• 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.
Caine said:
And I agree that you are drastically wrong.
The only Christians who would really FIGHT for this kind of thing are the nut ball christians who think everyone has to be a christian or the are all going to hell. The extremely Conservative Christsian people. The Progressive Christians don't care either way, they have thier religion, taking god out of our pledge isnt going to hurt them.

Nut Ball Christian = Pat Robertson

The precise reason you militant anti-Pledge people will lose is that you don't attack the exact issue. You are trying to make this a Christian vs anti-Christian thing. If you had read even part of this thread, you would see that Christianity is a zero factor in the core elements of the debate. Nobody ever won an argument by building strawmen. They are just too fragile and too transparent.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The precise reason you militant anti-Pledge people will lose is that you don't attack the exact issue. You are trying to make this a Christian vs anti-Christian thing. If you had read even part of this thread, you would see that Christianity is a zero factor in the core elements of the debate. Nobody ever won an argument by building strawmen. They are just too fragile and too transparent.

The precise reason you will lose is because of a lack of reading comprehension. Show me one place where I "attacked" Christianity.

I'm a Roman Catholic.

Because I recognize that public school is not the proper place to have religious indoctrination, that means I hate Christianity?

I'm militant in my support for the Constitution.

The reason why this has become such a left right issue is because SO FEW people have any idea how the Constitution works, what the courts do, and what they've said. So, rather than work under logic, the Religious right has chosen to support the pledge the way it is, and as a reflex, the secular left has chosen to try to get under god out. Then, all the well meaning but ignorant partisans looked to where their extremists were standing, and lined themselves up along with them.

Politics in america is a fascinating thing, really.
 
RightatNYU said:
The precise reason you will lose is because of a lack of reading comprehension. Show me one place where I "attacked" Christianity.

I'm a Roman Catholic.

Because I recognize that public school is not the proper place to have religious indoctrination, that means I hate Christianity?

I'm militant in my support for the Constitution.

The reason why this has become such a left right issue is because SO FEW people have any idea how the Constitution works, what the courts do, and what they've said. So, rather than work under logic, the Religious right has chosen to support the pledge the way it is, and as a reflex, the secular left has chosen to try to get under god out. Then, all the well meaning but ignorant partisans looked to where their extremists were standing, and lined themselves up along with them.

Politics in america is a fascinating thing, really.

Well my remarks re Christianity were directed to Caine who did attack Christianity, and no anti-Pledge person rebuked that concept. Most anti-Pledge people do go to the 'religious agenda' angle at some point, especially after they run out of all other ammunition. You build the same kind of strawman with implications that I am fron the "Religious Right" and that is my motivation. And you would be as wrong as Caine was.

I think I do have a pretty good idea of how the Constitution works and I think I probably have a better grounding in the principles that went into it than some. The 'under God' phrase in the Pledge is not indoctrination. It is a cultural and historical reference and symbolic of the inalienable rights that we all have.

If you look at it that way, it seems almost unpatriotic or at the least short sighted to take it out. Doesn't it?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Well my remarks re Christianity were directed to Caine who did attack Christianity, and no anti-Pledge person rebuked that concept. Most anti-Pledge people do go to the 'religious agenda' angle at some point, especially after they run out of all other ammunition. You build the same kind of strawman with implications that I am fron the "Religious Right" and that is my motivation. And you would be as wrong as Caine was.

I think I do have a pretty good idea of how the Constitution works and I think I probably have a better grounding in the principles that went into it than some. The 'under God' phrase in the Pledge is not indoctrination. It is a cultural and historical reference and symbolic of the inalienable rights that we all have.

If you look at it that way, it seems almost unpatriotic or at the least short sighted to take it out. Doesn't it?


I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the Christian States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for Christians.
 
Caine said:
I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the Christian States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for Christians.

Whatever floats your boat, Caine. It's good to say exactly what you feel. Most pro-keep-the Pledge proponents however have no doctrinal motivations behind our preference. I suppose the odds are that most of us do believe in God by some name. But it is not a Christian God or any other specific God that is referenced in the Pledge.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Whatever floats your boat, Caine. It's good to say exactly what you feel. Most pro-keep-the Pledge proponents however have no doctrinal motivations behind our preference. I suppose the odds are that most of us do believe in God by some name. But it is not a Christian God or any other specific God that is referenced in the Pledge.

okay.

I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
Caine said:
okay.

I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

One last time: there is no requirement to say 'under God' in the Pledge or to say the Pledge at all. There is no reward for saying it or consequence for saying it or not saying it. Thus neither the whole Pledge nor any part of it constitutes a challenge to anybody's rights of any kind nor is it an establishment of any kind of religion. It is a patriotic pledge, voluntary in nature, that is enjoyed by the majority of Americans. Other than their personal preference, it has zero impact on the minority of Americans who do not like it. No individual nor collective rights are at stake.

Even in a Republic there are democratic principles when individual or collective rights are not at stake. In such a case, democracy prevails and the majority vote decides either through a direct vote of the people or a vote through the people's elected representatives. In the case of the Pledge, the majority prefers the Pledge as it is. In the next such issue, you may be in the majority and I can be the one who grumbles.
 
May 24, 2004
Republican Attacked for Dropping 'Under God'
Defenders of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance go out of their way to emphasize that no one is forced to say those words - and because there is no compulsion, there is no case for removing them. While it may not be illegal to skip that phase, some of the same conservatives who emphasize the voluntariness of the words turn around and viciously attack anyone who dares to drop them - thus reinforcing the fact that what they aren't trying to accomplish through they law they do want to enforce by other means.

Les Gehrett writes in the Gazette Times about how Linn County Commissioner John Lindsey, a Republican, is actively working against the re-election of fellow Republican Cliff Wooten. Why? He doesn't say "under God" in the Pledge:

"He does not recite 'under God,' " Lindsey said. "As a veteran, I have mixed emotions about that. If someone's going to be a political leader, I do start to have a problem with that. If you are going to portray yourself as a conservative Republican, at least act like one." Asked to respond, Wooten said he was running against Skiens, not Lindsey, and he didn't want to get involved in what he called "smear tactics."

In particular, he didn't wish to elaborate on the question of the Pledge of Allegiance. "I'd rather not respond to that because religion is a personal thing," Wooten said. ... "Our party cannot afford to be represented by these RINO-type Republicans (Republicans in Name Only)," Lindsey stated in the letter.

So - a person can't be a conservative Republican without agreeing with Lindsey on religion and on religion's relationship to politics? A person who does not treat America as "under God" cannot be a conservative Republican? What a completely ridiculous and asinine position to adopt. Calling that a "smear tactic" is being awfully generous and polite, I think. Wooten is doing the right thing by trying not to let religion become a political issue - Lindsey could learn a thing or two from him.
 
September 10, 2004

Student Harassed for Not Reciting Pledge
A 13-year-old student in Wisconsin is being harassed at school for not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance - and the fault lies with the principle who announced that the reason for reciting the Pledge is to honor the nation. The implication was, naturally, Rachel Morris was unpatriotic.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports:

Catherine Goodsett-Wein said that her daughter, Rachel Morris, returned home in tears after hearing a message on the school's public address system suggesting that students who refused to stand were unpatriotic. ... The message, "The reason you stand is to honor our country," was broadcast to classes because Guell thought that Rachel and other students didn't know the reason for standing, Guell said.

"She's not disrupting anything if she's quietly sitting there," Goodsett-Wein said. "She's not rebellious. But they're categorizing her like she's a troublemaker." Rachel said she was "embarrassed" by the attention she received from some students, "who stared at me like I was bad" when she didn't stand.

One reason why it's bad for the phrase "under God" to be in the Pledge of Allegiance is that it improperly connects patriotism with specific religious beliefs. Thus, a person who disagrees with those religious beliefs cannot honestly recite the Pledge — but in the process, it is assumed that they don't believe in any of it and it is then concluded that they are unpatriotic and don't believe in freedom. That's wrong and it's especially wrong in the context of public schools. A person's status as citizen should not be conditioned on their willingness to accept any religious doctrines.
 
September 22, 2004

Illinois: Man Angered At Historical Pledge Display
An Illinois library has a display that includes an old poster of the Pledge of Allegiance - old enough to be from before the Pledge was changed to include "under God." The absence of religion in the Pledge display has upset a couple who are complaining vociferously.

Daily South Town reports:

During a visit to the library this summer, Jim Hertz and his wife, Jan, noticed the poster on a wall and were surprised to see the words "under God" omitted. ... Hertz, who has lived in Frankfort for a year, said he found the outdated version, with no note indicating it was not the current version, to be offensive and "intellectually dishonest." ... Hertz, a lawyer, said he has offered to donate to the library a framed copy of the Pledge of Allegiance that has the words "under God."

"(Library officials) pretty much told me they would accept the donation but probably sell it at a fundraiser," he said. "I also pointed out to them that I found their copy of the pledge for sale for $5 on what I would call anti-Christian Web sites."

Herz's implication seems to be that posting the original Pledge without any religious declaration is "anti-Christian" and, hence, the library is acting in an anti-Christian manner. It's cases like this which demonstrate, I think, that the question of whether "under God" belongs in the Pledge really is a religious issue for supporters. Legal arguments tend to state that the phrase merely reflects the historic importance of theism, but people like Hertz aren't defending a historic artifact, they are defending what they consider to be a statement of religious faith. In so doing, however, they undermine any legal defense they have for the phrase.

More power to them, I say.
 
These are just a few examples.
 
Caine said:
I agree completely.
I don't understand it really. The founding fathers lived in a time where even if you DIDN'T believe in "God", it didn't behoove you to let others know that. As much persecution that was going on just due to differen't ways of practicing christianity, I think Athiests would have been persecuted even more. In fact, I doubt if there were ANY openly truthful Athiests back then. (Again, for the shallow minded, I didn't say THERE WERE NONE, I said "I" Doubt). So all those who try to quote the Founding Fathers on the fact that this country IS and was INTENDED to be a Christian country.......Try to remember what history can tell you about what life was like back in the 1700s

I am sorry but the phrase under God did not have anything to do with the founding fathers. It came into the pledge in 1949 right after the Second World War. A little history lesson, is what you need. Remember the year was was 1789 not 2005. 1: Our founding fathers and their immediate ancestors in Europe had just experienced over five hundred years of Religious wars. Protestant against catholic, protestant against protestant. Some of them had been very bloody. Even in 178o, religious strife and conflict was still going on in Europe. Blood ran freely in Europe. Religion was a major killer. Almost as bad as the plague in some counties. 2: Many of our founding fathers, including three of four of our first president were 33rd degree Masons. The Masonic Lodge was very big in America, and Europe at this time. Many of the leaders of our colonies were Masons.

Oh yes our leaders were for the most part Chriistian by tradition and practice, and they expected the Nation to be Christian. Yet they did not want to have the united States experience the Reiligious wars of Europe, the political wars, of Europe. Some of this conflict had started in the united States under the Articles of Confederation. Some of our former colonies had State Religions. So at the Constitutional Convention, a constitution that created a unified federation, created with a National government dominant over the states was adopted,,, not without some hard opposition from Virginia and some other states. They did this on pupose, to prevent civil and religious discord. They created the Bill Of Rights, to prevent the civil and religious wars, death, and strife of Europe from happening in the United States. They demanded Freedom of Speech, and got it. They demanded freedom of religion, no matter what the religion, to be part of America. Later Courts in 1820 first interpreted that Freedom of Religion also meant freedom from Religion too. Choice--- the right to choose to belong to not belong to any reliigion, Christian, pagan, Islamic, Jewish and have the protection of the Law even if the Judge or sheriff was a Christian.

In 1949, the debate in Congress that created, Under God, in the Pledge of Allegiance, made it's decision more in keeping with Tradition, rather than a religious preference. The Pledge give allegiance to the United States not to a religion. In 1957, when we put IN God We Trust, on the Silver ceritificate One Dollar bill. It was the tradition, not the religion.

I personally don't care, one way or the other, about Under God being in the pledge, or In God We Trust on our paper money.. I am a Christian, but the Pledge or our paper money have nothing to do with my faith in Jesus.

I am definitely a Christian and Bush is the worse president in our history and he is destroying America, and our constitution. I don't support any of those on the fascist right wing. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Leaders of Congress, and the new Chief Justice. They are against the American People.
 
Last edited:
Caine said:
These are just a few examples.

Unlinked, unsupported, unverified examples, but even if every one was true, there is zero there suggesting that it is the government at any level that is providing reward, punishment, or other consequence related to the Pledge. If there is an occasional bad teacher or other government employee who is stepping outside the boundaries of the law, or violations of somebody's civil rights, the protests and lawsuits should be directed there, not at the Consitution or the Pledge itself. It is a very dangerous slippery slope to start down when we expect a national law or policy to keep us from feeling uncomfortable in any circumstance.

None of us is immune from having our beliefs and opinions used against us in the public venue whether the issue is any one of the 10 Amendments, our political ideology, our religious beliefs, our past and present affiliations, or view of the world, culture, history, or the words we use to express anything. National policy should never be made based on normal social and/or political discourse that is pure opinion no matter how idiotic it becomes. The First Amendment is sacrosant in that regard.

As recitation of the Pledge, including the phrase 'under God' is not mandatory and carries with it no force of law that infringes on anybody's inalienable or civil rights, it is a matter of personal preference in the exact same way that one's views on religion, politics, environment, abortion, marriage, economics, or anything else are a matter of personal preference. In all these things, reasonable and civilized people accept that others should not be required to accept their point of view.

And neither should anybody be required to accept your point of view re how the Pledge of Allegiance should be worded. You have an opinion and so does everybody else. Where no inalienable or civil rights are at stake, the majority gets to decide such matters.
 
dragonslayer said:
I am sorry but the phrase under God did not have anything to do with the founding fathers. It came into the pledge in 1949 right after the Second World War. A little history lesson, is what you need.

I wasn't using the founding fathers to justify my position.
I was actuallying arguing the point that they have anything to do with this in the first place, which some pro-christian pledge people think so.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Unlinked, unsupported, unverified examples, but even if every one was true, there is zero there suggesting that it is the government at any level that is providing reward, punishment, or other consequence related to the Pledge. If there is an occasional bad teacher or other government employee who is stepping outside the boundaries of the law, or violations of somebody's civil rights, the protests and lawsuits should be directed there, not at the Consitution or the Pledge itself. It is a very dangerous slippery slope to start down when we expect a national law or policy to keep us from feeling uncomfortable in any circumstance.

None of us is immune from having our beliefs and opinions used against us in the public venue whether the issue is any one of the 10 Amendments, our political ideology, our religious beliefs, our past and present affiliations, or view of the world, culture, history, or the words we use to express anything. National policy should never be made based on normal social and/or political discourse that is pure opinion no matter how idiotic it becomes. The First Amendment is sacrosant in that regard.

As recitation of the Pledge, including the phrase 'under God' is not mandatory and carries with it no force of law that infringes on anybody's inalienable or civil rights, it is a matter of personal preference in the exact same way that one's views on religion, politics, environment, abortion, marriage, economics, or anything else are a matter of personal preference. In all these things, reasonable and civilized people accept that others should not be required to accept their point of view.

And neither should anybody be required to accept your point of view re how the Pledge of Allegiance should be worded. You have an opinion and so does everybody else. Where no inalienable or civil rights are at stake, the majority gets to decide such matters.

Okay, tell that to the people who are labeled unpatriotic just because they don't believe in a god.
 
Caine said:
Okay, tell that to the people who are labeled unpatriotic just because they don't believe in a god.

No, YOU tell that to the bigots who harrass people. That has nothing to do with a cultural, historical phrase in a voluntary Pledge of Allegiance. It could just as easily be the person ridiculed or excoriated because s/he does believe in God. This is not an issue of the Pledge or any issue other than bad manners, ignorance, stupidity, and inappropriate discrimination.

It has everything to do with teachers who don't maintain discipline in a classroom and who do not teach tolerance for differences in points of view. It has everything to do with the bad behavior of egotistical morons who think theirs is the only opinion that counts. That kind of thing was going on long before two words in the Pledge of Allegiance became an issue, and it will be going on long after the issue of the Pledge is settled whichever way the Supreme Court utlimately rules.
 
AlbqOwl said:
No, YOU tell that to the bigots who harrass people. That has nothing to do with a cultural, historical phrase in a voluntary Pledge of Allegiance. It could just as easily be the person ridiculed or excoriated because s/he does believe in God. This is not an issue of the Pledge or any issue other than bad manners, ignorance, stupidity, and inappropriate discrimination.

It has everything to do with teachers who don't maintain discipline in a classroom and who do not teach tolerance for differences in points of view. It has everything to do with the bad behavior of morons who think theirs is the only opinion that counts. That kind of thing was going on long before two words in the Pledge of Allegiance became an issue, and it will be going on long after the issue of the Pledge is settled whichever way the Supreme Court utlimately rules.

Why do the pro-christian pledge people always claim Historical... Historical..
The true HISTORICAL pledge doesn't have the stupid mention of god in it that was only thrown in there due to our nation's ignorant attempt of accusing those with a different style of government as godless.

So, if this HISTORICAL point is so important, all the more reason to return the pledge to its true historical form.

I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Well my remarks re Christianity were directed to Caine who did attack Christianity, and no anti-Pledge person rebuked that concept. Most anti-Pledge people do go to the 'religious agenda' angle at some point, especially after they run out of all other ammunition. You build the same kind of strawman with implications that I am fron the "Religious Right" and that is my motivation. And you would be as wrong as Caine was.

I didn't mean to imply that you were from the religious right, I meant to imply that you were one of the people who, lacking a grasp of the historical record, chose to make your arguments based on untruths.

I think I do have a pretty good idea of how the Constitution works and I think I probably have a better grounding in the principles that went into it than some. The 'under God' phrase in the Pledge is not indoctrination. It is a cultural and historical reference and symbolic of the inalienable rights that we all have.

Except that the court has NOT held that "historical references" of that nature are allowable in public schools, and that recitation of something each morning, whether or not students are individually forced to recite it, is in fact coercive.

Making this point over and over is getting really, really tiring.

If you look at it that way, it seems almost unpatriotic or at the least short sighted to take it out. Doesn't it?

Not in the slightest. Are you suggesting that the original pledge was unpatriotic? That our "inalienable rights" would be forgotten about if those red-scared politicians hadn't saved us from the godless hordes in 1953?
 
AlbqOwl said:
One last time: there is no requirement to say 'under God' in the Pledge or to say the Pledge at all. There is no reward for saying it or consequence for saying it or not saying it. Thus neither the whole Pledge nor any part of it constitutes a challenge to anybody's rights of any kind nor is it an establishment of any kind of religion. It is a patriotic pledge, voluntary in nature, that is enjoyed by the majority of Americans. Other than their personal preference, it has zero impact on the minority of Americans who do not like it. No individual nor collective rights are at stake.

You just don't listen, do you? I can't tell if you're just ignoring the truth, or not understanding it.

Whether or not the individual recitation is mandatory, the recitation by the teachers each morning has a coercive effect that makes recited prayers, pledges, or statements effectively established by the state.

I can cite cases for you, again, if you like, though I don't think it will do any good...
 
AlbqOwl said:
If you look at it that way, it seems almost unpatriotic or at the least short sighted to take it out. Doesn't it?

So those who are not so pompous as to believe that our nation is "under god" are unpatriotic?
 
dragonslayer said:
I am sorry but the phrase under God did not have anything to do with the founding fathers. It came into the pledge in 1949 right after the Second World War. A little history lesson, is what you need. Remember the year was was 1789 not 2005. 1: Our founding fathers and their immediate ancestors in Europe had just experienced over five hundred years of Religious wars. Protestant against catholic, protestant against protestant. Some of them had been very bloody. Even in 178o, religious strife and conflict was still going on in Europe. Blood ran freely in Europe. Religion was a major killer. Almost as bad as the plague in some counties. 2: Many of our founding fathers, including three of four of our first president were 33rd degree Masons. The Masonic Lodge was very big in America, and Europe at this time. Many of the leaders of our colonies were Masons.

Oh yes our leaders were for the most part Chriistian by tradition and practice, and they expected the Nation to be Christian. Yet they did not want to have the united States experience the Reiligious wars of Europe, the political wars, of Europe. Some of this conflict had started in the united States under the Articles of Confederation. Some of our former colonies had State Religions. So at the Constitutional Convention, a constitution that created a unified federation, created with a National government dominant over the states was adopted,,, not without some hard opposition from Virginia and some other states. They did this on pupose, to prevent civil and religious discord. They created the Bill Of Rights, to prevent the civil and religious wars, death, and strife of Europe from happening in the United States. They demanded Freedom of Speech, and got it. They demanded freedom of religion, no matter what the religion, to be part of America. Later Courts in 1820 first interpreted that Freedom of Religion also meant freedom from Religion too. Choice--- the right to choose to belong to not belong to any reliigion, Christian, pagan, Islamic, Jewish and have the protection of the Law even if the Judge or sheriff was a Christian.

In 1949, the debate in Congress that created, Under God, in the Pledge of Allegiance, made it's decision more in keeping with Tradition, rather than a religious preference. The Pledge give allegiance to the United States not to a religion. In 1957, when we put IN God We Trust, on the Silver ceritificate One Dollar bill. It was the tradition, not the religion.

I personally don't care, one way or the other, about Under God being in the pledge, or In God We Trust on our paper money.. I am a Christian, but the Pledge or our paper money have nothing to do with my faith in Jesus.

I am definitely a Christian and Bush is the worse president in our history and he is destroying America, and our constitution. I don't support any of those on the fascist right wing. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Leaders of Congress, and the new Chief Justice. They are against the American People.


1953 was the year they amended the pledge.

I won't bother to get into the rest of your conspiracy theory ramble.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Most anti-Pledge people do go to the 'religious agenda' angle at some point, especially after they run out of all other ammunition.
Anti-pledge? Who are you referring to? If you mean those of us who are against any mention of GOD in the pledge then I am confused? I am not anti-pledge? I've not read anything here that suggests anyone who is against the mention of GOD in the pledge is against the pledge? You've written this before, and I find it is your way of inciting arguments. Why are you doing that?

I think it is quite "anti-pledge" to have a "$hit-fit" over the removal of 2 words that were illegally inserted into the pledge by Commie fearing crazies in the 50s.

Anti-pledge! What a bunch of propaganda! :roll:
AlbqOwl said:
The 'under God' phrase in the Pledge is not indoctrination. It is a cultural and historical reference and symbolic of the inalienable rights that we all have.
Not according to the courts and to the Constitution, but hey, do you care?
AlbqOwl said:
If you look at it that way, it seems almost unpatriotic or at the least short sighted to take it out. Doesn't it?
Unpatriotic? :rofl My reaction to that type of absurd logic is "My GOD man, what in God's name are you talking about?"

I just don't understand how anyone can think that including the words "UNDER GOD" is not religious!

This type of thinking is looney tunes, convoluted logic made by people who want to insert religion into government. It doesn't and won't work. I don't even think the Supreme Court will even rule on this case as it is so blatantly a violation of the 1st and 14th amendments. :2wave:
 
26 X World Champs said:
Anti-pledge? Who are you referring to? If you mean those of us who are against any mention of GOD in the pledge then I am confused? I am not anti-pledge? I've not read anything here that suggests anyone who is against the mention of GOD in the pledge is against the pledge? You've written this before, and I find it is your way of inciting arguments. Why are you doing that?

I think it is quite "anti-pledge" to have a "$hit-fit" over the removal of 2 words that were illegally inserted into the pledge by Commie fearing crazies in the 50s.

Anti-pledge! What a bunch of propaganda! :roll:

Not according to the courts and to the Constitution, but hey, do you care?

Unpatriotic? :rofl My reaction to that type of absurd logic is "My GOD man, what in God's name are you talking about?"

I just don't understand how anyone can think that including the words "UNDER GOD" is not religious!

This type of thinking is looney tunes, convoluted logic made by people who want to insert religion into government. It doesn't and won't work. I don't even think the Supreme Court will even rule on this case as it is so blatantly a violation of the 1st and 14th amendments. :2wave:


If I was a betting man, I'd put a wager on the court granting this case cert, and spearheaded by John Roberts, deciding 7-2 (depending on when they hear it, and who O'connor's replacement is) in favor of removing "under god" from the pledge.
 
RightatNYU said:
If I was a betting man, I'd put a wager on the court granting this case cert, and spearheaded by John Roberts, deciding 7-2 (depending on when they hear it, and who O'connor's replacement is) in favor of removing "under god" from the pledge.
Time will tell but as you are, I am very confident that the two words "Under God" will be forever removed, either by the Supremes not hearing the case or a very strong majority will put an end to this subject.

I must admit to me that I feel like the people who state that "UNDER GOD" is not religious are trying to convince us that 2+2=5 and no matter how many times you prove to them that 2+2=4 they refuse to accept the facts. Very, very weird.
 
26 X World Champs said:
Anti-pledge? Who are you referring to? If you mean those of us who are against any mention of GOD in the pledge then I am confused? I am not anti-pledge? I've not read anything here that suggests anyone who is against the mention of GOD in the pledge is against the pledge? You've written this before, and I find it is your way of inciting arguments. Why are you doing that?:

Several on the thread think the entire Pledge is unconstitutional. Several others have been clear that they don't like the words 'under God' in the Pledge, but none of them have expressed an opinion about the Pledge otherwise. You have to take the discussion as a whole and not just the part that has involved you.

I think it is quite "anti-pledge" to have a "$hit-fit" over the removal of 2 words that were illegally inserted into the pledge by Commie fearing crazies in the 50s.

Who's having a **** fit except those who are hellbent on seeing that the two words are removed? If they are so unimportant, why a **** fit from either side?

Anti-pledge! What a bunch of propaganda! :roll:

Yes, several in this thread have been anti-Pledge period. It's kind of like pro choice and pro life. They mean different things to different people.

Not according to the courts and to the Constitution, but hey, do you care?

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution declaring the words 'under God' in or on anything, let alone a voluntary Pledge of Allegiance, to be unconstitutional. The Constitution is specific that nobody should be denied the right to say those words.

As far as the opinion of the courts, I do not take my view of right and wrong from them. Do you? If so, that could explain a lot.

Unpatriotic? :rofl My reaction to that type of absurd logic is "My GOD man, what in God's name are you talking about?"

I just don't understand how anyone can think that including the words "UNDER GOD" is not religious!

If you're going to have a rant about my posts, at least put the words in context. It will make it a lot simpler to have a reasonable debate.

The words 'under God' refer to a cultural and historical religious belief which is not unconstiutitonal. They are not an establishment of any kind of religion, and this is a further reason they are not unconstitutional.

Some of you people really do need to learn to differentiate between a religious symbol, religious history, religious heritage, religious influenced culture, etc. and an 'establishment of religion.' You also should brush up on your Consitutional history and theory and thus not so badly misinterpret the content of the Constitution, especially its amendments.

This type of thinking is looney tunes, convoluted logic made by people who want to insert religion into government. It doesn't and won't work. I don't even think the Supreme Court will even rule on this case as it is so blatantly a violation of the 1st and 14th amendments

Oh the Supreme Court will sooner or later rule on it. And we can only hope we have enough strict constructionists on the Court at the time they do that we won't have more of the Constitution dismantled. You're right, some of this type of thinking is looney tunes, but I don't think my thinking is very far off the mark of what a constructionist-minded Court will come up with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom