• 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.
Indeed I do. I believe Dwight D. Eisenhower was the one who approved "under God." The reason he did this (on June 14, 1954) was...

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

Sounds good to me. Your point is?
 
Naheeh said:
Indeed I do. I believe Dwight D. Eisenhower was the one who approved "under God." The reason he did this (on June 14, 1954) was...

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

Sounds good to me. Your point is?

You still haven't explained what the founding fathers' role is in the pledge of allegiance....... way to many people keep mentioning them like they approved of it.

Also, since you looked that up, you should know now that before 1954, it wasn't official, making it official violates the constitution of the united states.
Also, since you looked that up, you should know that before 1954 it did not contain those words. The originator of what later became our edited OFFICIAL pledge of allegiance didn't include the words "under God" in the pledge, and he was a Baptist Minister.
Also, it didn't violate any rights to NOT have god in the pledge prior to 1954, prior to its unconstitutional addition.
This sums it up pretty well.....

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
 
Naheeh said:
Indeed I do. I believe Dwight D. Eisenhower was the one who approved "under God." The reason he did this (on June 14, 1954) was...

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

Sounds good to me. Your point is?

Read my last post(s). The Constitution makes it perfectly clear that we have separation of church and state and for Congress to sign a bill into law and the President OK-ing what is essentially a prayer pledge is out of line. If you can't figure out the problem of religion+government then you are woefully ignorant of the history of this country, the colonies, the world, and religion, just to name a few. The point is, religion intertwining with the state is what the Founders wanted to prevent, which I already made clear. I'll give you a little reading assignment, a piece by one of, if not the greatest orator of the 19th century, Robert G. Ingersoll, called God in the Constitution. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/god_in_constitution.html
If you want to know why that "14%" and those other believers in God (Deist myself) are feeling threatened by religious enchroachment in government, this explains it better than I could ever hope to.
 
Okay, I get it now. Thanks for clarifying. It makes sense now why all of our presidents have been agnostic. I mean, the whole separation of church and state thing. Oops! Wait. They've all been Christian. I wonder why that is?

Listen, I don't have a problem with people being whatever religion they want, but our founding fathers and our leaders since the dawn of America have been Christian. The majority of Americans are Christian.

All I'm saying is, "What's wrong with letting Christians have their freedoms as long as it's not hurting anyone else?"

I guess I have a hard time figuring out how to remove God from anything, but that's me. I guess I hear "GOD" and I think, "Spirit, gods, Jesus, sun-god, moon-god, Moses, Buddha, nature, etc." And a lot of folks who don't believe in God believe there's "something" out there. And then there are a few that absolutely say there is no God.

If we constantly adjust the 99% of the population to accomodate the 1% we're going to have a lot of problems. We're seeing it now in the "no child left behind" program where all the kids have to go as slow as the slowest child.

Before you jump on me about that, let me say that no child SHOULD be left behind, but not all kids should have to be in one classroom where everyone has to learn at the rate of the kid who can't speak English and has an IQ of 70.
 
Naheeh said:
Okay, I get it now. Thanks for clarifying. It makes sense now why all of our presidents have been agnostic. I mean, the whole separation of church and state thing. Oops! Wait. They've all been Christian. I wonder why that is?

Listen, I don't have a problem with people being whatever religion they want, but our founding fathers and our leaders since the dawn of America have been Christian. The majority of Americans are Christian.

All I'm saying is, "What's wrong with letting Christians have their freedoms as long as it's not hurting anyone else?"

I guess I have a hard time figuring out how to remove God from anything, but that's me. I guess I hear "GOD" and I think, "Spirit, gods, Jesus, sun-god, moon-god, Moses, Buddha, nature, etc." And a lot of folks who don't believe in God believe there's "something" out there. And then there are a few that absolutely say there is no God.

If we constantly adjust the 99% of the population to accomodate the 1% we're going to have a lot of problems. We're seeing it now in the "no child left behind" program where all the kids have to go as slow as the slowest child.

Before you jump on me about that, let me say that no child SHOULD be left behind, but not all kids should have to be in one classroom where everyone has to learn at the rate of the kid who can't speak English and has an IQ of 70.
1. The Religion of our leader and past leaders has no relevance, we aren't compelled to follow the beliefs of our leaders, we're not 18th century Europe. Thats why we decided to move over here to the "new world" to start with.
2. Again, read above.
3. In a republic, Minority Individual Rights have priority over the Majority.

4. None of this matters because the constitution states there is to be a seperation of church and state. So again, the religious beliefs of the leaders of our nation only have personal relevance, not relevance to how we are to be governed and what type of allegiance we should deem official.
 
Well, I shall advise you to do what any free person would do without help. Say slowly and carefully so you fully understand the words: "I can add the words 'under God' if I want to. I can add the words 'under God' if I want to. It's not necessary for the Congress to violate the Constitution to let me do this, someone's already thought of the words for me. It's not necessary for the Congress to violate the Constitution to let me do this, someone's already thought of the words for me." Do that several times a day until you feel that you can understand the meaning of freedom.

That should work. Another way to get the concept through for you. Write the words down, wrap them around a brick, and knock yourself out practicing.

I don't know where this 'judicial infallability' is coming from.

You're the one presuming the United States Supreme Court will not only reverse the Ninth Circuit's decision but that that reversal will be infallibly correct. You brought it up, that's where it came from.

But several in your camp are wanting to say the Pledge is unconstitutional because a wacko judge said it was.

Don't know about them. They're free people, I'm free. I'm able to read. So I KNOW the pledge is a violation of the Constitution and I don't need a court to do my thinking for me.
 
Naheeh said:
I don't think people should be forced to say the pledge - I mean, not unless they're living in America and benefitting from all America offers.

Should they add a "Seig Heil!" at the end of their forced recitation? Just curious.

It's clear you don't understand America. It's not a coincidence the the greatest progress in history was accompanied by the lack of coercion . It was the natural result.

Naheeh said:
IMHO, when God left the schools, immorality crept in. I don't think we should have all-religious schools by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think we should still teach basic morality.

Why do you think there's a connection between morality and religion?
 
So should we scrap the pledge altogether? I mean, we wouldn't want anyone to feel they need to pledge allegiance to the flag - I'm sure that'll be violating someone's rights too.

And what do you propose we put on the back of money?

And should we remove Moses from the Supreme Court building as well as any other figure that could be remotely regarded as spiritual? And I guess we need to remove all the ten commandments from everywhere they are. Wouldn't want anyone to have to use that as any kind of guidance.

And I guess I'll need to lead the protest at my son's school so they don't sing them religious songs no more. I mean, even though everyone else is fine with it. After all, it's not right. We must have absolute separation of church and state.

I guess here's the rub - if there's absolute separation of church and state and absolute freedom of religion, what do you do when kids want to pray or say the pledge in school? Can't have it both ways, so which do we pick?
 
Naheeh said:
Okay, I get it now. Thanks for clarifying. It makes sense now why all of our presidents have been agnostic. I mean, the whole separation of church and state thing. Oops! Wait. They've all been Christian. I wonder why that is?

Listen, I don't have a problem with people being whatever religion they want, but our founding fathers and our leaders since the dawn of America have been Christian. The majority of Americans are Christian.

All I'm saying is, "What's wrong with letting Christians have their freedoms as long as it's not hurting anyone else?"

I guess I have a hard time figuring out how to remove God from anything, but that's me. I guess I hear "GOD" and I think, "Spirit, gods, Jesus, sun-god, moon-god, Moses, Buddha, nature, etc." And a lot of folks who don't believe in God believe there's "something" out there. And then there are a few that absolutely say there is no God.

If we constantly adjust the 99% of the population to accomodate the 1% we're going to have a lot of problems.

Boy, I don't know if I can get this through your 12 inch think skull. The religion of the Founders is IRRELEVENT! They could have all been Bible thumping blowhards, but guess what? The sole document that we base our laws on that they wrote is conspicuosly absent of a single, god**mn mention of Christianity. The only places where religion is mentioned in all of the Constitution are BOTH (that's 2, count 'em, 2) exclusionary. You didn't read that piece, you have no clue about the history of the colonies, that is perfectly obvious (Gee, maybe the Founders didn't want to have something like the state churche in the colony of Virginia where people were put to death for denying the Trinity and having a foulmouth, so they left religion out of government. Getting the picture yet? Cuz if you don't there is no point in going any further). You keep bringing up issues such as letting Christians have their religious freedoms (already do) and how we shouldn't accomodate the minority (I already did this thank you very much, upholding the Constitution, number of people doesn't matter, blah blah, ) Why are you even here then? If you want to continue with me at least, you are going to have to read that piece I gave you and read up a lot on the history of the colonies and Christianity in Europe (they were called the Dark Ages for a reason).
 
Naheeh said:
So should we scrap the pledge altogether? I mean, we wouldn't want anyone to feel they need to pledge allegiance to the flag - I'm sure that'll be violating someone's rights too.

And what do you propose we put on the back of money?

And should we remove Moses from the Supreme Court building as well as any other figure that could be remotely regarded as spiritual? And I guess we need to remove all the ten commandments from everywhere they are. Wouldn't want anyone to have to use that as any kind of guidance.

And I guess I'll need to lead the protest at my son's school so they don't sing them religious songs no more. I mean, even though everyone else is fine with it. After all, it's not right. We must have absolute separation of church and state.

I guess here's the rub - if there's absolute separation of church and state and absolute freedom of religion, what do you do when kids want to pray or say the pledge in school? Can't have it both ways, so which do we pick?


They can pray all they want to, as long as the school does not have a set aside time for a moment of prayer, or even lead the school children in a prayer, or we don't have school teachers telling students that the encourage you to pray.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Should they add a "Seig Heil!" at the end of their forced recitation? Just curious.

Only if they're in Nazi Germany and it's 1938.

Why do you think there's a connection between morality and religion?

I don't. Read my other posts. I'm saying that when religion left morality went with it even though it didn't need to.
 
Naheeh said:
So should we scrap the pledge altogether? I mean, we wouldn't want anyone to feel they need to pledge allegiance to the flag - I'm sure that'll be violating someone's rights too.

And what do you propose we put on the back of money?

And should we remove Moses from the Supreme Court building as well as any other figure that could be remotely regarded as spiritual? And I guess we need to remove all the ten commandments from everywhere they are. Wouldn't want anyone to have to use that as any kind of guidance.

And I guess I'll need to lead the protest at my son's school so they don't sing them religious songs no more. I mean, even though everyone else is fine with it. After all, it's not right. We must have absolute separation of church and state.

I guess here's the rub - if there's absolute separation of church and state and absolute freedom of religion, what do you do when kids want to pray or say the pledge in school? Can't have it both ways, so which do we pick?

Jesus H. F**king Christ. I just got done with a post with the hope of continuing this, but I think I'm just going to have to end this here unless you really prove yourself by tomorrow. I already answered this crap with airtight rebuttals. Like the great Founding Father, who without getting people to rally behind the idea of independence the USA would not exist, Thomas Paine said; "Reasoning with one who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to a dead man." Good day sir/madam.
 
Naheeh said:
So should we scrap the pledge altogether? I mean, we wouldn't want anyone to feel they need to pledge allegiance to the flag - I'm sure that'll be violating someone's rights too.

Well, what's the point in promising to be faithful to a flag? It's an inanimate object. Here's some relevant history:


Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

...

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

So the pledge itself is intended to promote socialist ideals. Socialism is totally antithetical to the ideals of the men that wrote the Constitution. It's anti-freedom. So what the hell are we doing with that pledge in the first place?

Yes, the federally legislated pledge should be scrapped. Completely. The loyalty of the citizens of a free country must be earned, it cannot be compelled. Requiring the act of grade school children is a form of indoctrination, whereas a solid loyalty could be built if the schools would teach an honest history of the United States. Even when aspects of our past are shameful, like electing Bill Clinton, we manage to rise above them.

If it has cultural value, the free will of the people will carry the pledge as tradition just like we're stuck with Superbowls and World Series.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I thought you were going to ignore me.

As I have said this maybe 20 times already in this thread, I'll type this very slowly so nobody can miss it.

There is no requirement that you acknowledge anything. There is no requirement that you recite the Pledge. There is no requirement that you recite or even acknowledge the 'under God' in the Pledge. There is no reward for you if you say it and no consequence for you if you do not. It is purely optional and voluntary. It does not violate any establishment clause of th Constitution. It does not affect you legally, materially, or interfere in any way with your pursuit of happiness. It is not unconstitutional.

The reason the 'under God' phrase was put in the Pledge is absolutely moot 50 years later when most Americans see it is symbolic of our religious heritage.

Why should a small, angry, minority have the right to dictate to a very large majority what words they can or cannot say in a patriotic pledge that is purely voluntary for everybody?

JESUS CHRIST!!! I am going to VOMIT on you if you don't get this concept through your head.

IT DOESNT MATTER IF THE KIDS ARE FORCED TO RECITE THE WORDS TO ANYTHING, IN MANY, MANY OTHER CASES, THE COURT HAS HELD THAT THE RECITATION BY TEACHERS EVERY MORNING OF ANYTHING IS COERCIVE BECAUSE OF THE AGE OF THE STUDENTS AND THE UNIVERSAL NATURE OF THE RECITATION.

AGhhhhhhhhh, it's like talking to a brick wall. A really, really, really ignorant brick wall.
 
Naheeh said:
That's what I'm saying - we don't need religion in schools necessarily, but when they took religion out, morality left to. Someone didn't know that morality can be taught without religion.

Yes, it can be taught at home. The problem is, when it's not taught in schools AT ALL, in fact - it's challenged in school - that's when it can be a problem. And I'm not talking about anything big - basic respect, please and thank you, respect your elders, listenwhen others are speaking..." The more I think about it I'm just thinking manners.

Tell the 30,.....to go home. Okay...go home.

Truth is, a lot of those 30,..... or whatever don't really mind the whole under God thing - they see it as a sign of respect to teh country and our founding fathers to say it. A few of them don't believe in God and want to make a big stink about it instead of just standing up, saying the pledge and not saying "under God" but recognizing that the majority of people like it just as it is.

I'm not Christian but it doesn't bother me to say it. This country was founded on Christianity so I respect it. And because of the religious freedom our founding fathers believed in, you get to practice whatever religion you want - or none at all - but why do we have to get rid of every trace of God from the country to appease the minority of people?


Interestingly enough, I'm a Catholic, and I want "under god" out of the pledge. It's unconstitutional, and it doesn't belong there.

And what is this argument about how when religion left the schools, immorality crept in? No. When parents abdicated their responsibilities, immorality crepy in. What happened to you people not wanting government to decide everything for you. Take responsibility for your own damn actions.

And you don't have to get rid of every trace of God. "God's presence" on money, in the prayer before congress, and other places in adult society is acceptable as is now according to the courts and the constitution. It's when it's a mandatory recitation in public schools to CHILDREN that the courts have held it unconstitutional.
 
Naheeh said:
So our founding fathers were...agnostic? And those people who first settled in America were...atheists? Sorry about that. I didn't get that memo. And yes, their faith has a great deal to do with how everything in this country was developed.

They wanted religious freedom for themselves and America. Removing "under God" removes religious freedom from the majority of people who WANT TO KEEP THAT IN THE PLEDGE!

And yes, individuals who don't want to say it shouldn't say the "under God" part. Just stand there with your hand on your heart as a sign of respect and be silent when everyone else says, "under God."

Kids shouldn't be forced to say a prayer in the public school classroom, but kids who want to say a prayer should be allowed to do so. Religious freedom.
But there is a minority that says, "We don't believe in God and I don't want my child to see someone praying because that takes away his/her religious freedom to have to see that." PLEASE!


You're completely missing the point. The kids can say "under god" all they want. That's not a problem. It's when the state decides that the OFFICIAL, mandated pledge must contain "under god" is when it becomes a problem.

It's really difficult to understand if you're being deliberately ignorant, but hopefully you know someone who can explain this to you.
 
RightatNYU said:
Interestingly enough, I'm a Catholic, and I want "under god" out of the pledge. It's unconstitutional, and it doesn't belong there.

And what is this argument about how when religion left the schools, immorality crept in? No. When parents abdicated their responsibilities, immorality crepy in. What happened to you people not wanting government to decide everything for you. Take responsibility for your own damn actions.

And you don't have to get rid of every trace of God. "God's presence" on money, in the prayer before congress, and other places in adult society is acceptable as is now according to the courts and the constitution. It's when it's a mandatory recitation in public schools to CHILDREN that the courts have held it unconstitutional.

As you know, I agree to remove the "under god" from the pledge of allegiance. But I have a question for you, of your opinion, of course Im not trying to start a debate over it cause its off topic, but.
What do you think of the 1954 decision to replace the national motto
E Pluribus Unum with In God We Trust?
 
Caine said:
As you know, I agree to remove the "under god" from the pledge of allegiance. But I have a question for you, of your opinion, of course Im not trying to start a debate over it cause its off topic, but.
What do you think of the 1954 decision to replace the national motto
E Pluribus Unum with In God We Trust?

It's another one of those things that treads a fine line, but I think the distinguishing factor here is the audience that it plays to. In both Lee v. Weisman and Wallace v. Jaffree, the courts stated that because the typical audience for prayers in schools is children, the coercive effect of said prayers is unconstitutional. However, even in those cases' majority opinions, the justices defended the prayer opening their court and the practice of swearing on the bible, under the grounds that adults are not as malleable as children, and thus face a higher standard of coercion.

I would see the "In God We Trust" case to be a logical extension of that principle, that because the audience for the national motto is not explicitly children, and is not explicitly intended to promote a religion, that it would pass both the Lemon test and the more modern "Practical purpose" test.
 
Scarecrow, you are imminently more efficient at debating and winning a point than some others I've seen here. You take a new tact and appeal to the person's politics instead of just trying to whack him over the head. Your most recent post was pretty damn good. I'm taking notes.

Playing devil's advocate is just fun...

I believe civics needs to come back into the schools. At this point it has been reduced to saying the pledge of allegiance which is obscene (not the pledge, just the fact that kids learn virtually nothing about our government until high school). It's an easy out to pass as being patriotic instead of doing the harder work of actually TEACHING about the country and winning loyalty that way. At my son's school (elementary age) and my other son's school last year (junior high) nearly all they talk about year after year after year is Native Americans.

WE'RE Indian and we're sick of hearing about it!

As for teaching morals in school, I should revise that to say respect. And it's not so much about teaching as reinforcing. And maybe they could have a class for the parents too. I'm amazed by the disrespect I see at the schools these days. A kid gets a D in a class and the parent goes in to scream at the principal because of it instead of sitting down with their kid and helping them.
There just seems to be a general lack of respect and we can't discipline them because that would infringe on their right of self-expression.

My son's teacher was shocked when I went in and told her to call me immediately if my kid acted up or didn't say please, thank you or showed her or anyone else an ounce of disrepect. She was even more shocked when she called and I left work to go in and talk with my son and then had him write letters of apology to the people involved. (And no t.v. or dessert for a week!) No one seems to discipline anymore.

Off topic. Sorry. Deflating the soap box.

Thanks for the lively debate.
 
Last edited:
The Pledge is not a recitation for children only. And it is not a prayer. Those who wish to make any reference to anything religious or to acknowledge religion in any way as a 'prayer' are way off base in my view. Any school that does not teach the different components of the Pledge is not doing its job of education, and any public school that teaches that the 'under God' phrase is a mandate or even an invitation to worship or believe in God should fire all 'educators' that are even suggesting such a thing because they are not educated enough to be teaching children. Likewise any 'educators' that do not teach the role that religion has had in the history and culture of our country are not educated enough to be teaching children.

I believe that most people who strongly object to 'under God' in the Pledge because they have a deep seated revulsion for religion altogether. Some seem to relate it to Christianity for which they have a deep seated revulsion.
I don't care what religion these people profess to be. Their MO suggests that if they could, they would wipe anything remotely religious completely out of the public experience altogether. I think such people, if they could, would wipe anything remotely religious from the public experience altogehter.

Reasonable people, both athiests and people of faith, choose the hills they are willing to die on thoughtfully. A voluntary two-word phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance that the vast majority of Americans like to say is not one of those hills.
 
RightatNYU said:
JESUS CHRIST!!! I am going to VOMIT on you if you don't get this concept through your head.

IT DOESNT MATTER IF THE KIDS ARE FORCED TO RECITE THE WORDS TO ANYTHING, IN MANY, MANY OTHER CASES, THE COURT HAS HELD THAT THE RECITATION BY TEACHERS EVERY MORNING OF ANYTHING IS COERCIVE BECAUSE OF THE AGE OF THE STUDENTS AND THE UNIVERSAL NATURE OF THE RECITATION.

AGhhhhhhhhh, it's like talking to a brick wall. A really, really, really ignorant brick wall.

I stopped bothering to point this out a long time ago. He just won't accept this fact, so there is no progress to be made in debating. He thinks his opinion is > than fact.
 
Still on about this are we?

Anyone ever find a logical reason that the same judge that threw out "under God" in the pledge, just himself earlier, asked, oh......sorry, told someone to put their hand on the bible, and ask for Gods mercy.:roll:

The explanation so far has been, they only do this once in a long while, so it's perfectly o.k. I don't know about anyone else, but this is indeed hypocritical, no matter how you try and justify it.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The Pledge is not a recitation for children only. And it is not a prayer. Those who wish to make any reference to anything religious or to acknowledge religion in any way as a 'prayer' are way off base in my view. Any school that does not teach the different components of the Pledge is not doing its job of education, and any public school that teaches that the 'under God' phrase is a mandate or even an invitation to worship or believe in God should fire all 'educators' that are even suggesting such a thing because they are not educated enough to be teaching children. Likewise any 'educators' that do not teach the role that religion has had in the history and culture of our country are not educated enough to be teaching children.

I believe that most people who strongly object to 'under God' in the Pledge because they have a deep seated revulsion for religion altogether. Some seem to relate it to Christianity for which they have a deep seated revulsion.
I don't care what religion these people profess to be. Their MO suggests that if they could, they would wipe anything remotely religious completely out of the public experience altogether. I think such people, if they could, would wipe anything remotely religious from the public experience altogehter.

Reasonable people, both athiests and people of faith, choose the hills they are willing to die on thoughtfully. A voluntary two-word phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance that the vast majority of Americans like to say is not one of those hills.

You don't get it.
There is no problem with religion in the public experience.
The problem is religion in the public GOVERNMENT experience.
Is the pledge GOVERNMENT? The flag became a part of our government on June 22, 1942 when it was made a part of the United States Flag Code (Title 36).
What you don't understand, is that if we were a nation of 100% of believers in a single god, it STILL wouldn't belong there under our current constitution.
Its taking away NOBODY's rights to remove the phrase from the OFFICIAL pledge in the United States Flag Code. You have freedom of religion to practice religion in your homes, churches, and other places, BUT children will not be coersed into reciting a religiously non-secular pledge just because most of America believes in "GOD". Its ridiculous.
Oh, and if you did a little research into the groups who did all the lobbying for congress to include the words "under god" in the pledge, you'll see why the rest of us know for certain it wasn't added as a "historical, cultural, and symbological" reference.
 
Columbusite said:
I stopped bothering to point this out a long time ago. He just won't accept this fact, so there is no progress to be made in debating. He thinks his opinion is > than fact.

Really? Don't you think your opinion is based on fact regardless of the fact that you haven't shown how it is? Can you show how you have qualified your opinion in any way? Those who agree with you are the reasonable ones, right? And there is no point in debating me because I hold a different point of view?

This is an amazing thing. The only productive debate is with people who agree with you or that you can persuade no matter how irrational an emotional rant may be? I'll have to give that some serious thought. It certainly is a new approach to the concept.
 
Deegan said:
Still on about this are we?

Anyone ever find a logical reason that the same judge that threw out "under God" in the pledge, just himself earlier, asked, oh......sorry, told someone to put their hand on the bible, and ask for Gods mercy.:roll:

The explanation so far has been, they only do this once in a long while, so it's perfectly o.k. I don't know about anyone else, but this is indeed hypocritical, no matter how you try and justify it.

Well, ****, whats more hypocrytical is a country to claim to seperate thier government from religion, then sneak things like changing our motto, pledge, putting godly mottos on money, putting god in our court rooms, praying in our congress and senate, making "moral" legislative decisions based on religion.

Its not just that judge who is hypocritical, its the whole system.
Am I screaming out for us to change the whole system? No, its never going to happen and the Christians would have a ****-fit, as the Jews and other believers don't seem to give a ****.

Why is it that every time a judge does something that the conservative people don't agree with they have to attack him/her?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom