• 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.
AlbqOwl said:
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.



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?



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.



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.



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.



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.


Explain how following the constutition's establishment clause is dismantling the constitution.
Please explain.
 
AlbqOwl said:
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.
Oh thank you for clarifying for all of us who are not as smart as you are. The words in your post come across, to me, as outrageously pompous and arrogant, you know? I read your words, and over and over again each post is repetitive, they all restate the same thing, never do I read anything new. Maybe you should just cut and paste the same post each time, you might save yourself some time?
AlbqOwl said:
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?
:rofl UNDER GOD is ILLEGAL and NOT HISTORIC. Not clear enough on this, are we?
AlbqOwl said:
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.
More than 100 people voted in this poll. Please show me FIVE who are completely against the pledge? Can't do it? Then maybe posts that regularly use the BS term "Anti-Pledge" with the intent of addressing the majority of those who are in reality only "Anti Under God" would have a shred of validity, but IMHO, as already stated, the words "Anti-Pledge" are simply a ploy to incite argument, not debate. Of course, one can justify any BS in one's mind no matter the truth, you know?
AlbqOwl said:
The Constitution is specific that nobody should be denied the right to say those words.
TRUE! No argument my fowl friend. Say them anywhere and everywhere you like! You can say them anywhere, the government CAN'T say them ANYWHERE.
AlbqOwl said:
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.
:fueltofir
Oh snap! You got me good dude! I am not worthy of debating someone as self-confident as you are. As all of my posts have shown, I am only capable of accepting what other people tell me, especially the Supremes and our Government. You nailed me dude! :surrender
AlbqOwl said:
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.
Too bad our judicial system disagrees with you, really too bad. So, using your "logic" then it is also OK to use UNDER GOD in the OATH that all Americans must sign when applying for a US PASSPORT, right?
US Passport Oath

(If any of the below-mentioned acts or conditions have been performed by or apply to the applicant, the portion which applies should be lined out, and a supplementary explanatory statement should be attached, signed, and made part of this application.)

I have not, since acquiring United States citizenship, been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state; taken an oath, or made an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state; entered or served in the armed forces of a foreign state; accepted or performed the duties of any office, post, or employment under the Government of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof; made a formal renunciation of nationality either in the United States or before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state; or been convicted by a court or court martial of competent jurisdiction of committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against the United States, or conspiring to overthrow, put down or destroy by force the Government of the United States.

DECLARATION: I declare (UNDER GOD???)that the statements made in this application are true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, that the attached photographs are a true likeness of me, and that I have not been issued a passport subsequent to the one submitted herein.
Source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/citizen/oath.htm

So are the words UNDER GOD (highlighted above) also legal in your America?
AlbqOwl said:
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.
You also wrote:
AlbqOwl said:
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.
Interestingly today on ABC's THIS WEEK there was an interview with Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, did you see it? He made some really RELEVANT points re the Constitution. Breyer mentioned that our Founding Fathers never anticipated things like automobiles, airplanes, TV, the Internet etc. His point was that the Constitution was constructed in such a way that it can be altered to changing times, that it would be foolish, if not down right stupid to interpret it literally rather than interpreting the meaning of each article or amendment. So those of you who keep praying to God that Rove errr Bush will appoint a "strict constructionist" to Court are, IMHO not understanding the TRUE meaning of the Constitution.

M. Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Traveled who died this week wrote (before he died) :mrgreen: Isn't he the guy in your signature?
"The current message of our culture is that we're here to be happy and fulfilled. I think that the meaning of life is that we're here to learn."
The meaning of life for human beings is to LEARN, continuosly learn, never stop learning for that is our purpose on this planet. Seems to me that those of you who are "strict constuctionists" do not grasp this simple idea that all of us, including the Constitution are living and breathing entities that are always growing and expanding our knowledge as we learn new things.

Do you know what Bill Wilson once wrote?

"If you do what you've always done you'll get what you always got."
 
Last edited:
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.

I don't take my views of right and wrong from the courts, but I do take my views of constitutionality from them.
 
26 X World Champs said:
Oh thank you for clarifying for all of us who are not as smart as you are. The words in your post come across, to me, as outrageously pompous and arrogant, you know? I read your words, and over and over again each post is repetitive, they all restate the same thing, never do I read anything new. Maybe you should just cut and paste the same post each time, you might save yourself some time?

:rofl UNDER GOD is ILLEGAL and NOT HISTORIC. Not clear enough on this, are we?

More than 100 people voted in this poll. Please show me FIVE who are completely against the pledge? Can't do it? Then maybe posts that regularly use the BS term "Anti-Pledge" with the intent of addressing the majority of those who are in reality only "Anti Under God" would have a shred of validity, but IMHO, as already stated, the words "Anti-Pledge" are simply a ploy to incite argument, not debate. Of course, one can justify any BS in one's mind no matter the truth, you know?

TRUE! No argument my fowl friend. Say them anywhere and everywhere you like! You can say them anywhere, the government CAN'T say them ANYWHERE.
:fueltofir
Oh snap! You got me good dude! I am not worthy of debating someone as self-confident as you are. As all of my posts have shown, I am only capable of accepting what other people tell me, especially the Supremes and our Government. You nailed me dude! :surrender

Too bad our judicial system disagrees with you, really too bad. So, using your "logic" then it is also OK to use UNDER GOD in the OATH that all Americans must sign when applying for a US PASSPORT, right?

Source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/citizen/oath.htm

So are the words UNDER GOD (highlighted above) also legal in your America?

You also wrote:

Interestingly today on ABC's THIS WEEK there was an interview with Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, did you see it? He made some really RELEVANT points re the Constitution. Breyer mentioned that our Founding Fathers never anticipated things like automobiles, airplanes, TV, the Internet etc. His point was that the Constitution was constructed in such a way that it can be altered to changing times, that it would be foolish, if not down right stupid to interpret it literally rather than interpreting the meaning of each article or amendment. So those of you who keep praying to God that Rove errr Bush will appoint a "strict constructionist" to Court are, IMHO not understanding the TRUE meaning of the Constitution.

M. Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Traveled who died this week wrote (before he died) :mrgreen: Isn't he the guy in your signature?

The meaning of life for human beings is to LEARN, continuosly learn, never stop learning for that is our purpose on this planet. Seems to me that those of you who are "strict constuctionists" do not grasp this simple idea that all of us, including the Constitution are living and breathing entities that are always growing and expanding our knowledge as we learn new things.

Do you know what Bill Wilson once wrote?

"If you do what you've always done you'll get what you always got."

You think my post is arrogant? Do you consider anyone with firm convictions about something and willingness to state them as being arrogant?

You think I am repetitious. There you are right. It is difficult not to be repetitious when my answers remain the same no matter how many times those of you on the other side of the debate state your position over and over and over and over and over while ignoring any argument against it.

My signature is directly from a Robert Frost poem. I have no idea what his religious affiliation was.
 
AlbqOwl said:
You think my post is arrogant? Do you consider anyone with firm convictions about something and willingness to state them as being arrogant?

You think I am repetitious. There you are right. It is difficult not to be repetitious when my answers remain the same no matter how many times those of you on the other side of the debate state your position over and over and over and over and over while ignoring any argument against it.

My signature is directly from a Robert Frost poem. I have no idea what his religious affiliation was.

Probably because our position has legal and constitutional significance.
Your position that it is "historical" and thus is should stay has no constitutional significance because it is an uniformed opinion.

The original pledge, without the phrase under god, I believe, has more historical significance than the one created during a time of Communist Paranoia.
 
Caine said:
Probably because our position has legal and constitutional significance.
Your position that it is "historical" and thus is should stay has no constitutional significance because it is an uniformed opinion.

The original pledge, without the phrase under god, I believe, has more historical significance than the one created during a time of Communist Paranoia.

How, when, or why the phrase was created is moot. What counts now is how it is viewed by those who like the phrase in the Pledge. And most people do like the phrase in the Pledge. And I do think most people see it as cultural, historical, and symbolic. You are not required to say it and there is no consequence for you if you do not.

For the life of me, I can't see how that is not the very definition of free speech and why you would not advocate tolerance for free speech rather than campaigning to deny it to others.
 
AlbqOwl said:
How, when, or why the phrase was created is moot. What counts now is how it is viewed by those who like the phrase in the Pledge. And most people do like the phrase in the Pledge. And I do think most people see it as cultural, historical, and symbolic. You are not required to say it and there is no consequence for you if you do not.

For the life of me, I can't see how that is not the very definition of free speech and why you would not advocate tolerance for free speech rather than campaigning to deny it to others.

Because if it is a Pledge of Allegiance recognized by the National Government as Official, it should not contain any religious references WHAT SO ****ING EVER.

Why can't you god fearing pansies realise that?
However, the paranoia that put it there in the first place was unlawful and unconstitutional, and I think, like another man said, the phrase has served its purpose.
I believe that those who do not believe in a diety and do not believe that our nation is "under god" have the right to pledge allegiance to our flag without any reference to a diety that they do not believe in. End of Story.

Please, Explain HOW it is Cultural, Historical, and Symbolic.
 
Caine said:
Because if it is a Pledge of Allegiance recognized by the National Government as Official, it should not contain any religious references WHAT SO ****ING EVER.

Why can't you god fearing pansies realise that?
However, the paranoia that put it there in the first place was unlawful and unconstitutional, and I think, like another man said, the phrase has served its purpose.
I believe that those who do not believe in a diety and do not believe that our nation is "under god" have the right to pledge allegiance to our flag without any reference to a diety that they do not believe in. End of Story.

Please, Explain HOW it is Cultural, Historical, and Symbolic.

It is cultural because more than 90% of Americans do believe in some sort of diety by some name. It is historical and symbolic based on the Declaration of Independence, the writings, arguments, and logic of the authors of the Constitution, and testified to by the preambles of 49 of the 50 state constitutions, and affirmed elsewhere in the body of the constitution of the 50th.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits religion or religious references; in fact, the Constitution is specific that such may not be prohibitied. There is no way anybody can make a reasoned argument that a phrase 'under God' that nobody is required to believe or say is an establishment of religion.

The Constitution gives you every right to be as irreligious, unreligious, sacrireligious, or religious in any way you choose and to refuse to be exposed to religion in any way in your own private space. It does not give you a right to not be exposed to religious phrases in the public sector just because you don't like them.

At such time as your side is the majority, you can say you don't want the phrase and it will be gone. Immediately. No questions asked. And you can use my arguments then in debates with those who want it put back.
 
AlbqOwl said:
It is cultural because more than 90% of Americans do believe in some sort of diety by some name. It is historical and symbolic based on the Declaration of Independence, the writings, arguments, and logic of the authors of the Constitution, and testified to by the preambles of 49 of the 50 state constitutions, and affirmed elsewhere in the body of the constitution of the 50th.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits religion or religious references; in fact, the Constitution is specific that such may not be prohibitied. There is no way anybody can make a reasoned argument that a phrase 'under God' that nobody is required to believe or say is an establishment of religion.

The Constitution gives you every right to be as irreligious, unreligious, sacrireligious, or religious in any way you choose and to refuse to be exposed to religion in any way in your own private space. It does not give you a right to not be exposed to religious phrases in the public sector just because you don't like them.

At such time as your side is the majority, you can say you don't want the phrase and it will be gone. Immediately. No questions asked. And you can use my arguments then in debates with those who want it put back.


Again, if I want to pledge allegiance to the flag of my nation, I have to state that my nation is "under god" which is not only a religious reference to a non existant diety, but is also an arrogant and pompous thing to say.

Your historical reference is crap, because the original pledge did not obtain this phrase, that would be the only argument that it is historical. To claim you know the logic behind why the "founding fathers" placed the clause in the constitution is absurd. And, I still do not see the symbolism.
 
Caine said:
Again, if I want to pledge allegiance to the flag of my nation, I have to state that my nation is "under god" which is not only a religious reference to a non existant diety, but is also an arrogant and pompous thing to say.

No you don't. There is no requirement whatsoever that you include the phrase 'under God' when you say the Pledge. That you would allow other people who wish to say it would show tolerance and an understanding of First Amendment free speech rights. I certainly am able to understand that some would not wish to say the phrase and I would object to them being required to do so. Others want to say it and should have that right without being disruptive in order to do it.

Your historical reference is crap, because the original pledge did not obtain this phrase, that would be the only argument that it is historical. To claim you know the logic behind why the "founding fathers" placed the clause in the constitution is absurd. And, I still do not see the symbolism.

A few pages back I posted a history of the Pledge of Allegiance. The original version didn't have all the words that are in the most recent version before the 'under God' phrase was added either. And if you don't see the symbolism, well that's not a problem I can correct. Most are able to see the symbolism.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
No you don't. There is no requirement whatsoever that you include the phrase 'under God' when you say the Pledge. That you would allow other people who wish to say it would show tolerance and an understanding of First Amendment free speech rights. I certainly am able to understand that some would not wish to say the phrase and I would object to them being required to do so. Others want to say it and should have that right without being disruptive in order to do it.



A few pages back I posted a history of the Pledge of Allegiance. The original version didn't have all the words that are in the most recent version before the 'under God' phrase was added either. And if you don't see the symbolism, well that's not a problem I can correct. Most are able to see the symbolism.


So, in your most supreme opinion, upholding the establishment clause of the constitution of the united states in the case of the pledge that was unconstitutionally changed in the political propaganda efforts againt communism is taking someone's right away?

If you want to proclaim that something is taking someones right away, make sure it checks out with the constitution first.
If you want proclaim our nation is "under god", do it in a church/synagogue/mosque/cathedral or whatever other holy structures "house" your "god"

Otherwise, the government has an obligation to uphold its own constitution, reguardless of the fact that "90% of americans" believe in an imaginary being to make them feel more all better inside, or whether someone believes it is historical, when I can guarantee it is not more historical than our constitution, which, last time I can remember, is the document that gives and limits the power of the government, and in this case, limits that the government does not have the power to support an establishment of religion. But in fact, to be fully secular.
There is no way you can convince me that government official pledge should lead me to say that we are under some sort of "god". And your arguments do not out-weight those in the constitution's establishment clause.

Now you can go saying under god all you want, but the official pledge to the flag should not have any reference to this diety of which you speak.
 
Try to show that 'under God' in the Pledge is an 'establishment of religion' if you can. What God specifically does it refer to? What Church, synagogue, mosque, or temple is the advocate of this God? What is the doctrine or core teaching of the representative religious group? Where do you find the mandate that such religious group is the favored group over any other? And re the allegations of communism factoring into the Pledge, please show the instructions that go with the Pledge that refer to communism.

Thoughtful consideration of this point instead of a kneejerk temper tantrum because one can't have his/her way goes a long way to seeing this issue rationally and accurately.

My opinion is never supreme. But at least I can provide a rationale for why I hold it. I think any opinion worth having can be defended with facts, logic, and reason.

So go ahead. Show how 'under God' violates the establishment clause. Can you do that without being insulting? Can you do that using real facts, logic, and reason instead of pulling in unrelated topics and illustrations? Convince me if you can.
 
Caine said:
Because if it is a Pledge of Allegiance recognized by the National Government as Official, it should not contain any religious references WHAT SO ****ING EVER.

Why can't you god fearing pansies realise that?
However, the paranoia that put it there in the first place was unlawful and unconstitutional, and I think, like another man said, the phrase has served its purpose.
I believe that those who do not believe in a diety and do not believe that our nation is "under god" have the right to pledge allegiance to our flag without any reference to a diety that they do not believe in. End of Story.

Please, Explain HOW it is Cultural, Historical, and Symbolic.

You think maybe you could your point just as well without sinking to calling people "God fearing pansies?"
 
Pacridge said:
You think maybe you could your point just as well without sinking to calling people "God fearing pansies?"

Your right, I can..

My apologies..
 
26 X World Champs said:
Interestingly today on ABC's THIS WEEK there was an interview with Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, did you see it? He made some really RELEVANT points re the Constitution. Breyer mentioned that our Founding Fathers never anticipated things like automobiles, airplanes, TV, the Internet etc. His point was that the Constitution was constructed in such a way that it can be altered to changing times, that it would be foolish, if not down right stupid to interpret it literally rather than interpreting the meaning of each article or amendment. So those of you who keep praying to God that Rove errr Bush will appoint a "strict constructionist" to Court are, IMHO not understanding the TRUE meaning of the Constitution.

And that's why it would be nice if Breyer had a stroke and died. The Constitution isn't about technology, it's about people. The First Amendment isn't changed by the fact that radio and TV replaced newspaper. The Second Amendment isn't altered by the existence of automatic firearms and grenade launchers. Search warrants are still needed, and the government can't force suspects to talk using drugs.

Breyer's self-serving interpretation of the Constitution is the primary reason the country's in the position it's in, socially.

The Constitution is about the evils of people who happen to be politicians, and they are no more nor no less corrupt and evil today than they were in 1789. HUGE sections of the government are totally outside of Constitutional authority today, and that's the problem in America.
 
AlbqOwl said:
How, when, or why the phrase was created is moot. What counts now is how it is viewed by those who like the phrase in the Pledge. And most people do like the phrase in the Pledge. And I do think most people see it as cultural, historical, and symbolic. You are not required to say it and there is no consequence for you if you do not.

There is nothing more irrelevant about the Constitutional status of the words "under Allah" in the pledge than the fact that large numbers of people are in favor of it.

What is relevant is who inserted the words.

Congress inserted religiously biased words into a poem that had previously been legislated as a patriotic ritual utterance. It's questionable that the definition of a formal "Pledge of Allegiance" was constitutional.

It's perfectly clear that legislating a religious bias in that same patriotic ritual utterance is totally in violation of the literal interpretation of the First Amendment, as well as any possible reasonable "living" interpretation.

I can't wait to see what happens when Allah's supporters have the majority vote in this country. Imagine the screaming that will be going on about the pledge then.
 
I'm not really part of any religion and I think it should be in the Pledge. I mean, 95% of the US has some sort of belief in one form or the other. And plus, what are the teachers gonna do? send them to detention for saying two words?
 
shakenbake19 said:
I'm not really part of any religion and I think it should be in the Pledge. I mean, 95% of the US has some sort of belief in one form or the other. And plus, what are the teachers gonna do? send them to detention for saying two words?

Again, this issue has been argued.

Reguardless of what majority percentage believe in a superior being.
The constitution clearly states that the government is not allowed to sponsor religion, or the belief thereof.
 
Even if we were to abolish it? The catholics would freak out. If we leave it in, the atheists would freak out. How are you going to explain this to kintergardners who just learned it and now they have to unlearn it because of some judge thinking that it is wrong? What about the 95% of people who want to believe that God is looking down on the country.

just to comment on your signature.............the Democrats arent uch better than the republicans there buddy..........
 
shakenbake19 said:
Even if we were to abolish it? The catholics would freak out. If we leave it in, the atheists would freak out. How are you going to explain this to kintergardners who just learned it and now they have to unlearn it because of some judge thinking that it is wrong? What about the 95% of people who want to believe that God is looking down on the country.

just to comment on your signature.............the Democrats arent uch better than the republicans there buddy..........

Again... You can't go against the constitution of the united states because your trying to please the catholic church and those who believe in god.
 
shakenbake19 said:
Even if we were to abolish it? The catholics would freak out. If we leave it in, the atheists would freak out. How are you going to explain this to kintergardners who just learned it and now they have to unlearn it because of some judge thinking that it is wrong? What about the 95% of people who want to believe that God is looking down on the country.

just to comment on your signature.............the Democrats arent uch better than the republicans there buddy..........

I guess "God's Own Party" would instead differenciate the two.
 
If I lived in and Islamic country abd they said Under Allah that would be fine with me..........If I lived in a country that believed in Budda and they said under Budda that would be fine with me......

We live in a judo/christian country and we should be allowed to say under God..........As someone already said it is not required you say it.................

You people that want God erased from everything in this country are jyst fooling yourself..It ain't gonna happen.......
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
There is nothing more irrelevant about the Constitutional status of the words "under Allah" in the pledge than the fact that large numbers of people are in favor of it.

What is relevant is who inserted the words.

Congress inserted religiously biased words into a poem that had previously been legislated as a patriotic ritual utterance. It's questionable that the definition of a formal "Pledge of Allegiance" was constitutional.

It's perfectly clear that legislating a religious bias in that same patriotic ritual utterance is totally in violation of the literal interpretation of the First Amendment, as well as any possible reasonable "living" interpretation.

I can't wait to see what happens when Allah's supporters have the majority vote in this country. Imagine the screaming that will be going on about the pledge then.

Allah is a specific god of people who embrace Islam. There is no other religion that worships Allah. God is as generic a name for a nameless diety as can probably be conceived, and is the historic God of the Declaration of Independence and the presumption of the founding fathers.

Later lawmakers wisely saw your point as to whether a formal 'Pledge of Allegiance' is Constiutional if mandatory. So long as it is optional and voluntary, there is nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit it.

It is no more unconstitutional than teaching rules for displaying, posting, and showing respect for the flag, properly posting the colors, singing the National Anthem, singing "My Country Tis of Thee', or reciting the Declaration of Independence.

There is nothing wrong with teaching children that the colonies were settled by people seeking the right to worship as they pleased and many holidays that we celebrate today evolved from traditions that started with them and their progeny. Certainly a good teacher would explain to the children that the God of the pledge is symbolic of the belief of the founding fathers that we all have certain inalienable rights that our Constitution guarantees that nobody can take away. The founding fathers expressed these as "God given rights" and whether or not we believe in God, we can all celebrate the freedoms we have that are implied by it.

Again, unless you can show what religious group or affiliation is named in the pledge, unless you can show what doctrine is being taught, or what faith is being advocated, there is no way to say that a phrase 'under God' is an establishment of religion.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
Allah is a specific god of people who embrace Islam. There is no other religion that worships Allah. God is as generic a name for a nameless diety as can probably be conceived, and is the historic God of the Declaration of Independence and the presumption of the founding fathers.

Later lawmakers wisely saw your point as to whether a formal 'Pledge of Allegiance' is Constiutional if mandatory. So long as it is optional and voluntary, there is nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit it.

It is no more unconstitutional than teaching rules for displaying, posting, and showing respect for the flag, properly posting the colors, singing the National Anthem, singing "My Country Tis of Thee', or reciting the Declaration of Independence.

There is nothing wrong with teaching children that the colonies were settled by people seeking the right to worship as they pleased and many holidays that we celebrate today evolved from traditions that started with them and their progeny. Certainly a good teacher would explain to the children that the God of the pledge is symbolic of the belief of the founding fathers that we all have certain inalienable rights that our Constitution guarantees that nobody can take away. The founding fathers expressed these as "God given rights" and whether or not we believe in God, we can all celebrate the freedoms we have that are implied by it.

Again, unless you can show what religious group or affiliation is named in the pledge, unless you can show what doctrine is being taught, or what faith is being advocated, there is no way to say that a phrase 'under God' is an establishment of religion.


Of course its not an establishment OF A SPECIFIC Religion.
Its a statement reguarding religion in general.
And when someone does not state the pledge correctly, they are fiercely accused of being unpatriotic for not believing that our nation is "under god"
Until you can prove that there IS a god... and that we are in fact "under" him... the statement should be removed from the pledge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom