Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

RightinNYC · Sep 27, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
:lol: Actually that has nothing to do with the constitution. It was a mathematical term. I guess you arent a math guy either, but thats ok. I will still work on you.

I'm well aware that standard deviation is a math term. My point was that you used it in an out of place situation in an attempt to convey intelligence.

:lol: Why does this not suprise me? I knew you, being a liberal, were going to bring up John Roberts in this sometime or another. First off this has nothing to do with the constitutional matter of prayer in that him performing his judicial duties as a supreme court judge by upholding the law as its very difinitevely defined much like the constitution is. Alot of mental disorders are unwiavered in anything that Roberts exclaims as if they never listened to his answers. But you know what? The thing is it doesnt matter since the vote is predominantly conservative he is already admitted anyway. :2wave: Is this enough, or do I have to write you a book? Which btw I am not going to do anyway casue its getting late.

What on EARTH are you talking about?

a) I'm not a liberal, I'm a conservative
b) I supported wholeheartedly John Roberts for the court
c) You're right, this has nothing to do with prayer. That's not what I asked. I asked about precedent vs. Stare Decisis. That has nothing to do with religion, in the slightest. You completely and utterly missed the point and argued with yourself. Good work.

IS THAT THE MONTGOMERY ALABAMA ONE? Its been a long while so bare with me on this one. This was like 3 yrs ago. The trial was held somewhere in the mid 1960's and it was about the civil rights movement. Sullivan was a commissioner and it was Brennan who was the justice. Lets see what else do I remember? And they awarded somethig like a .5million bucks? Thats seriously all I remember from that case. IM not a law guy I am a history guy but I also study the constitution and mostly just the constitution. I do poli sci for fun and History is my hobby(well war stuff).

Um, sort of. Those are the two most famous cases dealing with freedom of the press and libel, respectively. Both of them were famous for questioning the reach of the 1st amendment, a point which I guess you missed.

You mean the point that the first claims that congress shall not abridge freedom of speech in the press, but in the 6th it claims that press shall have no influence or a biased view in that trial? Which in a way limits speech. Yeah I have heard argiments both ways for that as well. Again I am not going to write a book. But your much abliged to for me if you want.

Actually, that's not what the 6th amendment claims. The 6th doesn't mention the press. It offers the right to a fair trial, which can be challenged by a reporters right to confidentiality for sources.

Well not really. I just read repetatively what the constitution says word for word in regarding this matter then exlained what it meant very deligently. I broke it down in regards of English and dissection therof. And I broke it down to them as far as the context in which they wrote it and why they wrote what they did.

Let me be blunt. Your interpretation is misguided. Your analysis of the context in which the authors of the constitution is incredibly lacking in both facts and relevance. It doesn't matter what the founders were thinking when they wrote the constitution, it matters how what is on paper has been interpreted by the courts. And the courts have, since day one, disagreed with your interpretation.

Because in no shape or form doen it imply God at all being unconstitutional. Just religions which were the threat. God isnt a threat its the religions who consistently have a problem with using God as their reasoning. And not to mention as you said before that there needs to be a mandate for it to be illegal. So there you go you just solved your own argument. If you dont ahve anything else then I think I ma going to bed. I am tired. But it was good debating with you.

There IS a mandate. The recitation of the pledge is mandated by state and local school boards.

RightinNYC · Sep 27, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
Btw the NYT is garbage. You actually beleive that crap? Let me guess, you love and beleive everything you hear from the washington post? If you say yes, I am quitting this argument becasue I refuse to debate against mental disorders its a waiste of time.

No matter your opinion on the NYT (I personally think it's a leftist paper, as is the WP), we're not discussing the NYT, we're discussing NYT vs US and NYT v Sullivan.

The decisions in those cases are authored by the Supreme Court, a slightly more prestigious and influential source than any newspaper.

But good to see that some conservatives (I should say republicans, because i doubt you're a conservative) are holding down the ignorance fort.

RightinNYC · Sep 27, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
You know the comment can go both ways that nothing is getting through. But when it all comes down to it. Does the constitution ever mention one thing about God whether it should be extradited or included? No so therefore the argument can go both ways. Religion doesnt equal God. There arent the same.

While the constitution does not specifically define "god" as religion, the precedent of the court has determined that the form of the pledge is a religious activity. That is as effective as if it had been written into the constitution. Case set and match.

Due to the pledge not being mandated then the pledge is constitutional as is. Just like since prayer is mandated in a public school(which is a gov endorsed establishment) we can still pray however and whenever we want. Just like the pledge even though its endorsed by Gov we can say it however and whever we like. So theres no argument. Its ok as is. Any questions?

The pledge IS mandated that it be read each day. You can pray however and whenever you want. However, no government or school board can mandate that a religious activity be recited daily. You can say the pledge however you like, but the board cannot require it to be read, as all school boards do now. Do you understand now?

SKILMATIC · Sep 27, 2005

I'm well aware that standard deviation is a math term. My point was that you used it in an out of place situation in an attempt to convey intelligence.

Your telling me that when refering to math that a mathematical term isnt the right place and time for it? And I dont need to convey intelligence. Normal words can do just the same thing. Sometimes better. :roll:

What on EARTH are you talking about?

a) I'm not a liberal, I'm a conservative
b) I supported wholeheartedly John Roberts for the court
c) You're right, this has nothing to do with prayer. That's not what I asked. I asked about precedent vs. Stare Decisis. That has nothing to do with religion, in the slightest. You completely and utterly missed the point and argued with yourself. Good work.

Well again you brought it up and I gave you a overview of it. I wasnt going to go waay off tangeant to prove to you senseless things. Likewise yo yourself were trying to convey intelligence were you not? :lol:

But in any respect I really dont care about conveying to someone about how intellignet I or you are over the internet when yuo are over 3000miles away. To do this is senseless and is no more than a pi$$ing constest.

Um, sort of. Those are the two most famous cases dealing with freedom of the press and libel, respectively. Both of them were famous for questioning the reach of the 1st amendment, a point which I guess you missed.

Again I dont debate cases that have already been debated and settled over 40yrs ago to do this is senseless. So thats why it kinda went in one ear and out the other so to say. What I do care about is what the constitution itself means and says directly. Thats the point at hand. Not what some people discussed over 40yrs ago during a civil rights movement. Besides incase if you havent noticed times have changed just a tidbit since then. 100yrs ago a debate about school prayer wouldnt have even crossed peoples minds to go to a court room. So let me ask you something lets put all political affiliations and backgrounds and whatever else aside and lets just ask ourselves this one question and lets logically and ponderingly answer it.

What does the unmandated phrase "under God" do? Does it hurt people physically or mentally in any way shape or form when they can simply say it however they like? Again put all gov aside for just a moment. Just ask yourself this. Now if it hurts people in a way thats harmful to their health then by all means we need to take all references to god and religion down everywhere whether its mandated or not. Now if its not going to hurt somone then whats the big deal? Its like arguing about the cross on Mt. Soledad. You have every right to look the other way.:lol:

Actually, that's not what the 6th amendment claims. The 6th doesn't mention the press. It offers the right to a fair trial, which can be challenged by a reporters right to confidentiality for sources.

True, but it is true that the press in its power cannot biasly report a trial. It could be caustic to the case. Thats why this was important in Kobys rape trial and Oj's and Jacksons trial. The press had to be very careful on what they said which is a prohibit on the first ammendment. But your right it doesnt directly mention the press.

SKILMATIC · Sep 27, 2005

Let me be blunt. Your interpretation is misguided. Your analysis of the context in which the authors of the constitution is incredibly lacking in both facts and relevance. It doesn't matter what the founders were thinking when they wrote the constitution, it matters how what is on paper has been interpreted by the courts. And the courts have, since day one, disagreed with your interpretation.

Ok you know as well as I do that this is just rhetoric speaking. Cause we both know in the ammendments the actual pledge itslef is technically unconstitutional. So to say they disagreed from day 1 is hogwash. CAUSE IF THATS THE CASE THEN THEY WOULDNT HAVE EVEN IMPLEMENTED THE PLEDGE AT ALL. Let alone ruled the phrase in it later. So again thats hogwash and you know it. :lol:

Again whether you think im right or not doesnt matter casue the argument can go both ways buddy. We are only right by what we perceive to be as right. And you have a obviously different perception of whats right and wrong than whet I perceive to be right or wrong.

There IS a mandate. The recitation of the pledge is mandated by state and local school boards.

Where do you go to school again? NYU? So tell me MR. President of NYU? And whats your name? What time and in what class do you recite the pledge in and you were mandated to do so word for word correct? Also mabe your college is slacking when was the last time you have you recited the pledge word for word? Yeah like I thought. Its never been mandated you rhetoric loving bookie. It hasnt even been mandated at the grade school level for Christ sakes. I remember doing it once a week and then I even saw kids who didnt even recite it and never once were they ever punished for it. So that argument is voided too. Even currently at me college we never have " pledge of allegiance time." Anything else? Now when I go to the Air Force academy I will be mandated to do so. But that comes with the terrirtory.

RightinNYC · Sep 27, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
Well again you brought it up and I gave you a overview of it. I wasnt going to go waay off tangeant to prove to you senseless things. Likewise yo yourself were trying to convey intelligence were you not? :lol:

Actually, to be truthful, I brought it up and you gave me a poorly constructed overview of something totally different.

But in any respect I really dont care about conveying to someone about how intellignet I or you are over the internet when yuo are over 3000miles away. To do this is senseless and is no more than a pi$$ing constest.

So why was your first response to me headed "Oh don't make me debacle you?" or some other poorly worded, ill-advised taunt?

Again I dont debate cases that have already been debated and settled over 40yrs ago to do this is senseless. So thats why it kinda went in one ear and out the other so to say. What I do care about is what the constitution itself means and says directly. Thats the point at hand. Not what some people discussed over 40yrs ago during a civil rights movement. Besides incase if you havent noticed times have changed just a tidbit since then. 100yrs ago a debate about school prayer wouldnt have even crossed peoples minds to go to a court room. So let me ask you something lets put all political affiliations and backgrounds and whatever else aside and lets just ask ourselves this one question and lets logically and ponderingly answer it.

Wow. Um. I wasn't asking you to debate cases that were settled 40 years ago, I was asking you your opinion, as a constitutional scholar, of the cases that are currently before the court as they related to the precedent of the cases from 40 years ago.

What does the unmandated phrase "under God" do?

(for the 5th time, it IS mandated)

Does it hurt people physically or mentally in any way shape or form when they can simply say it however they like?

What it does do is take fed and state tax dollars and put them towards the endorsement of a religious activity. Which is unconstitutional. And harms me, because my money is being used to force the recitation of a religious prayer in a public school.

SKILMATIC · Sep 27, 2005

No matter your opinion on the NYT (I personally think it's a leftist paper, as is the WP), we're not discussing the NYT, we're discussing NYT vs US and NYT v Sullivan.

Again my opinion was regarding the NYT not the cases.

The decisions in those cases are authored by the Supreme Court, a slightly more prestigious and influential source than any newspaper.

True cant argue there.

But good to see that some conservatives (I should say republicans, because i doubt you're a conservative) are holding down the ignorance fort.

Again, to say that I am ignorant for actually going with what the constitution says very explicitly is in direct correlation to your own ignorance and how little you really understand simple English and therefore the constitution. We can blow sunshine up our asses all night but the facts are as folllows: nowhere in the constitution does it prohibit God nor does it include, the pledge isnt mandated, and the gov endorsed it with the phrase some 50yrs ago. Hell if they enacted the phrase under jihad it still would be constitutional becasue its not mandated. Dont you get it? Your not made to say it therefore its constitutional. Those are the facts. I really hope you dont proclaim yourself to be a conservative casue conservatives are supposed to have common sense. Which you highly lack.

RightinNYC · Sep 27, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
Ok you know as well as I do that this is just rhetoric speaking. Cause we both know in the ammendments the actual pledge itslef is technically unconstitutional. So to say they disagreed from day 1 is hogwash. CAUSE IF THATS THE CASE THEN THEY WOULDNT HAVE EVEN IMPLEMENTED THE PLEDGE AT ALL. Let alone ruled the phrase in it later. So again thats hogwash and you know it.

What are you saying here? And just so you know, it was the legislature that added "under god" into the pledge, not the courts. The courts can still find that unconstitutional, which they will be doing shortly.

Again whether you think im right or not doesnt matter casue the argument can go both ways buddy. We are only right by what we perceive to be as right. And you have a obviously different perception of whats right and wrong than whet I perceive to be right or wrong.

And fortunately I have precedent and legal backing on my side.

Where do you go to school again? NYU? So tell me MR. President of NYU? And whats your name? What time and in what class do you recite the pledge in and you were mandated to do so word for word correct? Also mabe your college is slacking when was the last time you have you recited the pledge word for word? Yeah like I thought. Its never been mandated you rhetoric loving bookie. It hasnt even been mandated at the grade school level for Christ sakes. I remember doing it once a week and then I even saw kids who didnt even recite it and never once were they ever punished for it. So that argument is voided too. Even currently at me college we never have " pledge of allegiance time." Anything else? Now when I go to the Air Force academy I will be mandated to do so. But that comes with the terrirtory.

You're really missing the argument. In PUBLIC high schools (of which NYU is not one, being both private and a university) local school boards and state Regents boards mandate that the pledge of allegiance be announced over a loudspeaker or recited by the teacher every day at the beginning of class. While individual students are not mandated to recite the pledge, the courts have held in several cases that the coercive effect that a mandated recitaton of a prayer has on the children violates the establishment clause. It's not whether the kids are punished for it, or if there are negative effects. It's the fact that it's a mandated religious activity, funded by the government.

If you have a problem with this, don't argue with me, argue with the Supreme Court. They're the ones disagreeing with you.

RightinNYC · Sep 27, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
Again my opinion was regarding the NYT not the cases.

And nowhere were we debating the NYT.

Again, to say that I am ignorant for actually going with what the constitution says very explicitly is in direct correlation to your own ignorance and how little you really understand simple English and therefore the constitution.

Actually, I was saying you were ignorant because of your foolish claim that all those who respected the work of the NYT or the WP had a "mental disorder." What my party really needs is more people making blanket accusations. Great.

We can blow sunshine up our asses all night but the facts are as folllows: nowhere in the constitution does it prohibit God nor does it include, the pledge isnt mandated, and the gov endorsed it with the phrase some 50yrs ago. Hell if they enacted the phrase under jihad it still would be constitutional becasue its not mandated. Dont you get it? Your not made to say it therefore its constitutional. Those are the facts.

I'll post this again for you, because you didn't seem to catch it:

"Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause, of the First Amendment, both of which are operative against the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment."

There it is, in black and white, LAW.

Even though recitation is voluntary, religious activities that are imposed by a government entity in public schools are NOT constitutional. So you are, on all counts, unequivocably wrong. No debate. No interpretation. No discussion. I'm eagerly awaiting your acknowledgement of your error.

I really hope you dont proclaim yourself to be a conservative casue conservatives are supposed to have common sense. Which you highly lack.

What a shame that I "highly lack" something. You might want to give your extensive study of english another go-round.

SKILMATIC · Sep 27, 2005

Actually, to be truthful, I brought it up and you gave me a poorly constructed overview of something totally different.

Fair enough.

So why was your first response to me headed "Oh don't make me debacle you?" or some other poorly worded, ill-advised taunt?

Likewise to be honest with you, it was just a joke really. Do you really think I am that stupid to flame a moderator? All you would have to do is a couple clicks and I ma gone. :2wave:

Wow. Um. I wasn't asking you to debate cases that were settled 40 years ago, I was asking you your opinion, as a constitutional scholar, of the cases that are currently before the court as they related to the precedent of the cases from 40 years ago.

O well again why would I even want to equivocate that? Thats senseless waisting of time on a keyboard:lol: . Besides I think there are more important things at hand other than equivocating cases to one another. And as I said before my major isnt law. I just am interested in the constitution itself. You must be a law major? Am I correct? Trying to be a lawyer or something?

(for the 5th time, it IS mandated)

No its not. :rofl :lol: This simple question will solidify this debate. Was there a century standing next to you at your college during "pledge of allegiance time" watching to make sure you recited it word for word? Ok now that thats finished next debate.

What it does do is take fed and state tax dollars and put them towards the endorsement of a religious activity. Which is unconstitutional. And harms me, because my money is being used to force the recitation of a religious prayer in a public school.

I didnt know it costs money to speak and recite a sentence?

But with all money matters aside. You didnt answer the question. I asked you healthfully does it inflict any harm?

It doesnt cost anymore tax money to recite a pledge in a public school due to it costing the same amount regardless whether you recite a pledge or not.

RightinNYC · Sep 27, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
Likewise to be honest with you, it was just a joke really. Do you really think I am that stupid to flame a moderator? All you would have to do is a couple clicks and I ma gone.

Just so you know, mods try to refrain from moderating on posts that they're involved in, so no worries about me blasting you...:lol:

O well again why would I even want to equivocate that? Thats senseless waisting of time on a keyboard:lol: . Besides I think there are more important things at hand other than equivocating cases to one another. And as I said before my major isnt law. I just am interested in the constitution itself. You must be a law major? Am I correct? Trying to be a lawyer or something?

Judge, someday soon hopefully.

No its not. :rofl :lol: This simple question will solidify this debate. Was there a century standing next to you at your college during "pledge of allegiance time" watching to make sure you recited it word for word? Ok now that thats finished next debate.

I don't mean mandated in that each individual is mandated to recite it. I mean mandated in that the school is mandated to have the pledge read. That is unconstitutional.

I didnt know it costs money to speak and recite a sentence?

But with all money matters aside. You didnt answer the question. I asked you healthfully does it inflict any harm?

It doesnt cost anymore tax money to recite a pledge in a public school due to it costing the same amount regardless whether you recite a pledge or not.

It costs tax money when a teacher, funded by the public tax rolls, is forced to spend time, even if only a short while, each day, to recite a religious activity.

SKILMATIC · Sep 27, 2005

And nowhere were we debating the NYT.

Well the trial was covered by the NYT so indirectly I added it into it :lol:

Actually, I was saying you were ignorant because of your foolish claim that all those who respected the work of the NYT or the WP had a "mental disorder." What my party really needs is more people making blanket accusations. Great.

I'll post this again for you, because you didn't seem to catch it:

"Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause, of the First Amendment, both of which are operative against the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment."

There it is, in black and white, LAW.

Even though recitation is voluntary, religious activities that are imposed by a government entity in public schools are NOT constitutional. So you are, on all counts, unequivocably wrong. No debate. No interpretation. No discussion. I'm eagerly awaiting your acknowledgement of your error.

Again you just said it not constitutional in public schools. Well thats the whole flaw right there. That clause is in direct hypocrisy with everything else it bestowes as religious conotatons are predominantly in gov endorsed fields. So if that held to be true then the gov would have to do away with the liberty bell, then the display of 10 commandments in every courtroom and any other public arena, and the resesitation of God in all public areas casue technically all public areas are governmentally endorsed. That means no one could profess to anyone about their religion unless in their church or in their home which is profoundly WRONG!!! under the 1st ammendment. Dont you get it? If this holds to be true then gov is actually cuting speech not exhonerating it. There is soon going to be a time where the ACLU is going to take over and remove God and all religions from this whole country and proclaim its unconstitutional. Right now you are taking that next step down the stairs buddy. And the CLU is sucking you right in. I am not saying lets bestow all religion in all forms and fields of gov. But somewhere you must draw the line and the rate we are going I can gaurantee you the next 100yrs it will be illegal to even talk about religion on the streets anymore.

Its a very sad thing.

SKILMATIC · Sep 27, 2005

Just so you know, mods try to refrain from moderating on posts that they're involved in, so no worries about me blasting you...

O good casue I WOULD PROLLY BE GONE ALREADY :rofl

I know you were getting annoyed. But thats what a debate is all about. If you can inflict upon him enough talking points and other facts and evidentiary support it will overwhelm the other person to the point of exhaustion or apathy in regards to the matter. But I must say it was fun. I enjoyed myslef even though I have to wake up for class in like 4hrs. :doh

Judge, someday soon hopefully

Well I will be honest with you. You do have potential. The only thing I would say is you must not get soo worked up that if someone doesnt agree with you. You got to keep your cool and let the other guy make himself look like a fool. But I will say this you do prolly know more than I do about law a matter a fact you do know more. Well sh!t you are the Pres. of NYU? I beleive I didnt get your name? You better be smart, hahaha.

I don't mean mandated in that each individual is mandated to recite it. I mean mandated in that the school is mandated to have the pledge read. That is unconstitutional.

Well you need to specify then. I still think its unconstitutional for the pledge to be mandated anyway even if it had no reference to God in it. Thats just my opinion. I will be damed if they put a mandate on what I have to say.

It costs tax money when a teacher, funded by the public tax rolls, is forced to spend time, even if only a short while, each day, to recite a religious activity.

Well thats just the thing(argument) it can be argumented that its not a religion or having to do with anything of religion. Its a person/spirit that we talk(pray) to. So therefor it wouldnt cost money. But teachers are on salary not hourly. So like I said if it were to be putruled that God isnt religion nor does he act as one then you wouldnt spend a dime on it so then what would you say then? Just out of curiosity thats all. Honestly.

AlbqOwl · Sep 27, 2005

Actually, the Federal government does not mandate that the Pledge be recited. That is left up to the individual states to decide and, in many cases, the individual school. Some of you who have your shorts in a wad over the Pledge might have success simply petitioning your local school board.

The Federal government has no authority over an independent school district other than the ability to enforce Federal law, and the only power the Federal government holds is that it can specify what criteria is necessary to receive federal funding. No state or school district is required to accept federal funding, and the Pledge has never been a criteria for receiving federal funding.

Isn't it a perversion of the whole principle of individual freedom when the Federal government is petitioned to make a particular ideology mandatory for everybody? Especially when such ideology is out of step with the community as a whole?

Columbusite · Sep 27, 2005

AlbqOwl said:
Actually, the Federal government does not mandate that the Pledge be recited. That is left up to the individual states to decide and, in many cases, the individual school. Some of you who have your shorts in a wad over the Pledge might have success simply petitioning your local school board.

The Federal government has no authority over an independent school district other than the ability to enforce Federal law, and the only power the Federal government holds is that it can specify what criteria is necessary to receive federal funding. No state or school district is required to accept federal funding, and the Pledge has never been a criteria for receiving federal funding.

Isn't it a perversion of the whole principle of individual freedom when the Federal government is petitioned to make a particular ideology mandatory for everybody? Especially when such ideology is out of step with the community as a whole?

What's "out of step"? Government showing no favoritism towards religion or nonreligion? That not so much "out of step" as it is constitutional.

RightinNYC · Sep 27, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
Again you just said it not constitutional in public schools. Well thats the whole flaw right there. That clause is in direct hypocrisy with everything else it bestowes as religious conotatons are predominantly in gov endorsed fields. So if that held to be true then the gov would have to do away with the liberty bell, then the display of 10 commandments in every courtroom and any other public arena, and the resesitation of God in all public areas casue technically all public areas are governmentally endorsed. That means no one could profess to anyone about their religion unless in their church or in their home which is profoundly WRONG!!! under the 1st ammendment. Dont you get it? If this holds to be true then gov is actually cuting speech not exhonerating it. There is soon going to be a time where the ACLU is going to take over and remove God and all religions from this whole country and proclaim its unconstitutional. Right now you are taking that next step down the stairs buddy. And the CLU is sucking you right in. I am not saying lets bestow all religion in all forms and fields of gov. But somewhere you must draw the line and the rate we are going I can gaurantee you the next 100yrs it will be illegal to even talk about religion on the streets anymore.

Its a very sad thing.

Actually, that's not true. As I posted earlier:

The fact that the Liberty Bell has a biblical quote on it does make it religious in nature. However, this does not necessarily mean that it is not proper for government to be endorsing of it. There are special exemptions for religion in the public arena that have been deemed constitutional by the courts.

A) In cases of conflict between Establishment and Free Exercise
B) Establishment and Exercises in legislative bodies
C) Non-Devotional use of the Bible in the Public Schools
D) Uniform tax exemptions incidentally available to religious institutions
E) Religious considerations in public welfare programs
F) Activities which, though religious in origin, have ceased to be religious in nature

The last one there is what the Liberty Bell would fall under. It is also the same precedent that the defendents in the "under God" case will be claiming exonerates them, but the circumstances point pretty clearly toward the pledge not falling under this clause.

RightinNYC · Sep 27, 2005

AlbqOwl said:
Actually, the Federal government does not mandate that the Pledge be recited. That is left up to the individual states to decide and, in many cases, the individual school. Some of you who have your shorts in a wad over the Pledge might have success simply petitioning your local school board.

The Federal government has no authority over an independent school district other than the ability to enforce Federal law, and the only power the Federal government holds is that it can specify what criteria is necessary to receive federal funding. No state or school district is required to accept federal funding, and the Pledge has never been a criteria for receiving federal funding.

Isn't it a perversion of the whole principle of individual freedom when the Federal government is petitioned to make a particular ideology mandatory for everybody? Especially when such ideology is out of step with the community as a whole?

It doesn't matter one bit if the federal government, state government, or local school boards mandate it. That's what the 14th amendment is for.

It's unconstitutional.

Columbusite · Sep 27, 2005

I'm only posting this because SKILMATIC is blatantly lying.

SKILMATIC said:
Well in his post he proclaims I had a problem with the difference between 2 very different words. But infact I didnt. I told him to define them for me. Which when he finally did he got all upset after I debacled him again.

See post #409

Also I have always beena huge supporter of seperation of chirch and state but God isnt a religion and has no ties with such.

See post #431

Its the religions who use God as their reasoning. God has nothing to do with it. God is a spirit. How many times do I have to tell you. You know the comment can go both ways that nothing is getting through. But when it all comes down to it. Does the constitution ever mention one thing about God whether it should be extradited or included? No so therefore the argument can go both ways. Religion doesnt equal God. There arent the same.

See the US Constitution. God was left out of the Cosntitution intentionally, so in effect God was kept out of government.

Due to the pledge not being mandated then the pledge is constitutional as is. Just like since prayer is mandated in a public school(which is a gov endorsed establishment) we can still pray however and whenever we want. Just like the pledge even though its endorsed by Gov we can say it however and whever we like. So theres no argument. Its ok as is. Any questions?

Already debunked this, if anyone cares to read the thread and make their own conclusion, please do. Btw, "debacle" is a noun, not a verb. I'm thinking this guy isn't even serious, but a mere troll.

Moderate · Sep 27, 2005

Has anyone even been in a class room in the last 15 years?!

Most students say the pledge out of habit. They don't car what it says, it's just repititious.

I'm an athiest and I simply omited that part when I said the plegde and I graduated in 2000.

There are more important issues than this why are we waisting time?!

SKILMATIC · Sep 27, 2005

RightatNYU said:
Actually, that's not true. As I posted earlier:

Read what you just said. You said and correct me if I am wrong, that when gov endorses anything having to do with religion its unconstitutional correct?

Or is this not what you said in earlier posts?

I could be wrong. :2wave:

SKILMATIC · Sep 27, 2005

RightatNYU said:
It doesn't matter one bit if the federal government, state government, or local school boards mandate it. That's what the 14th amendment is for.

It's unconstitutional.

Please explain why under the 14th it is unconstitutional under federal pretences?

SKILMATIC · Sep 27, 2005

Columbusite said:
I'm only posting this because SKILMATIC is blatantly lying.

See post #409

See post #431

See the US Constitution. God was left out of the Cosntitution intentionally, so in effect God was kept out of government.

Already debunked this, if anyone cares to read the thread and make their own conclusion, please do. Btw, "debacle" is a noun, not a verb. I'm thinking this guy isn't even serious, but a mere troll.

No how do you know it was left out intentionally? They may have not even cared and vice versa. We can only go by what it says not by what you think. And it says religion and its establishments not some being or spirit. It makes no provisions whether or not god should be in or not.

And your right I am not even serious about this casue its a rediculous argument. Personally I could care less whether its in the pledge or not but thats not the point. I am trying to give level to the debate. Furthermore, its also rediculous because the fact is you arent madated by anyone to say it by verbatum so in actuality it really doesnt matter.

C.J. · Sep 27, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
Ok then if congress cannot make no law concerning it then they didnt. Becasue under God has nothing to do with establishments of religion. God is a spirit not a religion. Do you at least understand that?

I haven't said otherwise, so you are creating arguments and then arguing them with yourself. And yes I understand that as well as I understand you and your type.

SKILMATIC said:
And an establishment is formerly and mostly known as a place. Please show me otherwise. And I will be more abliged to argue with you on this point.

I love the arguments so keep them coming.

You are really too easy, perhaps that's why you love making up things to argue. You learned to diagram a sentence yesterday, perhaps dictionary usage in the near future. In case you are curiuous, I avoid belittling people unless and until they make a habit of doing so to others.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/establishment
the first two definitions given
es•tab•lish•ment (-stblsh-mnt) KEY

NOUN:

1. a. The act of establishing.
b. The condition or fact of being established.
2. Something established, as:
a.An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church.
d. A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
e. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
3. often Establishment An established social order, as:
a. A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the.
b. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the.

Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=establishment

es•tab•lish•ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-stblsh-mnt)
n.

1 a. The act of establishing.
b. The condition or fact of being established.
2 Something established, as:
a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church.
d. A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
e. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
3. often Establishment An established social order, as:
a. A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the.
b. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the.

OK, I've shown you otherwise, now go ahead and feel "abliged" to argue.

SKILMATIC · Sep 27, 2005

I haven't said otherwise, so you are creating arguments and then arguing them with yourself. And yes I understand that as well as I understand you and your type.

Ok???? My type??? :lol: I love the humor keep it coming. I love a good laugh. :rofl

You are really too easy, perhaps that's why you love making up things to argue. You learned to diagram a sentence yesterday, perhaps dictionary usage in the near future. In case you are curiuous, I avoid belittling people unless and until they make a habit of doing so to others.

Thats funny, when did I belittle anyone? If ou call saying facts to people belittling then I am the biggest belittler in the world. HAHAHAHAHA

NOUN:

1. a. The act of establishing.
b. The condition or fact of being established.
2. Something established, as:
a.An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church.
d. A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
e. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
3. often Establishment An established social order, as:
a. A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the.
b. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the.

Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=establishment

es•tab•lish•ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-stblsh-mnt)
n.

1 a. The act of establishing.
b. The condition or fact of being established.
2 Something established, as:
a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church.
d. A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
e. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
3. often Establishment An established social order, as:
a. A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the.
b. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the.

OK, I've shown you otherwise, now go ahead and feel "abliged" to argue.

Actually if you read early on in the thread someone beat you to this and I have already argued on this matter so please eel free to read back on this. I thank you for your rebuttle(a little late)but its the thought that counts

C.J. · Sep 27, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
Ok???? My type??? :lol: I love the humor keep it coming. I love a good laugh. :rofl

Don't worry, I will!

SKILMATIC said:
Thats funny, when did I belittle anyone? If ou call saying facts to people belittling then I am the biggest belittler in the world. HAHAHAHAHA

Here are three thrown at me, and I am sure there is no need to post any thrown at others.

"Please learn proper English gentlemen it will alleviate all this meaningless argument."

"Do you even know how to disect a sentence?"

"Do you at least understand that?"

All these from one who is trying to impress us with his gramatical bona fides, which he actually lacks.

SKILMATIC said:
Actually if you read early on in the thread someone beat you to this and I have already argued on this matter so please eel free to read back on this. I thank you for your rebuttle(a little late)but its the thought that counts

I had previously read your post, and it lacks any cohesion to the facts or your previous posts. The definition you chose to use (An established church), is not indicative of a place or location as you previously asserted. Examples of established churches within the context of the definition and the FA are the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, or the Methodist Church, not the Riley Street Baptist Church, or the Kelvin Street Methodist Church.

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

No

Girthless

Girthless

Girthless

Girthless

Girthless

Girthless

Girthless

Well-known member

Girthless

Girthless

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Active member