pledge should be something only the Christian part of the country believes in and that suits you just fine. Goes right along with the indivisable part.

And again I ask, why is it necessary to be in there. Seems to me if you want it in there the burden is on YOU to show why.

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.

That's fine for those who are anti-American, what about those of us who seem to be more pro-American than you and want ALL people to fully participate and have every right to be as much a patriot as you. The pro-America stance is that this country is for everyone and we should all stand a receit a pledge that includes everyone, while you insist it be for Christians and the rest be damned. Why do you inisit on alienating people over your religious beliefs?
 
SKILMATIC said:
If almost 400yrs of not having these problems and all the sudden when we remove god out of schools is when we have these problems and you have the adacity to ask me is there any sort of correlation? I REALLY DONT KNOW HOW TO DEFINE CORRELATION ANY BETTER TO YOU PEOPLE. Theres no correlation? Really? 400yrs isnt correlation? Thats a funny remark

So in other words the churches can't do the job? Because kids no longer say a meaningless 10 second prayer in schools society has fallen apart? Doesn't speak highly of the organized religions in this country does it.

By the way, computers also came about during this time period, any correlation?

I think you'd find more cause and effect in the break down of the family and that's not relagate to atheist, there are just as many believers of the faith in broken families and prisons.
 
CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE

52720. In every public elementary school each day during the school year at the beginning of the first regularly scheduled class or activity period at which the majority of the pupils of the school normally begin the schoolday, there shall be conducted appropriate patriotic exercises. The giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements of this section. In every public secondary school there shall be conducted daily appropriate patriotic exercises. The giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy such requirement. Such patriotic exercises for secondary schools shall be conducted in accordance with the regulations which shall be adopted by the governing board of the district maintaining the secondary school.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The majority will should prevail when individual liberties are not at stake however, and the phrase 'under God' interferes with nobody's individual liberties.

I cannot believe I just read this. It doesn't interfer with an Atheist's liberties?

AlbqOwl said:
It isn't, nor did I say anything like that. Show me where the Constitution says there shall be separation of church and state.

"Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

"...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Show where in The Constitution it says the government can endorse religion.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The Pledge says a generic "under God" as symbolic of the nation's heritage, the Declaration of Independence, acknowledgement that the Preamble of EVERY state constitution (except I think Oregon or Washington) makes reference to God or a Creator, in respect for the 90+ percent of Americans who do believe in some form of higher power, and in recognition of the nation's culture. The Pledge does not state who God is, what God is, or how God is to be seen or understood, and there is no implication that God is to be worshipped.

The phrase takes nothing away from you or anybody else, it has failed to corrupt or harm anybody in its 50+ years of existence, and it is important to a large majority of Americans. Get over it.

The declaration of independence is just that-- a declaration. It is not law and was not intended to be.

The Constitution has a Supremacy Clause. That means that the national Constitution is above all of the state's Constitutions.
 
Navy Pride said:
As I already said it does not matter what the people say that want God out of everything in this country.......The 9th circuit court is a radical court filled with activist jusdges whose decisions are constantly overturned by the SCOTUS and that is what will happen in this case........

You can take it to the bank.....

The Supreme Court had to dismiss this case the first time on a technicality. This is not good news for people who want "under god" in the pledge. The most powerful court in the country used a technicality to get away from what would have been an unpopular ruling.
 
Not a Democrat said:
July 4, 1821 - John Quincy Adams:

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. From the day of the Declaration ... they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct."

1833 - Noah Webster:

"The religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles ... This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions and government ... the moral principles and precepts contained in the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws."

1841 - Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America):

"In the United States of America the sovereign authority is religious ... there is no other country in the world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America."

Summer 8, 1845 - President Andrew Jackson asserts:

"The Bible is the rock upon which our Republic rests."

February 11, 1861 - Abraham Lincoln, farewell at Springfield, Illinois:

"Unless the great God who assisted (Washington) shall be with me and aid me, I must fail; but if the same Omniscient Mind and Mighty Arm that directed and protected him shall guide and support me, I shall not fail ... Let us all pray that the God of our fathers may not forsake us now."

Lincoln on the Bible:

"In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it, we would not know right from wrong. All things most desireable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it." (George L. Hunt, Calvinism and the Political Order, Westminster Press, 1965, p.33)

1884 - U.S. Supreme Court reiterates the Declaration's reference to our rights as being God-given.

These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, "we hold these truths to be self-evident" that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement "that all men are endowed" - not by edicts of emperors, or by decrees of parliament, or acts of Congress, but "by their Creator with certain inalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these" - not grant them but secure them "governments are instituted among men."

1891 - The U.S. Supreme Court restates that America is a "Christian Nation."

"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian ... this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation ... we find everywhere a clear definition of the same truth ... this is a Christian nation." (Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States, 143 US 457, 36 L ed 226, Justice Brewer)

1909 - President Theodore Roosevelt:

"After a week on perplexing problems ... it does so rest my soul to come into the house of The Lord and to sing and mean it, 'Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty' ... (my) great joy and glory that in occupying an exalted position in the nation, I am enabled, to preach the practical moralities of the Bible to my fellow-countrymen and to hold up Christ as the hope and Savior of the world." (Ferdinand C. Iglehart, Theodore Roosevelt - The Man As I knew Him, A.L. Burt, 1919)

1913 - President Woodrow Wilson:

"America was born to exemplify the devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the Holy Scriptures."

1952 - US Supreme Court defines the "Separation of Church and State."

"We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being ... No Constitutional requirement makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against the efforts to widen the scope of religious influence. The government must remain neutral when it comes to competition between sects ... The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State."

January 20, 1977 - President Jimmy Carter:

"Here before me is the Bible used in the inauguration of our first President in 1789, and I have just taken the oath of office on the Bible my mother gave me just a few years ago, opened to the timeless admonition from the ancient prophet Micah: 'He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God'" (Micah 6:2).

1980 - President Ronald Reagan:

"The time has come to turn to God and reassert our trust in Him for the Healing of America ... our country is in need of and ready for a spiritual renewal."

May 3, 1990 - President George Bush proclaims National Day of Prayer.

"The great faith that led our Nation's Founding Fathers to pursue this bold experience in self-government has sustained us in uncertain and perilous times; it has given us strength to this very day. Like them, we do very well to recall our 'firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,' to give thanks for the freedom and prosperity this nation enjoys, and to pray for continued help and guidance from our wise and loving Creator."

This only proves that the country was founded by some Christians, not that it was founded as a Christian nation. The Tripoli Treaty of 1797, Article 11 begins with, “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." This counters all your quotes. Which one is valid?
 
Stinger said:
So in other words the churches can't do the job? Because kids no longer say a meaningless 10 second prayer in schools society has fallen apart? Doesn't speak highly of the organized religions in this country does it.

By the way, computers also came about during this time period, any correlation?

I think you'd find more cause and effect in the break down of the family and that's not relagate to atheist, there are just as many believers of the faith in broken families and prisons.

I am not suprised becasue kids attend school day in and day out for 5 days a week for at least 5hours a day and only attend church once a week. Gee, it doest take a genious to figure out which one will over weigh the other. Of course the church cant do a adequate job and it never was meant to becasue in the history of school it was always intertwined with religion until recently.
 
Stinger said:
So let's see on the one hand you want to argue that since we were founded on Christian principles the under God should be there and then you want to argue on the other hand that God doesn't mean God it means Budda.

I don't recall ever arguing on any hand, in this thread or anywhere else, that we were founded on Christian principles. Perhaps you could show me where I did? I have said that the "God" in the phrase "under God" does not specify what, which, or whose God it is.

Your arguement is to phoney to take seriously.

Could I interest you in debate techniques sans ad hominems? And perhaps a brush up course in spelling?

In the private sector no, and I defend your right to worship the religion of your choice and in the church of your choice and government can't interfer. But then regilion and faith has no place in government nor it is required to be a citizen and to take part as as citizen.

You are quite correct that no citizen is required to adhere to or profess any religious conviction or belief of any type. The Constitution in fact gives us very specific protection related to that. You are quite incorrect that religion and faith has no place in government as testified by the Federalist papers and other supporting documents for the Constitution as well as testified by every state constitution as I posted two or three pages back.


It is codified into law respecting God, capital "G" clearly the Christian God else it would say Budda or Allah or Mohammed or and of the hundreds of other dieties.

But your Clintonian "It depends on the meaning of God" is silly at best when you read the historical perspective the reason you on your side give otherwise as to why the phrase should be there.

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

When the meaning of God is not specified, it cannot be assumed what meaning is intended. You actually contradicted your own argument, but in the end you got it right. Very good.

But the fact remains that NO God or other religious supernatual being should be part of our national pledge which is for ALL of us not just SOME of us.

Yes, and since the national pledge is for ALL of us, it should not be the prerogative of a small minority to dictate what the content of it should be for everybody.

Oh I see the principle of " we win because there is more of us than you" which is preicisely what the establishment protects the country from.

The principle at play here is that when nobody's rights are being violated and no Constitutional principle is in play, the preference of the community should prevail. In this particular case the entire nation is the 'community'. And the only reasonable way for the community to prevail is for the majority to decide it.

So the pledge should be something only the Christian part of the country believes in and that suits you just fine. Goes right along with the indivisable part.

Christians are certainly not the only Americans who believe in a diety. But 90 percent of Americans do believe in a diety.

And again I ask, why is it necessary to be in there. Seems to me if you want it in there the burden is on YOU to show why.

I never said that it is necessary for it to be in there. Nor is it necessary that it be removed. When a majority of Americans want it removed, it will be done. Until that time, as nobody's rights are being violated, a majority of Americans prefer the phrase and should prevail in that preference.


That's fine for those who are anti-American, what about those of us who seem to be more pro-American than you and want ALL people to fully participate and have every right to be as much a patriot as you. The pro-America stance is that this country is for everyone and we should all stand a receit a pledge that includes everyone, while you insist it be for Christians and the rest be damned. Why do you inisit on alienating people over your religious beliefs?

Perhaps you are more pro-American than I am. You certainly have not demonstrated that thus far. You seem to think the minority should prevail in a matter of community preference when no inalienable or legal rights are involved. I think the majority should prevail. So yes, the Pledge is for everybody and not just the Christians or other religious groups, and the pledge is for everybody, not just the athiests or anti-religious people.

And you don't have a clue what my religious beliefs are in this matter.
 
Let me just say this to everyone who thinks this pledge is unconstitutional.

Are you made to say this pledge at all in your life? If you dont say this pledge is your arms twisted, do people throw in jail, do people burn you at the steak, is your family targeted, are you boycotted? I think its suffice to say this argument is done.

I dont think that saying the pledge even if your made to and substitute that phrase with whatever you want would be so wrong. Get over this argument. Its simply rediculous.

However, let me know when you get thrown in jail for not saying "under god". I will be the first to say your innocent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom