• 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.
George_Washington said:
Yes, the pledge, "Under God" should definitely be in the Pledge of Allegiance. It is not the government trying to shove religion down peoples' throats as it is a symbol of our national history.
Click to expand...

It is a symbol of this nation turning its back on the founding fathers and upon the directive of the Savior not to give to Caesar what belongs to God

George_Washington said:
When our founding fathers signed the Consitution they put, "In the year of our Lord" at the bottom.
Click to expand...

Why do you suppose that the First U. S Congress did not put "In the year of our Lord" at the bottom of the bills and resolutions it passed?

George_Washington said:
Obviously, Christianity is a part of our history.
Click to expand...

The Christian faith of the founding fathers included the doctrine of the right of private judgement in matters of religion aka Separation of Church and State.

George_Washington said:
The phrase, "God" doesn't even have to mean an endorsement of the Christian faith. It could mean virtually any faith.
Click to expand...

The dispute over the existance or non-existance of God is matter that does not fall within the congnizance of the government. Our system of government was not designed or intended to decide these type of disputes. Every man is left free to decide for himself if God does or does not exist.

The religion of the people should be as free as the air they breathe from government influence. If God does exist, he does not need the government to help him establish his existance.

FVF
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I haven't said the pledge since 5th grade. The funny thing about it is that it is more like a prayer. Tell me you have never heard someone say "amen" at the end of just out of habit from reciting common prayers in unison.
Click to expand...

Actually, I never have seen that happen, but I can see how it could.

Maybe the Pledge would actually mean something if we didn't say (or hear) it every friggin' day.
 
George_Washington said:
Yes, the pledge, "Under God" should definitely be in the Pledge of Allegiance. It is not the government trying to shove religion down peoples' throats as it is a symbol of our national history. When our founding fathers signed the Consitution they put, "In the year of our Lord" at the bottom. Obviously, Christianity is a part of our history. But the phrase, "God" doesn't even have to mean an endorsement of the Christian faith. It could mean virtually any faith.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we could add "under slavery" also.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
The pledge has outlived it's usefullness (if it ever was usefull). Who says the pledge anyway?
Click to expand...

last I checked, nearly every public school student in the country, every day.

And how has it "outlived its usefulness?"

Wait, let me guess - you think that America is a selfish nation of morons who are so full of national pride it makes you sick.
 
RightatNYU said:
last I checked, nearly every public school student in the country, every day.

And how has it "outlived its usefulness?"

Wait, let me guess - you think that America is a selfish nation of morons who are so full of national pride it makes you sick.
Click to expand...

No, We didn't say it here in my 90% republican midwest farm town after 5th grade. We have discussed this before but apparently you still think that every public school student still says it. Where exactly did you check? You also said that last time.

Really I don't think it has any use other than superficial ceremonial value. The pledge doesn't make you more loyal to your country any more than swearing to tell the truth in court.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
No, We didn't say it here in my 90% republican midwest farm town after 5th grade. We have discussed this before but apparently you still think that every public school student still says it. Where exactly did you check? You also said that last time.
Click to expand...

I would bet that you are in the minority in that one. I can quite honestly say that I've never heard of schools that didn't say it. We had a discussion in a class on the Constitution on this very topic, and of the 17 kids in the room, every single one (mostly from liberal northeastern areas) said the pledge through all of high school.

Really I don't think it has any use other than superficial ceremonial value. The pledge doesn't make you more loyal to your country any more than swearing to tell the truth in court.
Click to expand...

So....your point is? It's not mandated.

Singing the national anthem doesn't "do" anything either, but tell that to major league baseball. Hell, the flag doesn't "do" anything either, nor does Mt. Rushmore.
 
RightatNYU said:
I would bet that you are in the minority in that one. I can quite honestly say that I've never heard of schools that didn't say it. We had a discussion in a class on the Constitution on this very topic, and of the 17 kids in the room, every single one (mostly from liberal northeastern areas) said the pledge through all of high school.



So....your point is? It's not mandated.

Singing the national anthem doesn't "do" anything either, but tell that to major league baseball. Hell, the flag doesn't "do" anything either, nor does Mt. Rushmore.
Click to expand...

Really? That's crazy. I never said it after elementary school.
 
RightatNYU said:
I would bet that you are in the minority in that one. I can quite honestly say that I've never heard of schools that didn't say it. We had a discussion in a class on the Constitution on this very topic, and of the 17 kids in the room, every single one (mostly from liberal northeastern areas) said the pledge through all of high school.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's a New England thing.

RightatNYU said:
So....your point is? It's not mandated.
Click to expand...

You asked how it "outlived it's usefullness"? That is the point. C'mon, try to keep up.

RightatNYU said:
Singing the national anthem doesn't "do" anything either, but tell that to major league baseball. Hell, the flag doesn't "do" anything either, nor does Mt. Rushmore.
Click to expand...

Singing the national anthem tests your vocal range and memory skills. The flag can be used for curtains as it did in my first apartment. The flag also folds up into a giant paper football. Mt. Rushmore attracts tourists. Why else would you go to the middle of nowhere?
 
RightatNYU said:
So....your point is? It's not mandated.
Click to expand...

Schools lead their students in pledging allegiance to the flag, do they not? Therefore it is basically mandated; peer pressure is very strong, especially among kids. How comfortable would you feel if you were in a room with a hundred other people, and the other 99 did something in unison that you were uncomfortable doing?

RightatNYU said:
Singing the national anthem doesn't "do" anything either, but tell that to major league baseball.
Click to expand...

No one is forcing them to sing the national anthem, the MLB chooses to.

RightatNYU said:
Hell, the flag doesn't "do" anything either, nor does Mt. Rushmore.
Click to expand...

Those aren't actions, they're symbols.

I concur with those who think the Pledge is unnecessary. You're free to say (almost) whatever you want whenever you want; do we really need a national pledge of allegiance? Here's my pledge:

I pledge allegiance to liberty, capitalism, and good governance
/
Which may include the United States of America, when it deserves my allegiance
/
One nation, under no state-sanctioned religion, divisible into 50 autonomous governments which have the right to sever ties with the nation
/
With liberty and justice for all
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Maybe it's a New England thing.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. If so, im unaware of it.

You asked how it "outlived it's usefullness"? That is the point. C'mon, try to keep up.
Singing the national anthem tests your vocal range and memory skills. The flag can be used for curtains as it did in my first apartment. The flag also folds up into a giant paper football. Mt. Rushmore attracts tourists. Why else would you go to the middle of nowhere?
Click to expand...

The pledge of allegience tests your memory as well, as well as providing a measure of structure to the school day, for those who choose to participate. If schools want to do it, they can do it. If not, they don't have to. By definition, for those schools who choose to do it, it obviously hasn't outlived its usefulness.
 
Kandahar said:
Schools lead their students in pledging allegiance to the flag, do they not? Therefore it is basically mandated; peer pressure is very strong, especially among kids. How comfortable would you feel if you were in a room with a hundred other people, and the other 99 did something in unison that you were uncomfortable doing?
Click to expand...

So schools should organize their actions based around making everyone feel comfortable? If I were to be uncomfortable with learning about health, safe sex, and condoms, the school should not be allowed to teach it to anyone?

No one is forcing them to sing the national anthem, the MLB chooses to.
Click to expand...

That's my point, to them, it hasn't outlived its usefulness, like to the millions of people for whom the pledge hasn't outlived its usefulness.

Hell, the NYC City Council, which Democrats control 56-3 just voted to open each session with the Pledge. Guess its not useless to them either.

Those aren't actions, they're symbols.

I concur with those who think the Pledge is unnecessary. You're free to say (almost) whatever you want whenever you want; do we really need a national pledge of allegiance? Here's my pledge:

I pledge allegiance to liberty, capitalism, and good governance
/
Which may include the United States of America, when it deserves my allegiance
/
One nation, under no state-sanctioned religion, divisible into 50 autonomous governments which have the right to sever ties with the nation
/
With liberty and justice for all
Click to expand...

And I wholeheartedly support your right to say it, just as I support the rights of schools to decide to say the pledge.
 
RightatNYU said:
The pledge of allegience tests your memory as well, as well as providing a measure of structure to the school day, for those who choose to participate. If schools want to do it, they can do it. If not, they don't have to. By definition, for those schools who choose to do it, it obviously hasn't outlived its usefulness.
Click to expand...

I knew you would bring up testing your memory. After the first couple years I think the kids got it.:roll: Isn't all of school about testing memory and providing structure? I think they could memorize something usefull that they could actually use in life. Just because a school chooses to recite it doesn't make it usefull. How usefull is it after the hundredth time recited?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I knew you would bring up testing your memory. After the first couple years I think the kids got it.:roll: Isn't all of school about testing memory and providing structure? I think they could memorize something usefull that they could actually use in life. Just because a school chooses to recite it doesn't make it usefull. How usefull is it after the hundredth time recited?
Click to expand...

You were the one who brought up testing memory, not me...:confused:

It's a completely pointless argument, I just felt I should point out where you were being hypocritical.

I see you don't have a response for the rest of my reply. If a school board decides that to them, it is worth reciting, who are you to tell them it's not?
 
RightatNYU said:
You were the one who brought up testing memory, not me...:confused:

It's a completely pointless argument, I just felt I should point out where you were being hypocritical.

I see you don't have a response for the rest of my reply. If a school board decides that to them, it is worth reciting, who are you to tell them it's not?
Click to expand...

Are you drinking, you don't seem to be very sharp tonite. I brought up testing memory for the anthem. I would bet that the majority of Americans can't recite it correctly. I haven't recited the pledge yet I still remember it, it isn't hard to remember. People recite the pledge more often that the anthem also. Anyway, I wasn't being hypocritical.

I did respond to the rest of your post. Just because a school perceives it to be useful doesn't make it so. Who am I to tell them it isn't? Someone who obviously has better critical thinking skills than them. You, nor they, can tell me how it is useful.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I brought up testing memory for the anthem. I would bet that the majority of Americans can't recite it correctly. I haven't recited the pledge yet I still remember it, it isn't hard to remember. People recite the pledge more often that the anthem also. Anyway, I wasn't being hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it was as foolish a point in referring to the anthem as it was in referring to the pledge. Do you really believe that the purpose that the Anthem serves is to practice memory skills? If not, then that is not valid support for it being "useful," and there is nothing left to distinguish the pledge from the anthem (aside from "testing vocal range" which I'm assuming was a joke). So, now that that's set aside, what makes the anthem "useful" but the pledge not?

I did respond to the rest of your post. Just because a school perceives it to be useful doesn't make it so. Who am I to tell them it isn't? Someone who obviously has better critical thinking skills than them. You, nor they, can tell me how it is useful.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, how could I be so stupid. The "I'm smarter than everyone else so I should have the right to tell them what they are permitted to do" argument. I forget that you had that power, forgive me.:lol:
 
RightatNYU said:
Yes, and it was as foolish a point in referring to the anthem as it was in referring to the pledge. Do you really believe that the purpose that the Anthem serves is to practice memory skills? If not, then that is not valid support for it being "useful," and there is nothing left to distinguish the pledge from the anthem (aside from "testing vocal range" which I'm assuming was a joke). So, now that that's set aside, what makes the anthem "useful" but the pledge not?
Click to expand...

I already stated the memory difference. Regardless, ask any musician and they will tell you that the anthem is one of the more difficult songs to sing correctly in the right pitch.

RightatNYU said:
Ah, yes, how could I be so stupid. The "I'm smarter than everyone else so I should have the right to tell them what they are permitted to do" argument. I forget that you had that power, forgive me.:lol:
Click to expand...

If you read the sentence after the part you bolded you haven't told me how it is useful. I don't see any usefullness and have stated my case. You have failed to show how it is useful. I never said that they shouldn't be permitted to recite it. I just said that it is useless. Prove that I am wrong and show how it is useful. Don't attack me. Step up, sober up, or give up. BTW, critical thinking skills are not the same as intelligence. Many intelligent people have poor critical thinking skills.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I already stated the memory difference. Regardless, ask any musician and they will tell you that the anthem is one of the more difficult songs to sing correctly in the right pitch.
Click to expand...

So that's your final answer. The anthem is useful because it has a challenging vocal range, while the pledge is not because it is not sung.:lol:


If you read the sentence after the part you bolded you haven't told me how it is useful. I don't see any usefullness and have stated my case. You have failed to show how it is useful. I never said that they shouldn't be permitted to recite it. I just said that it is useless. Prove that I am wrong and show how it is useful.
Click to expand...

I don't speak for every school board across the country, and I doubt any of them feel the need to answer to you. As for me personally, I think that reciting the pledge every morning is useful for several reasons. It reminds us that we are not just a group of people, but rather a nation. It pays homage to those who have died for the flag. It is a tradition that many find worth maintaining.

Don't attack me. Step up, sober up, or give up.
Click to expand...
:lol: Do you see the hypocracy in this statement?:doh

BTW, critical thinking skills are not the same as intelligence. Many intelligent people have poor critical thinking skills.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the public service announcement, chief. I'll be sure to write that down.;)
 
RightatNYU said:
So that's your final answer. The anthem is useful because it has a challenging vocal range, while the pledge is not because it is not sung.
Click to expand...

And memorization. If they used reciting the national anthem for roadside sobriety checks, over half of the drivers would be taking a breathalyzer. Lawyers would get the reciting thrown out as it is unreasonable to expect everyone to know all the words. Perhaps they should know, but they don't. That is why it is unreasonable, it isn't common knowledge like the alphabet.



RightatNYU said:
I don't speak for every school board across the country, and I doubt any of them feel the need to answer to you. As for me personally, I think that reciting the pledge every morning is useful for several reasons. It reminds us that we are not just a group of people, but rather a nation. It pays homage to those who have died for the flag. It is a tradition that many find worth maintaining.
Click to expand...

You are right, I forgot we are a nation since I haven't recited it since 5th grade. People died for the flag, which you stated earlier didn't do anything. Now you want to pay homage to people who died for nothing? (I know, they died for freedom and liberty, not an inanimate object) Tell me, why do we have Veteran's Day and Memorial Day?

I understand that many find it worth maintaining. I just don't see what practical purpose it really serves.

RightatNYU said:
:lol: Do you see the hypocracy in this statement?:doh
Click to expand...

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

RightatNYU said:
Thanks for the public service announcement, chief. I'll be sure to write that down.;)
Click to expand...

I want royalties. :lol:
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
And memorization. If they used reciting the national anthem for roadside sobriety checks, over half of the drivers would be taking a breathalyzer. Lawyers would get the reciting thrown out as it is unreasonable to expect everyone to know all the words. Perhaps they should know, but they don't. That is why it is unreasonable, it isn't common knowledge like the alphabet.
Click to expand...

..........:confused: ......

You are right, I forgot we are a nation since I haven't recited it since 5th grade. People died for the flag, which you stated earlier didn't do anything. Now you want to pay homage to people who died for nothing? (I know, they died for freedom and liberty, not an inanimate object) Tell me, why do we have Veteran's Day and Memorial Day?

I understand that many find it worth maintaining. I just don't see what practical purpose it really serves.
Click to expand...

You may not have considered this, but there is the possibility that someone, somewhere, might disagree with you. And if they do, and they feel that their school district should recite the pledge, and their school district decides to, then more power to them.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Click to expand...

[insert nonsensical cliche as a retort]
 
RightatNYU said:
..........:confused: ......

You may not have considered this, but there is the possibility that someone, somewhere, might disagree with you. And if they do, and they feel that their school district should recite the pledge, and their school district decides to, then more power to them.
Click to expand...

I disagree with people and I have considered it. Fine, they can decide to do that. They could decide to declare the sky blue and water to be wet every day if they so choose. It doesn't mean that there is any real practical purpose or benefit from it. I am not trying to take that decision away from them. I am just pointing out that it is a useless exercise. All of your hyperbole has yet to show a benefit from reciting the pledge. Thanks for playing, you won't be going away empty handed. You win a home version of the game, Debate Politics, and a year's supply of Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco treat.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I disagree with people and I have considered it. Fine, they can decide to do that. They could decide to declare the sky blue and water to be wet every day if they so choose. It doesn't mean that there is any real practical purpose or benefit from it. I am not trying to take that decision away from them. I am just pointing out that it is a useless exercise. All of your hyperbole has yet to show a benefit from reciting the pledge. Thanks for playing, you won't be going away empty handed. You win a home version of the game, Debate Politics, and a year's supply of Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco treat.
Click to expand...

Right, how silly of me, your opinion is all that matters, and all claims to the contrary will be ignored. This is pointless, it's like arguing with a brick wall. Best of luck to you, have a good night, and perhaps I'll see you somewhere else on here.:2wave:
 
RightatNYU said:
Right, how silly of me, your opinion is all that matters, and all claims to the contrary will be ignored. This is pointless, it's like arguing with a brick wall. Best of luck to you, have a good night, and perhaps I'll see you somewhere else on here.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Then burden was on you to prove it useful. You failed to do so. Best of luck to you as well, have a good nite, and I am sure you will see me again. :2wave:
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Then burden was on you to prove it useful. You failed to do so. Best of luck to you as well, have a good nite, and I am sure you will see me again. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Meh the sheer promotion of unity within both the anthem and the pledge are a basic benefit inherent to them both.

You can cultlike chant anything you like with a thousand people but I will never forget or that wonderful tingly feeling of unity when the flag raises and you finish the anthem knowing people gave their lives for the opportunities presented to you and you know you are about to hit someone as hard as you possible can at the beginning of a football game. Its like a good feeling spell that uplifts your spirits and makes you stronger realizing others are backing you up.

If you dont know what that feeling is I cannot explain it to you.
You will not ever "get it".

Go sing O' Canada. Not quite the same.
 
Navy Pride said:
Well and activist liberal judge from the 9th circuit court in San Francisco has struck again today striking the word "Under God" from the Pledge of Alegiance....It will go to the SCOTUS and be struck down but what are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

If George Washington and Thomas Jefferson wanted "under God" in the Pledge, they would have included those words when they wrote the Pledge back in 1492.

SKILMATIC said:
Yes. It should be in there twice actually. To say the majority of founding fathers and the majority of first settlers had no incling to religion is the biggest lie anyone has ever told. That is a fact.
Click to expand...

We have a Separation of Church and State because the founders were Christians. It came from the Bible don't you know?

alex said:
Of course they had an inkling. It was that inkling that made them decide to remove religion from government.
Click to expand...

That all depends on how you define the word "religion." How do you define it for First Amendment purposes?

SKILMATIC said:
Separation from chruch and state never occured. That is a fact.
Click to expand...

Why don't you post some information on some examples of a Union of Church and State at the Federal level during the first 25 to 50 years of our grand and glorious republic?

Here are some examples of the separation of church and state at the Federal level during the first 50 years of the republic.

  • No prayers during the daily legislative sessions of the House or the Senate. The practice of prayers during the daily legislative sessions was not started until the 1850's.
  • No Congressional joint resolutions asking the Chief Magistrate to issue religious recommendations to the people. During the first 50 years Congress only asked for an executive religious recommendation only 5 times.
  • No displays of the Ten Commandments in courts, schools, or anywhere else.
  • The 1810 Post Office law that required the violation of one of the Ten Commandments.
  • The refusal of Congress to pass bills to encourage or support Christianity in the Northwestern Territory.
 
FredFlash said:
If George Washington and Thomas Jefferson wanted "under God" in the Pledge, they would have included those words when they wrote the Pledge back in 1492.
[/LIST]
Click to expand...

Yeah, and of course Columbus, on the way over here, was required by a directive from the Queen to have the 'under God' (debajo de dios) version recited by the sailors on the three ships.

But if you read your history, you will find that Columbus objected to the religious version, and often wondered why the Queen would want her subjects to acknowledge her belief in a God. He believed that the conscience of the individual should dictate one's choice of religion, or the rejection of it alltogether.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom