• 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!

NBC Apologizes for Omitting 'Under God' From Pledge During U.S. Open Broadcast

Whovian said:
What specifically in the OP is 'exclusionary' in your mind?
Click to expand...

I just find it a bit strange that it's a big deal, and the attitude that they must say "under god" in the apology (or at all) is a bit interrogating to me. They apologized for something they didn't really need to, but you're not satisfied until they say "god." It's this continued attitude I see trying to shove religion deeper and deeper into the American psyche. And the attitude of both you and jman that if we don't like it we should get out of the thread.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Yes - individuals can't just up and decide to change it - it must be done properly. . . but I say leave it alone.
Click to expand...

Personally, I feel that the Pledge in its current form violates the first amendment's establishment clause. But you are indeed correct, individuals do not decide these things, and it is highly disrespectful to mutilate the proper Pledge as NBC has done here.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Personally, I feel that the Pledge in its current form violates the first amendment's establishment clause. But you are indeed correct, individuals do not decide these things, and it is highly disrespectful to mutilate the proper Pledge.
Click to expand...

For some that doesn't matter as long as it serves their interests. It was put in during the McCarthy era when paranoia was at an ultimate high. People can be convinced of some pretty amazing things as long as they are controlled by fear.
 
Total non-issue

NBC is free to blank out or not blank out anything they choose that is not regulated by the FCC.

No one should be offend that they did or didnt blank it out, theres no logical reason too in this country.

If they blank it out 500 more times or never do it as long as the choice is their own my reaction is the same, non issue :shrug:

It is their right to blank it out just like it is your right not to like it if you choose but nothing "wrong" was done
 
Jetboogieman said:
Why not just have "one nation under Canada, above Mexico"...
Click to expand...

Canada and mexico? are those hot stripper names? if so can we change it to "one centrist77"
 
Guy Incognito said:
Personally, I feel that the Pledge in its current form violates the first amendment's establishment clause. But you are indeed correct, individuals do not decide these things, and it is highly disrespectful to mutilate the proper Pledge as NBC has done here.
Click to expand...

Then so does the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents.

Recognizing a 'god' is not the same as giving favor to an individual 'religion'

I don't even believe in god and don't find anything wrong with it - I do like and appreciate tradition which is why I like things to be left alone unless they're causing problems. No one's actually being hurt and harmed by the phrase - in the pledge or on the dollar - so leaving things alone is harmless. Changing things is an expense.
 
Centrist77 said:
Canada and mexico? are those hot stripper names? if so can we change it to "one centrist77"
Click to expand...

Frankly, I like the rough draft of the pledge that they did during the McCarthy era. Thankfully, they edited it down:

I pledge God's and my own allegiance to God and the flag of the United States of America, and to God's and our own republic for which they stand, one nation under God, indivisible, with God's liberty and God's justice for all. Goddy God God.
Click to expand...
 
Centrist77 said:
Total non-issue

NBC is free to blank out or not blank out anything they choose that is not regulated by the FCC.

No one should be offend that they did or didnt blank it out, theres no logical reason too in this country.

If they blank it out 500 more times or never do it as long as the choice is their own my reaction is the same, non issue :shrug:

It is their right to blank it out just like it is your right not to like it if you choose but nothing "wrong" was done
Click to expand...

NBC is free to blank out whatever it likes from the Pledge. Just as neo-nazis are free to march in a Jewish neighborhood.

But don't try to tell me I shouldn't be offended at both of those things.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Why not just have "one nation under Canada, above Mexico"...
Click to expand...

Because your discriminating against the Atlantic, Pacific, and Caribbean Sea :mrgreen:
 
Mellie said:
Sometimes socialists have good ideas. :)

Did you know (not just you, pb...everyone) that the salute to the flag during the pledge originally looked like the Nazi salute? It was changed to the hand over the heart during WW2. Good call.
Click to expand...

I say the Pledge whenever it is said, but to be perfectly honest, I think its stupid.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
For some that doesn't matter as long as it serves their interests. It was put in during the McCarthy era when paranoia was at an ultimate high. People can be convinced of some pretty amazing things as long as they are controlled by fear.
Click to expand...

To be frank, my views on the establishment clause are pretty radical. They don't accord with American jurisprudence on the subject. The Pledge in its current form certainly passes the Lemon test.

Whether or not you and I personally approve of the Pledge is not the issue.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Then so does the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents.

Recognizing a 'god' is not the same as giving favor to an individual 'religion'

I don't even believe in god and don't find anything wrong with it - I do like and appreciate tradition which is why I like things to be left alone unless they're causing problems. No one's actually being hurt and harmed by the phrase - in the pledge or on the dollar - so leaving things alone is harmless. Changing things is an expense.
Click to expand...

Now you know very well that the words 'with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence' in the Declaration of Independence had nothing what so ever to do with God. ;)
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Then so does the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents.

Recognizing a 'god' is not the same as giving favor to an individual 'religion'
Click to expand...

I disagree. "God" is a theological concept and theology has no place is a secular government. The rights of atheists, agnostics, and polytheistic people ought to be respected.

Aunt Spiker said:
I don't even believe in god and don't find anything wrong with it - I do like and appreciate tradition which is why I like things to be left alone unless they're causing problems. No one's actually being hurt and harmed by the phrase - in the pledge or on the dollar - so leaving things alone is harmless. Changing things is an expense.
Click to expand...

I am a Roman Catholic and I do find something wrong with it. The inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge is nothing less than monotheistic chauvinism.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
NBC is free to blank out whatever it likes from the Pledge. Just as neo-nazis are free to march in a Jewish neighborhood.

But don't try to tell me I shouldn't be offended at both of those things.
Click to expand...

sorry those arent even close to the same ball park.
Yoy can be offened all you want but im looking for the logic in it?

I understand someone being offended by people marching down their street that stand for KILLING THEM AND WHIPPING THEM OF THE EARTH

however I dont see how someone in america is offend that they blanked that out in an attempt to be more PC, wheres the logic behind the offense.

Would I do it? nope but if I did and people were offended :shrug: oh well I did nothing wrong
 
MistressNomad said:
I just find it a bit strange that it's a big deal, and the attitude that they must say "under god" in the apology (or at all) is a bit interrogating to me. They apologized for something they didn't really need to, but you're not satisfied until they say "god." It's this continued attitude I see trying to shove religion deeper and deeper into the American psyche. And the attitude of both you and jman that if we don't like it we should get out of the thread.
Click to expand...

A... I found it odd/ironic that they chose to omit the word they were apologizing for omitting. Not really my problem if you don't.
B... You're seeing things. Get your eyes examined.
C... Did I tell you to leave?
 
digsbe said:
Because your discriminating against the Atlantic, Pacific, and Caribbean Sea :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

oh brother NOW its a party!!!!!
 
Centrist77 said:
sorry those arent even close to the same ball park.
Yoy can be offened all you want but im looking for the logic in it?
Click to expand...

I may have godwinned the thread, but the neo-nazi case is a genuine example from first amendment case-law. My point is that you can be legitimately offended when someone exercises their rights.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I may have godwinned the thread, but the neo-nazi case is a genuine example from first amendment case-law. My point is that you can be legitimately offended when someone exercises their rights.
Click to expand...

well that I agree with but it isnt even anything close to what you said or what I said. Im simply looking for the logic.

In your example it is clear, in the topic at hand I dont see it.
I believe in god and I cant find any reason to be offended, doesnt mean there isnt one im asking what it is?
Im guessing any reason is shallow or selfish or misguided and void of logic but I could easily be wrong.
 
Centrist77 said:
well that I agree with but it isnt even anything close to what you said or what I said. Im simply looking for the logic.

In your example it is clear, in the topic at hand I dont see it.
I believe in god and I cant find any reason to be offended, doesnt mean there isnt one im asking what it is?
Im guessing any reason is shallow or selfish or misguided and void of logic but I could easily be wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm offended at both, but I never said I was equally offended. Obviously the neo-nazis are much worse. Neo-nazis are heinous and evil; NBC's editing of the pledge is merely puerile and disrespectful.

Indeed, you seem to be projecting. You're the one who implied that one can never be offended when somebody exercises a constitutional right. You were clearly wrong.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
I'm offended at both, but I never said I was equally offended. Obviously the neo-nazis are much worse. Neo-nazis are heinous and evil; NBC's editing of the pledge is merely puerile and disrespectful.
Click to expand...

Why tell me why, maybe you can convince me.

Lets start with a base.
Now I am operating under the ASSumption lol that they did it in an attempt to be PC so thats where I am coming from.
Do we agree on this? if not what is your assumption?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom