• 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!

Is the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional?

Is the Pledge Unconstitutional?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • No.

    Votes: 19 86.4%

  • Total voters
    22

Pal

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
211
Reaction score
64
Location
Boston, Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Simple question, do you believe the Pledge (as it is written now) is unconstitutional?

Personally, I don't think there's anything uncostitutional about having a Pledge and having it read and recited in, for example, public schools. However, I am of the firm belief that the Pledge has been unconstitutional since "Under God" was added. It's clearly the government advocating religion in general, and more specifically monotheistic religion.
 
I think its unconstitutional to legally enforce it.

EDIT: I'm not saying that this is happening, I'm just saying as long as its not some kind of legal issue, then I don't care. When I was in school, I did it because I was told to do it. Big deal, its like two minutes out of my day.
 
Last edited:
I think it's allot of nothing.

Mainly just militant atheists etc making noise. I mean lets face it, the pledge is not an endorsement of any particular religion.
 
I think it's allot of nothing.

Mainly just militant atheists etc making noise. I mean lets face it, the pledge is not an endorsement of any particular religion.

But it is an endorsement of religion in general, right? Do you not think the first amendment protects non-believers?

I'm not trying to bait you, I'm really just curious.
 
I'm more bothered by the "Indivisible" than the "Under God".

But I don't think it could be unconstitutional under any circumstances. Laws about it could be, depending on what they were, but not the actual pledge itself.

And I dislike the pledge immensely. Just not for the same reasons as most of the people who don't like it.
 
But it is an endorsement of religion in general, right?

It says we are a nation of religious people, and we are. Again it is just so much ado about nothing. About what? 7% at most is atheist (don't know why they include agnostics in that) so it is more a reflection of our national makeup than any kind of insult or endorsement of religion. We have "In God WE Trust" on our money, so what?

Do you not think the first amendment protects non-believers?

How does the pledge saying under God, have anything to do with congress passing any laws hindering or supporting religion? It is just the pledge of allegiance, not a law.

You should be more worried about loosing your right to be offended.

I'm not trying to bait you, I'm really just curious.

Answered as best I could.
 
I only think it is unconstitutional to be forced to recite it. I don't really care about pledging my allegiance to a flag.
 
But it is an endorsement of religion in general, right? Do you not think the first amendment protects non-believers?

I'm not trying to bait you, I'm really just curious.

I disagree.

"God" does not suggest any specific religion. I believe in a God but I am not religious.

And if you're atheist I'd think "God" would just be another word... get over it.

Personally I don't care much for the pledge. My allegiance is more to the advance of the human race as a whole. :cheers:
 
It says we are a nation of religious people, and we are. Again it is just so much ado about nothing. About what? 7% at most is atheist (don't know why they include agnostics in that) so it is more a reflection of our national makeup than any kind of insult or endorsement of religion. We have "In God WE Trust" on our money, so what?

That's like saying we're a nation of white people or male people. Just because a group happens to be in the majority doesn't give them extraordinary power.

And the numbers are higher than 7%, the most up-to-date polls place it closer to 15% with more and more people rejecting religion all the time. Non-religion is the fastest growing "religion" in America.
 
Since Congress shall make no law respecting religion, its not really a big deal. "The Pledge" is merely an anthem, I guess, not a legal document.

Just a few years ago, my state of Texas added the words. Yes, Texas has a pledge that students have to recite along with the national pledge, I mean hey, it's Texas.

However, the concept of both pledges is obviously debatable. The concept that the entire nation or the entire state is under God cannot be proven nor can it be completely denied.
 
it says one nation under god, for religious people, thats great, for atheists, it should be no different than if it went one nation under branded gelatine dessert, its a non issue, no matter what your religious stance
 
Last edited:
That's like saying we're a nation of white people or male people. Just because a group happens to be in the majority doesn't give them extraordinary power.

The "pledge" gives no group religious or otherwise any power at all. It is NOT a law. It is nothing more than a reflection of our society, nothing more.

And the numbers are higher than 7%, the most up-to-date polls place it closer to 15% with more and more people rejecting religion all the time. Non-religion is the fastest growing "religion" in America.

Actually your number is way off. The actual number is 14.1% claiming "no religion." This dies not make someone an atheist. It just means they have no religious affiliation.

About 7% to 10% are actual atheists.
 
I think the pledge is perfectly fine and constitutional. Saying "under God" does violate church and state. No church is controlling the government or has power by saying this. Acknowledging God is not a violation of church and state. Our founding fathers were religious and separation of church and state was implemented to prevent government repression of religious freedom and having a theocracy. It wasn't intended to silence all talk of God and religion. the Declaration of Independence specifically references our Creator, and bases our rights as things given to us by Him.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If saying "under God" in the pledge is unconstitutional, than so are our rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the document itself.
 
I agree. I think folks have way too much time on their hands if this bothers them over all the other real issues we could be bothered by. "Under God" in the pledge doesn't mandate that anyone has to believe a certain way. Its not a Government mandate that we have to believe a certain way or be part of a certain religion, and therefore I believe doesn't violate church and state laws.
 
The pledge itself? Of course it's not unconstitutional. However, forcing people to recite it, IS.

I disagree.

"God" does not suggest any specific religion. I believe in a God but I am not religious.

And if you're atheist I'd think "God" would just be another word... get over it.

Personally I don't care much for the pledge. My allegiance is more to the advance of the human race as a whole. :cheers:
"god" may not point to a specific religion per se but it does specifically EXCLUDE several.
 
If saying "under God" in the pledge is unconstitutional, than so are our rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the document itself.

A few points to make on the DoI argument:

1. The DoI came before the constitution, so it wouldn't be subject to the rules expressed in the Constitution.

2. One of the main goals of the DoI was to get some potentially sympathetic Brits to side with the American plight as well as convince people at home that the push for independence was a just one. That's one of the reasons it follows the format of a traditional argument. A well constructed argument should use specifically chosen language to elicit reactions from their readers. The idea that these rights are endowed by a person's creator was a well chosen turn of phrase because it doesn't exclude anyone (including atheists, because the term is especially ambiguous because one can argue that their "Creator" was their parents, or Nature, or a wandering llama with a bad case of mange. Simply using the term "creator" does not necessarily mean that there was a sentient entity involved in the creation process.

3. The term "Nature's God" is used in the very first sentence of the DoI. This is teh only actual instance of the word "God" appearing in the DoI, and the inclusion of that term "Nature's" makes it far more ambiguous than what is found in "Under God". Perhaps the founders were actually wiccans.



Anyway, I wonder if "In Nature's God we trust" or "One Nation, Under Nature's God" would fly over well with many of the proponents of these terms.

Personally, I like the added historical relevance contained within this slight alteration.
 
Anyway, I wonder if "In Nature's God we trust" or "One Nation, Under Nature's God" would fly over well with many of the proponents of these terms.

Personally, I like the added historical relevance contained within this slight alteration.

I like you, don't mind the historical connotation.

It's to bad many would have a problem with the term "natures God" as they think this is a Christian nation when in fact we are not. We are a secular nation that is predominantly Christian.
 
By itself, no, of course not, any more than a prayer is unconstitutional.

The only thing that would be unconstitutional would be forcing people to say it.
 
I like you, don't mind the historical connotation.

It's to bad many would have a problem with the term "natures God" as they think this is a Christian nation when in fact we are not. We are a secular nation that is predominantly Christian.

Agreed.

And like I said, though, I don't actually mind the "Under God" all that much (even though I am an agnostic atheist). It doesn't violate the first by establishing a state religion, IMO. Granted, I can see the argument about it being somewhat exclusionary of certain religions, but I don't think it's that big of a deal in general. As far as the money goes, I really don't care what's written on it as long as I can still use it.
 
The "pledge" gives no group religious or otherwise any power at all. It is NOT a law. It is nothing more than a reflection of our society, nothing more.

No, it's a reflection of the McCarthy era in the 1950s when it was inserted into the pledge. It does not reflect modern-day society at all, nor is it a historical remnant. The original pledge had no reference to God at all.
 
No, it's a reflection of the McCarthy era in the 1950s when it was inserted into the pledge. It does not reflect modern-day society at all, nor is it a historical remnant. The original pledge had no reference to God at all.

The country is predominantly Christian, Jewish and even Muslim now. Totally to the tune of about 85% being religious. So yes, it reflects our modern society pretty well.

I think you just have a case of religion envy. ;)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom