• 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.
SKILMATIC said:
IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH ENFORCEMENT. I dont even think its constitutional to make people pray in a church let alone at school. But in school if I wanted to pray I could. They couldnt tell me no. I have the right to. Just like vice versa. If schoool led prayer they had the opportunity to pray to whatever they beleived. They still had their freedoms. Just like here. You still have your freedom to say what you want therefor it is constitutional. What does the constitution say about the prohibits on religion? Please show me where word for word that it says people must say the pledge word for word in unicen on a daily basis and if this isnt abided then we will prosecute them?
Click to expand...

Umm, but school led prayer was found unconstitutional, which means the pledge...
 
Columbusite said:
Umm, but school led prayer was found unconstitutional, which means the pledge...
Click to expand...

I know and they are wrong. Because you still had the freedon to do what you wanted. There was no breech in the ammendments.
 
SKILMATIC said:
I know and they are wrong. Because you still had the freedon to do what you wanted. There was no breech in the ammendments.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess you would know, being an expert on constitutional law. :roll: Government endorsement...err prerefence of religion is unconstitutional. Wow, we do in fact have separation of church and state after all! I know this shocks you, but this is what has made the US a bastion of religious thought (and nonreligious thought). Read the Constitution and think about why the framers purposely left out God and made a point to exclude religion from government.
 
Columbusite said:
Well, I guess you would know, being an expert on constitutional law. :roll: Government endorsement...err prerefence of religion is unconstitutional. Wow, we do in fact have separation of church and state after all! I know this shocks you, but this is what has made the US a bastion of religious thought (and nonreligious thought). Read the Constitution and think about why the framers purposely left out God and made a point to exclude religion from government.
Click to expand...

The phrase under god has nothing to do with our gov. Its just a phrase like in any other sentnece. Except this one is a pledge to our country. Well hate to break it to ya but separation betweencurch and state never happened. For it is what our whole law system and judicial system is made up of. Our courts all have the 10commandments present. Also guess what book we all put our hands on to tell the truth under oath? Yep you guessed right, a religious book. Known as the Bible. Yeah your right religion is separated from state. How genious of a fellow you must be.
 
SKILMATIC said:
The phrase under god has nothing to do with our gov. Its just a phrase like in any other sentnece. Except this one is a pledge to our country. Well hate to break it to ya but separation betweencurch and state never happened. For it is what our whole law system and judicial system is made up of. Our courts all have the 10commandments present. Also guess what book we all put our hands on to tell the truth under oath? Yep you guessed right, a religious book. Known as the Bible. Yeah your right religion is separated from state. How genious of a fellow you must be.
Click to expand...

It's not just any phrase, it was singed into law. Separation never happened? Gee , that explains why all our laws are based on the Bible and why there is a religious test for public office. :roll: Not all courts have 10 commandments in them due having to take them down because of preference of religion being shown by the government. Which just so happens to be unconstitutional. You see, I don't just have the Constitution on my side (which alone is all I really need to disprove your claim), but also precedent. The official oath one must swear on does NOT include putting your hand on the Bible, that was something extra that was added. Presidents have done so before their term, but added "so help me God" themselves which they are free to do. Let's look at the exact wording, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Hmm..."so help me God" seems to be something added on and not endorsed by our government. In the courts they shouldn't require you to put your hand on the Bible, but do anyway. All that proves is that people in this country have tried to get around what our Constitution says and have had some success. If you actually think this country was founded on the Bible, then it is obvious you haven't read it. The NT emphasizes obedience to authority. That includes slaves being obedient to their masters, women to men, and nations to kings. Look at the colonies and you will see why the framers kept religion out. They didn't want people being executed for denying the Trinity, cursing, blasphemy, etc. They wanted people to have freedom of conscience, speech, etc. None of which had ever before been attained in
the all the 1700+ years of Christendom. They weren't about to make the same mistake that had been made over and over by including God in government. Our Constitution is godless and there is nothing you can say to make it otherwise. Separation of church and state is a founding principle and intrinsically American, even moreso than apple pie (which I've just had a fair share of).
 
Columbusite said:
It's not just any phrase, it was singed into law. Separation never happened? Gee , that explains why all our laws are based on the Bible and why there is a religious test for public office. :roll: Not all courts have 10 commandments in them due having to take them down because of preference of religion being shown by the government. Which just so happens to be unconstitutional. You see, I don't just have the Constitution on my side (which alone is all I really need to disprove your claim), but also precedent. The official oath one must swear on does NOT include putting your hand on the Bible, that was something extra that was added. Presidents have done so before their term, but added "so help me God" themselves which they are free to do. Let's look at the exact wording, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Hmm..."so help me God" seems to be something added on and not endorsed by our government. In the courts they shouldn't require you to put your hand on the Bible, but do anyway. All that proves is that people in this country have tried to get around what our Constitution says and have had some success. If you actually think this country was founded on the Bible, then it is obvious you haven't read it. The NT emphasizes obedience to authority. That includes slaves being obedient to their masters, women to men, and nations to kings. Look at the colonies and you will see why the framers kept religion out. They didn't want people being executed for denying the Trinity, cursing, blasphemy, etc. They wanted people to have freedom of conscience, speech, etc. None of which had ever before been attained in
the all the 1700+ years of Christendom. They weren't about to make the same mistake that had been made over and over by including God in government. Our Constitution is godless and there is nothing you can say to make it otherwise. Separation of church and state is a founding principle and intrinsically American, even moreso than apple pie (which I've just had a fair share of).
Click to expand...

Look I am not saying that it is good or bad to have God in the gov. I am just stating what you are arguing over is silly. Thats all. And in no way does it say in the constitution that under god shall not be in our pledge and vice versa. So I have the constotution on my side just as much as you think you do.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Look I am not saying that it is good or bad to have God in the gov. I am just stating what you are arguing over is silly. Thats all. And in no way does it say in the constitution that under god shall not be in our pledge and vice versa. So I have the constotution on my side just as much as you think you do.
Click to expand...

If you don't know whether it is good or bad to have God in government, why are you here? I would hope after reading my post (and it wouldn't hurt to read some of the history of Christianity in government) that you would see that, yes, it is bad to have God in government. The Constitution does not say that "under god shall not be in our pledge". I don't think anyone will find such a quote there, just like it doesn't say "spearation of church and state". The Constitution basically deals with what the government can and cannot do (fyi). It is perfectly fine for people to alter the pledge and make it religious, but not the government. The Constitution states that (here we go again) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Now, I'll try to explain to you as best I can (though I am talking to someone who can't tell the difference between endorse and enforce, so I'll just use "preference" instead) that Congress passing a bill that adds the phrase "under God" (which is clearly religious) signed it into law, a law respecting or in other words, regarding, establishment of religion. The Constitution certainly is on one of our sides on this issue. I'll let you guess who that is (hint: not you). Oh, and as to this being "silly" just read some of the things that people who cite the pledge/currency/commandments as proof that this is a Christian nation that should return to it's "Biblical foundation" (non-existant of course, in government) are aiming for. It is anything but silly.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Just dont say it without the phrase simple as that end of discussion.
Click to expand...

Simple, we're agreed. We'll have Congress rescind the law requiring the phrase and then everything will be hunky dory.

I'm glad you finally managed to see the light of reason.
 
To make it perfectly plain:

If, as Skilmatic claims, the phrase "under god" has absolutely no meaning, then not only is there no point in requiring the phrase as a matter of law, it's presence in the law introduces ambiguity of intent and discord in the public discourse.

Change the law to reflect Skilmatic's contention, ie, ditch the useless words.

On the other hand, if the phrase has weight; if the words "under God" are indeed intended as asseveration of divine guidance, then they violate the First Amendment and are illegal.

So what is it, meaningless phrase, or illegal mystical nonsense?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
To make it perfectly plain:

If, as Skilmatic claims, the phrase "under god" has absolutely no meaning, then not only is there no point in requiring the phrase as a matter of law, it's presence in the law introduces ambiguity of intent and discord in the public discourse.

Change the law to reflect Skilmatic's contention, ie, ditch the useless words.

On the other hand, if the phrase has weight; if the words "under God" are indeed intended as asseveration of divine guidance, then they violate the First Amendment and are illegal.

So what is it, meaningless phrase, or illegal mystical nonsense?
Click to expand...

Neither, its not unconstituational either way until they make you say the phrase by verbatim. You have no case. Most of the founding fathers were christian but they knew not to implement religion into the gov not God. God isnt a religion. God is a spirit much like angels. This is what you people fail to realize. Hate to break it to you but your right, the gov shoudnt endorse or enforce religion upon an individual but God isnt a religion. He is a spirit that religions worship under. So in concordance to your words it would be unconstitutional if the phrase had "under catholicism" or any other religion. Now what if it said "under Washington?(which is a spirit now casue he is dead)" Is it unconstitutional? Or how about this? What about "under Jesus(which is also a spirit)" who is also a man? Is it now unconstitutional? Or how about "under skilmatic?" You see where I am going with this?

How about "under the forefathers?" Who are also spirits much like God is. Hey there are some individuals who worship the founding fathers; should we erradicate them from our history and our constitution?

Do you understnad now?
 
SKILMATIC said:
Neither, its not unconstituational either way until they make you say the phrase by verbatim. You have no case. Most of the founding fathers were christian but they knew not to implement religion into the gov not God. God isnt a religion. God is a spirit much like angels. This is what you people fail to realize. Hate to break it to you but your right, the gov shoudnt endorse or enforce religion upon an individual but God isnt a religion. He is a spirit that religions worship under. So in concordance to your words it would be unconstitutional if the phrase had "under catholicism" or any other religion. Now what if it said "under Washington?(which is a spirit now casue he is dead)" Is it unconstitutional? Or how about this? What about "under Jesus(which is also a spirit)" who is also a man? Is it now unconstitutional? Or how about "under skilmatic?" You see where I am going with this?

How about "under the forefathers?" Who are also spirits much like God is. Hey there are some individuals who worship the founding fathers; should we erradicate them from our history and our constitution?

Do you understnad now?
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you, but "under God" is a religious phrase and it is not necessary for government to force you to say the pledge or a prayer for it to be unconstitutional which you admit later on and contradict yourself, so which is it? Is it unconstitutional for government to show preference of religion or is it necessary for it to be forced on people before it is uncosntitutional? It is, and has been found unconstitutional for the government to officialy favor religion. The phrase was made into a law regarding an establishment of religion. This is what is unconstitutional whether you like it or not. "under the forefathers", unlike "under God" would not lead to an establishment of religion, but would be an unnecessary phrase. If I had to choose to add something it would be "one nation, under the Constitution" as I had seen in an article I posted earlier.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Most of the founding fathers were christian but they knew not to implement religion into the gov not God. God isnt a religion.
Click to expand...
Ah, so you are denounsing God just like Peter did. 3 times before the rooster crows, right? Amazing the amount of outright lies that fundamentalists will spew to push their false claims. Almost as if they have forgotten God's instruction to not bear false witness. Fundamentalists obviously spit God in the eye. I am saddened that fundies like you denigrade God by making it seems like all Christians lie for the promotion of their theocracy.

Note to everybody. Most Christians are NOT as dishonest and deceptive as skilmatic and his fellow pharisees. We follow God's word, we don't push theocratic policies through deception and lies, as that is directly contrary to God's word. Sorry that you all are exposed to such un-Christian behavior from those who call on God for their bigoted oppressive policies.
God is a spirit much like angels.
Click to expand...
Way to go, demeaning God. Satan wispered that lie in your ear?
This is what you people fail to realize. Hate to break it to you but your right, the gov shoudnt endorse or enforce religion upon an individual but God isnt a religion. He is a spirit that religions worship under. So in concordance to your words it would be unconstitutional if the phrase had "under catholicism" or any other religion. Now what if it said "under Washington?(which is a spirit now casue he is dead)" Is it unconstitutional? Or how about this? What about "under Jesus(which is also a spirit)" who is also a man? Is it now unconstitutional? Or how about "under skilmatic?" You see where I am going with this?
Click to expand...
Yes, you are going for dishonest sophistry. And establishment of Christianity is the establishment of religion. Your shocking lying about God obviously doesn't trigger even a minimum of remorse in you. What do you think ou are doing? Lying for Jesus? Jesus doesn't need your lies.
Do you understnad now?
Click to expand...
I understand that you feel it OK to bear false witness to push your political agenda. You are spitting God in the eye, you are USING God for your personal politics. Shame on you.
 
Last edited:
Say what you want but your wrong in every shape and form. Your whole argument was only gov shouldnt enforce or endorse religion which is what the constitution says. But in no way does it say phrases or words or God. Sorry but your wrong once again. And I hate yo break it to you again but you dont have the constitution on your side becasue I have checked and no where in it does it even mention phrases or words.

Again God isnt a religion. Yes He has to do with religion but hes not a religion. Again what if it said "under Washington?" Is that wrong does the constitution say anything against that?
 
Ah, so you are denounsing God just like Peter did. 3 times before the rooster crows, right?
Click to expand...

How did I acheive this? Please explain instead of using personal attacks for your defense it really is starting to get old. Is that all you mental disorders can do? Please I would really like a edumacated debate not some childish rhetoric crap that doesnt even make an ounce of sense from what I said.

Amazing the amount of outright lies that fundamentalists will spew to push their false claims.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what a fundamentalist is? How am I one and how did I spew false claims? Tell me mr. Genius.

Almost as if they have forgotten God's instruction to not bear false witness.
Click to expand...

Again dont even know what that means either. That means that someone on earth is professing they are Christ. WHEN DID I PROFESS I WAS CHRIST?

Fundamentalists obviously spit God in the eye. I am saddened that fundies like you denigrade God by making it seems like all Christians lie for the promotion of their theocracy.
Click to expand...

First of all I am upholding God not denouncing him of degrading Him. And second of all where are you getting all this from? Seriously, are you on some sort of drugs or something?

Most Christians are NOT as dishonest and deceptive as skilmatic and his fellow pharisees. We follow God's word, we don't push theocratic policies through deception and lies, as that is directly contrary to God's word. Sorry that you all are exposed to such un-Christian behavior from those who call on God for their bigoted oppressive policies.
Click to expand...

Again you proclaim I have lied but about what? You still avent even made an adequate argument. I am trying to uphold God AND YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WANTS TO TEAR HIM DOWN FROM EVERYTHING YOU KNOW. So again what have I lied about?

Way to go, demeaning God. Satan wispered that lie in your ear?
Click to expand...

How did that post demean God? Are you saying that becasue I said that God is much like an angel you imply that thats a degrading remark? I thought being an angel is a good thing as the world sees it? Unless you think that all angels are evil?

Yes, you are going for dishonest sophistry.
Click to expand...

Huh? Are you seriously even reading any of my posts? Or are you erratically just spewing nonsense to people to draw attention to yourself?

And establishment of Christianity is the establishment of religion.
Click to expand...

Uh huh and when did I say this wasnt true? I agree with that. So what say you?????

Your shocking lying about God obviously doesn't trigger even a minimum of remorse in you
Click to expand...

Well it would if I did lie about God. Please enlighten me sir when did I lie about Him? Please give specific examples please. I will be awaiting

What do you think ou are doing? Lying for Jesus? Jesus doesn't need your lies.
Click to expand...

:rofl This is just funny

I understand that you feel it OK to bear false witness to push your political agenda. You are spitting God in the eye, you are USING God for your personal politics. Shame on you.
Click to expand...

And pelase tell me how I am doing this?
 
SKILMATIC said:
Say what you want but your wrong in every shape and form. Your whole argument was only gov shouldnt enforce or endorse religion which is what the constitution says. But in no way does it say phrases or words or God. Sorry but your wrong once again. And I hate yo break it to you again but you dont have the constitution on your side becasue I have checked and no where in it does it even mention phrases or words.

Again God isnt a religion. Yes He has to do with religion but hes not a religion. Again what if it said "under Washington?" Is that wrong does the constitution say anything against that?
Click to expand...

Adding "under God" to our pledge is showing preference to religion which is unconstitutional. What is so difficult to understand? At least we are on the same page as far as preference of religion (by the government) being unconstitutional. I would think it's obvious that when phrases or words adopted by the government show preference of religion (which you stated is unconstitutional), that they are unconstitutional. What form the religious preference takes is of no matter. The 1st amendment does not specify the form of "law respecting an establishment of religion". That means it goes for ANY form PERIOD. All you have to do is read the 1st amendment, because where those phrases and words (such as God) are in violation of the 1st amendment, they cannot be supported by our government. "Yes He has to do with religion" Thank you, that is all I need. The phrase "under God" is, in turn, a religious phrase. One that clearly favors religion. Like I already said, "under Washington" would just be extraneous and wouldn't make much sense, unlike "under the Constitution" which is true since that is the document this country is based on and is also tangible.
 
Last edited:
Oh yes, how could I forget. There was no pledge when the founding fathers were present. Apparantly, it would seem that they themselves found it unecessary since they didn't bother with one. I whole heartedly agree with them.
 
Oh yes, how could I forget. There was no pledge when the founding fathers were present. Apparantly, it would seem that they themselves found it unecessary since they didn't bother with one. I whole heartedly agree with them.
Click to expand...

Again you just said it it references religion but it isnt religion which is what the constitution stingently says. Also I agree with you to about the founding fathers.

IMO to me I still havent figured out if we need it or not. I would say arguments could be presented on both sides very well. However, I think soon the pledge will be banned all together. IMO I think it will be sad. Again I am not going to debate whether or not the pledge should be legal but its just my opinion.

But on the other hand IMO I think if gov enforces and makes us recite the pledge then thats unconstitutional. I think it should solely be voluntary.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Again you just said it it references religion but it isnt religion which is what the constitution stingently says. Also I agree with you to about the founding fathers.

IMO to me I still havent figured out if we need it or not. I would say arguments could be presented on both sides very well. However, I think soon the pledge will be banned all together. IMO I think it will be sad. Again I am not going to debate whether or not the pledge should be legal but its just my opinion.

But on the other hand IMO I think if gov enforces and makes us recite the pledge then thats unconstitutional. I think it should solely be voluntary.
Click to expand...

The law, which I previously posted a reference to, is very specific that no person can be required to recite the pledge. In other words there is no reward and no consequence for reciting or not reciting the pledge.

The phrase 'under God' is a nonstarter for me. I like it, but I don't need it. My whole agenda here is that in all issues that have no consequence, the will of the people should prevail and a small angry minority should not be allowed to impose their will on the majority. For decades now, the minority has been successful in using the courts to erode little freedoms enjoyed by the minority--you can't have a manger scene in the city park at Christmas, the highschool choir has to discontinue presenting Handel's Messiah in the Christmas concert, a county can't have a small cross, symbolic of the founding Catholic friars, on its 100-year-old county seal, a predominantly Jewish school can't hang a framed copy of the Ten Commandments in the hall, etc. etc. etc. That's just the religious stuff. We won't even get into the rights of property owners that are also being eroded in the interest of the "public good."

At some point we all have to say enough is enough and demand that the community reclaim its right to be who or what it is so long as indiividual rights are not jeopardized. If we keep caving in, then pretty soon a small organized bunch of angry, narrow minded, activists will have complete control and will run the whole show. I think that is never what the Constitution intended. And so, I fight for the majority will to prevail where the Pledge is concerned.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Again you just said it it references religion but it isnt religion which is what the constitution stingently says. Also I agree with you to about the founding fathers.

IMO to me I still havent figured out if we need it or not. I would say arguments could be presented on both sides very well. However, I think soon the pledge will be banned all together. IMO I think it will be sad. Again I am not going to debate whether or not the pledge should be legal but its just my opinion.

But on the other hand IMO I think if gov enforces and makes us recite the pledge then thats unconstitutional. I think it should solely be voluntary.
Click to expand...

Alright, just a sec, I think I see a breakthrough coming along here. Here is the quote from the Constituiton again, "no law respecting an establishment of religion" with "respecting" being the key here. So the Constitution isn't just covering religion, but anything respecting (with regards to) religion. The phrase "under God" is certainly covered by the "respecting" part.

"Also I agree with you to about the founding fathers." Wow, we actually agree on something!:shock: Now, obviously, I'm going to try to sway you to the opinion that the pledge is not. As a country we strived to be the best nation in the world. From independence, the drafting of the Constitution, through the Civil War and two world wars, we had no "under God" in our pledge. The pledge came about in 1896 (I believe) by who? Brace yourself, you stanch conservative American: A Christian Socialist. I'm surprised that alone hasn't led to you ditching the pledge without a second thought. The pledge really isn't patriotic when you think about it, it just conforms to whatever you want the flag to mean, even if it is unconstitutional. If we had to choose something to pledge allegiance to I could think of nothing better than the Constitution. Unlike the flag, what it stands for is concrete, written right on it. The flag is much too vague. I mean, it is a flag after all. I just feel that the pledge is an easy way out for being patriotic, akin to slapping an American flag bumper sticker on your car. All that means nothing if you don't know what the basic principles of this country are and too many Americans are lazy enoguh to be content with doing as little as possible to show how very "patriotic" they are. It's hard to be patriotic when you don't even know why.

If you still want the pledge, you shouldn't be sad. You will be free to recite it anytime you wish with whatever wording you choose whether it is found unconstitutional or not. "But on the other hand IMO I think if gov enforces and makes us recite the pledge then thats unconstitutional. I think it should solely be voluntary." Yet another thing we agree on. I'm stunned.:2razz:
 
AlbqOwl said:
The law, which I previously posted a reference to, is very specific that no person can be required to recite the pledge. In other words there is no reward and no consequence for reciting or not reciting the pledge.

The phrase 'under God' is a nonstarter for me. I like it, but I don't need it. My whole agenda here is that in all issues that have no consequence, the will of the people should prevail and a small angry minority should not be allowed to impose their will on the majority. For decades now, the minority has been successful in using the courts to erode little freedoms enjoyed by the minority--you can't have a manger scene in the city park at Christmas, the highschool choir has to discontinue presenting Handel's Messiah in the Christmas concert, a county can't have a small cross, symbolic of the founding Catholic friars, on its 100-year-old county seal, a predominantly Jewish school can't hang a framed copy of the Ten Commandments in the hall, etc. etc. etc. That's just the religious stuff. We won't even get into the rights of property owners that are also being eroded in the interest of the "public good."

At some point we all have to say enough is enough and demand that the community reclaim its right to be who or what it is so long as indiividual rights are not jeopardized. If we keep caving in, then pretty soon a small organized bunch of angry, narrow minded, activists will have complete control and will run the whole show. I think that is never what the Constitution intended. And so, I fight for the majority will to prevail where the Pledge is concerned.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. Also remember that the liberty Bell has a line from the Bible that is endented on it. So what are we going to do? Destroy the liberty bell? I think majority should always prevail. For that is a true democracy. Yes minorities are to be heard but thats all. No one is or should rule on a minority. Remember, they are a minority for a reason. :lol:
 
AlbqOwl said:
The law, which I previously posted a reference to, is very specific that no person can be required to recite the pledge. In other words there is no reward and no consequence for reciting or not reciting the pledge.

The phrase 'under God' is a nonstarter for me. I like it, but I don't need it. My whole agenda here is that in all issues that have no consequence, the will of the people should prevail and a small angry minority should not be allowed to impose their will on the majority. For decades now, the minority has been successful in using the courts to erode little freedoms enjoyed by the minority--you can't have a manger scene in the city park at Christmas, the highschool choir has to discontinue presenting Handel's Messiah in the Christmas concert, a county can't have a small cross, symbolic of the founding Catholic friars, on its 100-year-old county seal, a predominantly Jewish school can't hang a framed copy of the Ten Commandments in the hall, etc. etc. etc. That's just the religious stuff. We won't even get into the rights of property owners that are also being eroded in the interest of the "public good."

At some point we all have to say enough is enough and demand that the community reclaim its right to be who or what it is so long as indiividual rights are not jeopardized. If we keep caving in, then pretty soon a small organized bunch of angry, narrow minded, activists will have complete control and will run the whole show. I think that is never what the Constitution intended. And so, I fight for the majority will to prevail where the Pledge is concerned.
Click to expand...

I don't know how many times I have to say it:there IS a consequence for our government to let God/religion in. The pledge may not be a big deal for you, but for those who wish to turn this country into an officialy Christian one it gives them the means to get a foothold in our government. 1st, establish an official acknowledgement God. 2nd, define who that God is (hint: not yours, theirs). 3rd, because God is the "True Christian God"TM, we must obey Him. Unconstitutional? No worry, we'll just tear that up and use the Bible. I think we all know how well THAT has worked.
 
SKILMATIC said:
I totally agree. Also remember that the liberty Bell has a line from the Bible that is endented on it. So what are we going to do? Destroy the liberty bell? I think majority should always prevail. For that is a true democracy. Yes minorities are to be heard but thats all. No one is or should rule on a minority. Remember, they are a minority for a reason. :lol:
Click to expand...

You are joking, right? Remember, this is not a democracy, but it IS a democratic republic. The Liberty Bell is historical and I have not heard one person advocate removing it. Let's stick with real issues, please.
 
Columbusite said:
I don't know how many times I have to say it:there IS a consequence for our government to let God/religion in. The pledge may not be a big deal for you, but for those who wish to turn this country into an officialy Christian one it gives them the means to get a foothold in our government. 1st, establish an official acknowledgement God. 2nd, define who that God is (hint: not yours, theirs). 3rd, because God is the "True Christian God"TM, we must obey Him. Unconstitutional? No worry, we'll just tear that up and use the Bible. I think we all know how well THAT has worked.
Click to expand...

This country has managed quite nicely with steady improvements with no noticable or mass conversions of athiests into holy rollers before the concept of erasing any reference of religious belief or history from public view caught on just a couple of decades ago. In a very few instances in which nonbelievers were illegally assaulted or harrassed, the law acted swiftly and effectively to protect the nonbeliever's right to be a nonbeliever.

At such time as the government attempts to define who or what God is in any specific terms; at such time as the government attaches 'Christian' or any other specific religious belief to the Pledge (or anywhere else) for public consumption, then I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you to protest that.

They aren't doing that in this case. "Under God" in the Pledge is not specified as any particular god, any particular faith, or any particular belief, and is not a requirement for anybody to say. I don't understand how anybody thinks tolerance can be tolerance when it is only granted in one direction. If the Christians or any other people of faith tolerate the athiests and impose no penalty or prejudice on them for their athiesm, that is tolerance. It is not too much to ask of the athiests that they also be tolerant of people of faith.
 
Alright, just a sec, I think I see a breakthrough coming along here. Here is the quote from the Constituiton again, "no law respecting an establishment of religion" with "respecting" being the key here. So the Constitution isn't just covering religion, but anything respecting (with regards to) religion. The phrase "under God" is certainly covered by the "respecting" part.
Click to expand...

I understand but it is just giving respect to the establishment of a religion meaning the place of worship. You do know what an establishment is right? Its a place. Well a place(establishment) of a religion is the place in which they gather and worship. So its in respect to those places(establishments) of worship. Again its just referring to religions not anything else.

From independence, the drafting of the Constitution, through the Civil War and two world wars, we had no "under God" in our pledge.
Click to expand...

No but we had Godand prayer, mind you, in our schools. So gotcha there. :lol:



Wow, we actually agree on something! Now, obviously, I'm going to try to sway you to the opinion that the pledge is not.
Click to expand...

Of course I knew this.

I just feel that the pledge is an easy way out for being patriotic, akin to slapping an American flag bumper sticker on your car. All that means nothing if you don't know what the basic principles of this country are and too many Americans are lazy enoguh to be content with doing as little as possible to show how very "patriotic" they are. It's hard to be patriotic when you don't even know why.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way. Why dont you all get out on the battlefield and see how patriotic you get? True patriots fight for their rights and secure them. Look, you cant tell me or preach to me about patriotism for I say it like Patrick Henry does. Yes, I would die before I get enslaved by any regime. I think debating on what we look at while we recite the pledge is meaningless. I could say it looking at a dumpster for all I care. The words mean the same regardless. Saying the pledge infront of a constitution isnt nothing different IMO.

." Yet another thing we agree on. I'm stunned.
Click to expand...

Well I dont know why for I posted this same info on like 2weeks ago. :lol:
 
Columbusite said:
You are joking, right? Remember, this is not a democracy, but it IS a democratic republic. The Liberty Bell is historical and I have not heard one person advocate removing it. Let's stick with real issues, please.
Click to expand...

Yes the issue is not letting religion/God in the gov. Well if I am not mistaken the liberty bell is a trademark of this country and it has incribed on it a passage form the Word of God. So I think this has everything to do with the same topic. So you agree we should destroy the bell?

And this is a democracy. Once we got the electoral college it soley became a democracy. Majority rules period! It is like that in congress, in the senate, and in the coutrooms. Where have you been?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom