• 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:
So, our founding fathers were geniuses who knew the majority of people are stupid? I agree they were smart but some of them had conservative views, nonetheless. I suggest you look at this quote by Alexander Hamilton:

"It is a harsh doctrine that men grow wicked as they improve and enlighten their minds."

I would say that Hamilton, if he were alive today, would probably be in favor of God in our pledge, considering he had advocated the creation of a national Christian church. You obviously don't agree with this concept, which means you've just contradicted yourself. Unless of course you think we should have a national church. :mrgreen:

So you can't lump all of our founding fathers into one category, they all had different views. If they were alive today and debating, there'd be just as much crossfire as there was back then. Considering some of them believed in dueling, it'd probably be much worse than how our politicans behave nowadays...

They were "conservative", hey? Was that before, or after they created a government the likes of which had never before been seen on the face of the earth?
 
The Laws Of The Early Republic Required Violation Of The Ten Commandments

The Federal Government, from its initial establishment in 1788, pursued a system of causing the mail to be transported on the Sabbath. This was a blatant violation of the Ten Commandments and proof that the founders were all infidels and heathens who disowned God.

(Source of Information: American State Papers, 13th Congress, 3rd Session, Post Office Department, Volume 1, Page 17, Senate Report No. 30 on Sunday Mails, Communicated to the Senate, January 27, 1815 by Mr. Daggett.)

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=027/llsp027.db&recNum=52
 
The founding fathers argument is moot. It doesn't matter what dead people thought. All that matters is what we think today. Using the founding fathers argument we shouldn't even have a pledge since we didn't have one at the inception of the country. The pledge is pointless.
 
Does the Constitution’s prohibition against making laws respecting an establishment of religion prohibit the government from making a law that violates or requires the violation of one of the Ten Commandments? For example, would a law requiring the U. S. Mail to be transported on Sunday violate the establishment clause?
 
As a conservative/libertarian, I believe in strict separation of church and state, but I don't believe in judicial activism. There's nothing Unconstitutional about kids reciting The Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase "under God", but it's not a good idea to force them to do it.
 
mpg said:
As a conservative/libertarian, I believe in strict separation of church and state, but I don't believe in judicial activism. There's nothing Unconstitutional about kids reciting The Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase "under God", but it's not a good idea to force them to do it.

What noble principle of religious liberty did you apply to arrive at that conclusion? Please show me where Congress, during the the first half century of our Republic, ever assumed legislative authority over the people's religion.

Fred
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
They were "conservative", hey? Was that before, or after they created a government the likes of which had never before been seen on the face of the earth?

Well, basically, you had the Federalists on one side, mostly from New England save Georgia, who were very conservative. When I say conservative in this context, I don't mean in precisely the same sense as we view it today. But they were definitely not liberal in the sense that we think the term to mean today either. The Federalists favored finance, banking, business, and the military. This is kind of like the Republican party is today. They also favored a strong central government. Most of them probably would favor at least some mention of God in our nation government. This is because most of them favored European societies, which had traditionally blended government with religion. It wasn't actually that they wanted to oppress people though. They viewed Europe, with all it's religious elements, as just sort of like a cultural thing. During the time of the revolution, people weren't actually religiously oppressed to an extreme like Patrick Henry or Sam Adams tried to convery to the masses. When Napoleon came to power there was persecution, yes, but it wasn't really over religion. It was the Democratic-Federalists, people like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, who thought more like you do. The articles of Confederacy were very libertarian, very extremely so.

So yes, our founding fathers would be all over the political map if they were alive today. Most people don't know this but in New England after the American Revolution, "Royalists" to King George III were really persecuted. They had their homes taken away, their money taken away, and sometimes their families killed. I don't imply that I would have supported England during the Revolutionary War, heavens no. I just mean that the country was very divided at that time and people had very mixed views.
 
For many it's not even about the "under God" it's about the pledge in general. They don't want "their" children pledging anything. In my opinion it's really sad. But like I said why not go after the "In God We Trust" money first? Why are our schools the guinea pigs for liberal ideals? You want God completely removed from the government. Then fight for that first.....then go after the schools. Or is it easier to brainwash the youth vs the parents?
 
George_Washington said:
. Most of them probably would favor at least some mention of God in our nation government.

The continuing problem is that many, when confronted with the fact that it isn't legal to place their religious items on public property, maintain that some want all sign and mention of religion banned from government. But all we want is to keep religious encroachment out of government. George Bush ends his speeches with 'God bless America.' That is God in the government, and it is perfectly legal. No problem.

George_Washington said:
I would say that Hamilton, if he were alive today, would probably be in favor of God in our pledge, considering he had advocated the creation of a national Christian church. You obviously don't agree with this concept, which means you've just contradicted yourself. Unless of course you think we should have a national church.

Alexander Hamilton wanted to form our government exactly like the government we had just broken from. He said something to the effect of not being able to improve on the best. He is never a good source to cite based on freedom of religion because he did not want it. His United States would have had a national religion. But more sensible heads prevailed, thank God.
 
talloulou said:
For many it's not even about the "under God" it's about the pledge in general. They don't want "their" children pledging anything. In my opinion it's really sad. But like I said why not go after the "In God We Trust" money first? Why are our schools the guinea pigs for liberal ideals? You want God completely removed from the government. Then fight for that first.....then go after the schools. Or is it easier to brainwash the youth vs the parents?

Remember Michael Newdow? I read recently he has filed a case against the printing of the new motto on money, so we will see. Also, our national motto should be changed back to E Pluribus Unum. That was the excellent motto formed in the Constitutional era, and was completely relevant to the thirteen colonies coming together to form a nation. They did not use 'In God We Trust,' and neither should we-the original appropriate phrase was hijacked by Congress, and the current lawmakers in office should restore the original and apologize for the mistake made last century by their predecessors.

As far as brainwashing the youth, there should be no forced acknowledgement of someone's personal God by children led in His worship in public schools. If a kid wants to recite the under God on his own time, he is completely free to do so. The recital of the pledge without under God is okay, I guess, but it doesn't accomplish anything. Its unnecessary.
 
tryreading said:
The continuing problem is that many, when confronted with the fact that it isn't legal to place their religious items on public property, maintain that some want all sign and mention of religion banned from government. But all we want is to keep religious encroachment out of government. George Bush ends his speeches with 'God bless America.' That is God in the government, and it is perfectly legal. No problem."

Except there is a problem. Christianity is under attack in our country and evidence of this is everywhere. George Bush is often put down for his religious beliefs. A member of the supreme court was stopped on the steps of his church while a reporter tried to bait him into an argument over his religious beliefs. Every year more stores and malls are sporting holiday trees vs Christmas trees. It's total BS. Christians had to protest Lowe's last year because for the first time their tree lot was selling holiday trees vs Christmas trees and it pissed people off. To say that there are not fanatics out there who want to see religion banned all together is wrong. The sick part is that the attack is generally specifically against Christianity or Judism. Anotherwards it's not altogether uncommon to see a liberal bashing christianity while completely supporting the muslim religion. There is something going on there. It's weird. Kind of like the liberals who sport "Save Tibet" bumper stickers but you have to wonder if they really would support us going to war to save Tibet when generally, where I live anyway, many of them are so anti-war that they are ready to serve Israel up on a platter. It makes no sense.
 
talloulou said:
Except there is a problem. Christianity is under attack in our country and evidence of this is everywhere. George Bush is often put down for his religious beliefs. A member of the supreme court was stopped on the steps of his church while a reporter tried to bait him into an argument over his religious beliefs. Every year more stores and malls are sporting holiday trees vs Christmas trees. It's total BS. Christians had to protest Lowe's last year because for the first time their tree lot was selling holiday trees vs Christmas trees and it pissed people off. To say that there are not fanatics out there who want to see religion banned all together is wrong. The sick part is that the attack is generally specifically against Christianity or Judism. Anotherwards it's not altogether uncommon to see a liberal bashing christianity while completely supporting the muslim religion. There is something going on there. It's weird. Kind of like the liberals who sport "Save Tibet" bumper stickers but you have to wonder if they really would support us going to war to save Tibet when generally, where I live anyway, many of them are ready to serve Israel up on a platter. It makes no sense.

I wouldn't do any of the above things, but, guess what? They are all legal.
 
This holiday tree issue is crap! Liberals weren't boycotting to get the name changed to holiday. It was a decision made by the companies to try to be inclusive. It was driven by the motive of maximizing profits. Now I will admit that it probably backfired on them. I can't believe that is your example of how you are being persecuted. Unless you, yourself, are a tree, I don't see how you can tell somebody what to call a tree.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I can't believe that is your example of how you are being persecuted. Unless you, yourself, are a tree, I don't see how you can tell somebody what to call a tree.

I never claimed I was being persecuted. But there is a definite anti-christian tone in the country recently. You don't have to be a christian to notice it. There are definitely people who are seriously confused about the differences between freedom from religion and freedom of religion.
 
talloulou said:
I never claimed I was being persecuted. But there is a definite anti-christian tone in the country recently. You don't have to be a christian to notice it. There are definitely people who are seriously confused about the differences between freedom from religion and freedom of religion.

I still haven't seen any examples of how christians aren't able to practice their religion in this country.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I still haven't seen any examples of how christians aren't able to practice their religion in this country.

No I don't believe they are unable to practice their religion. I do believe that in many cases political correctness has gone way too far....and this applies to many topics not just religion. But I will say that it does seem that Christians are being singled out and harrassed more than other groups lately.

I myself am pretty conservative but I don't consider myself a christian and I don't go to church or belong to any organized religion. I raise my kids with an open mind and teach them about all different religions all the while telling them when it comes to God...mom honestly doesn't know for sure what all if anything there is to know.

However I will say that when talking to liberals, I live in a radically liberal area, I am often accused of being a Right Wing Religious fundie or some other Christian bashing phrase. And generally this happens without any prior mention of God or religion. I can mention that I'm not sure about stem cell research and someone will just start christian bashing me....when my feelings about embryonic stems cells have nothing to do with religion. I also remember hearing over and over again during the last presidential election that only right wing christian fanatics are against stem cells. That's simply not true. But the christian bashing is everywhere lately and I know this because I am subjected to it and bashed when some ignoramous believes I'm a christian due to my opinions. On this website I have had people christian bash me. I have had people say they don't believe my claim that I am not religious!

Clearly christians are being singled out and calling someone a christian is the liberal way of dismissing.....doesn't even seem to matter if the person being christian bashed is christian or not.

But yeah christians can still practice....I don't see any evidence of them not being able to practice their religion. And yeah for what it's worth I think all the christian bashing is back-firing because basically many democrats and liberals are christians! Many christian bashers try to solve this problem by declaring they are only bashing the fundamentalists but I think many christians are still insulted which may be why democrats aren't winning as many elections.
 
talloulou said:
For many it's not even about the "under God" it's about the pledge in general. They don't want "their" children pledging anything. In my opinion it's really sad. But like I said why not go after the "In God We Trust" money first? Why are our schools the guinea pigs for liberal ideals? You want God completely removed from the government. Then fight for that first.....then go after the schools. Or is it easier to brainwash the youth vs the parents?

How exactly is it brainwashing youth to NOT mandate an oath of allegiance? No one is saying that the Pledge of Allegiance should be banned and people should be punished for reciting it. You're free to say almost anything you want, anytime you want, anywhere in the country.

And why do you keep bringing up "In God We Trust" on money in the form of a strawman? Many of us do think that should be removed as well. I'm not sure what your point is when you mention that. What's so important about the order in which these phrases are removed?

For someone who claims to not be religious, you certainly do an excellent job parroting Pat Robertson's talking points...
 
Kandahar said:
For someone who claims to not be religious, you certainly do an excellent job parroting Pat Robertson's talking points...

See? Oooh I must be a christian. A christian in the closet and therefore you can dismiss me....right? I don't even know exactly who Pat Robertson is. If my talking points mimic his then maybe he knows what he is talking about. The "Pat" I like is Pat Buchanan.

I point out the christian bashing because it's so obvious. And I'm not in to seeing anyone bashed because of their relgious beliefs. Also many of the attempts to remove religion from the public square are in my opinion ridiculous. I really see a difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I'm not religious yet public religious displays don't bother me! Why should they? Unless the government is demanding that I recognize God or a certain God or their definition of God why should I care?

Also the "under God" in the pledge is very undefined. God could mean anything in that pledge. There is nothing to suggests the term represents the Christian God? So what's the problem?

And basically my biggest problem with liberals trying to change anything in the schools comes from the knowledge that liberals have already severely damaged our public school system. So yeah I'd like to see them try to change something else....you know like the money....and leave the kids in school alone for a bit so they can actually learn something. If they are really worried about kids why don't they try to change the fact that sooooo many kids can't pass a WASL exam in 11th grade when the test is written at an 8th grade level? See I worry about crap like that vs the undefined vague phrase "under God" in the pledge. But then again I'm one of those weirdos who doesn't mind my child hearing the phrase God or accidently picking up some patriotism for their counrty!
 
talloulou said:
Many of the attempts to remove religion from the public square are in my opinion ridiculous. I really see a difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I'm not religious yet public religious displays don't bother me! Why should they? Unless the government is demanding that I recognize God or a certain God or their definition of God why should I care?

We are already half-way to religious persecution. Congress has established the authority to advise you on religious matters. Now all it needs to do is establish the punishment for non-compliance.

talloulou said:
Also the "under God" in the pledge is very undefined. God could mean anything in that pledge. There is nothing to suggests the term represents the Christian God? So what's the problem?

It is an assumption of civil authority over Religion; it implies that we are all under the same God; it implies a need for uniformity of religious opinions; Christ never claimed authority over Pilate or Caesar; if God wants to be over our nation he will probably make it known to use just like he did with the nation of Israel with burning bushes, blood in the Nile, parting the Red Sea and the pillar of fire, etc.

talloulou said:
And basically my biggest problem with liberals trying to change anything in the schools comes from the knowledge that liberals have already severely damaged our public school system. So yeah I'd like to see them try to change something else....you know like the money....and leave the kids in school alone for a bit so they can actually learn something. If they are really worried about kids why don't they try to change the fact that sooooo many kids can't pass a WASL exam in 11th grade when the test is written at an 8th grade level? See I worry about crap like that vs the undefined vague phrase "under God" in the pledge. But then again I'm one of those weirdos who doesn't mind my child hearing the phrase God or accidently picking up some patriotism for their counrty!

Your child may be learning that he or she should take religious advice from the government. He should be taught to ignore any government advice on religion and listen to his conscience.

When you listen to government advice on religion you are rejecting the authority of Christ. If you are going to do that, you might as well just worship in the Temple of Satan.

FVF
 
FredFlash said:
When you listen to government advice on religion you are rejecting the authority of Christ. If you are going to do that, you might as well just worship in the Temple of Satan.

FVF


Oooh geez....Well you know I never actually figured out what crimes Satan commits in the bible. God commits tons of acts of violence. God advocates genocide. Yet what does Satan do in the bible other than advising people they don't necessarily have to listen to God???? Hmmmm???? The snake tells Adam and Eve they won't die if they eat from the tree knowledge. God told them they would die. They didn't die! The serpant told them the truth. I always found that interesting.... Satan tries to tempt Jesus out of dying on the cross....what's so wrong with that???? Just playing Devil's advocate but honestly I find the old testament God to be way more horrifying than the "Satan" of the bible. And I had some very good deviled eggs this weekend. :rofl
 
talloulou said:
I point out the christian bashing because it's so obvious. And I'm not in to seeing anyone bashed because of their relgious beliefs.

No it isn't. Sure, there are a few atheists that have problems with Christians but the majority do not. This phenomenon of Christian victimhood is largely an invention of the religious right. The 80% of Americans that are Christians are hardly being oppressed by the 20% that aren't, just because we don't want government taking sides on religious matters.

talloulou said:
Also many of the attempts to remove religion from the public square are in my opinion ridiculous.

Some of them are, others (like the Pledge or currency) are not. If a town wants to have a nativity scene, I don't care. It's mainly just a decoration. When the government officially declares that we're one nation under God, or that in God we trust, there is no explanation for this other than the government has taken sides on religion.

talloulou said:
I really see a difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I'm not religious yet public religious displays don't bother me! Why should they? Unless the government is demanding that I recognize God or a certain God or their definition of God why should I care?

Then what would be the tragedy in taking "Under God" out of the Pledge or "In God We Trust" off the money? That's just being neutral, it's not saying that we are NOT a nation under God or that we DON'T trust in God.

talloulou said:
Also the "under God" in the pledge is very undefined. God could mean anything in that pledge. There is nothing to suggests the term represents the Christian God? So what's the problem?

It's still supporting the religion of theism.

And basically my biggest problem with liberals trying to change anything in the schools comes from the knowledge that liberals have already severely damaged our public school system. So yeah I'd like to see them try to change something else....you know like the money....and leave the kids in school alone for a bit so they can actually learn something. If they are really worried about kids why don't they try to change the fact that sooooo many kids can't pass a WASL exam in 11th grade when the test is written at an 8th grade level? See I worry about crap like that vs the undefined vague phrase "under God" in the pledge. But then again I'm one of those weirdos who doesn't mind my child hearing the phrase God or accidently picking up some patriotism for their counrty!

The government-run monopoly of education that squelches innovation and competition is a separate matter, and has nothing to do with the Pledge of Allegiance. Furthermore, you already know this fully well and are just using this as a strawman.
 
Kandahar said:
Then what would be the tragedy in taking "Under God" out of the Pledge or "In God We Trust" off the money? That's just being neutral, it's not saying that we are NOT a nation under God or that we DON'T trust in God.

There is no tragedy. I wouldn't care if they changed the money or lost the "under God" in the pledge. I think the greater tragedy is in the idea that patriotism is a "bad" thing or a dirty word.That really burns me up a bit. The God thing doesn't really bother me one way or the other except that there are so many more important things to be concerned about when it comes to our schools.
 
talloulou said:
I think the greater tragedy is in the idea that patriotism is a "bad" thing or a dirty word.

You mentioned that you don't believe patriotism means that one thinks his own nation is the best or that all others are bad; that it simply means that one looks out for his own nation first, just as one looks out for his family first.

Unfortunately, the analogy does not hold. First of all, one knows one's family members and probably loves them. One does not know or love "the American people" as a whole.

Furthermore, what makes you think that the analogy of looking-out-for-your-own-kind-first holds for patriotism, but not, say, racism? Substitute the word "white" for "American" and see how it sounds. How is that any different? Both cultivate an "us versus them" mentality, both categorize people into arbitrary groups that they have no control over, and taken to their logical conclusions both assume that one's own group is more important than all others.

Looking out for one's own family before others is admirable. I don't see how looking out for one's race, or one's religion, or one's country before all others is anything other than completely reprehensible.
 
talloulou said:
I think the pledge of allegiance in the morning is nice and teaches kids respect for their country and pride in their country. Clearly not everyone believes pride and respect for ones country is good.

Where I work, we have a substantial number of educators and students who aren't citizens of the US. You don't have to be a citizen of the US to go to a public school, nor do you have to be one to be an educator at a US school.

Mind you, these students aren't "illegals" - most are children of professionals from India, Pakistan, Russia, China or Japan.

It's very awkward for these non-Americans to be put in a position to "pledge allegiance" to a country that is not their own every morning - god or no god.
Would you like to require those people to pledge their allegiance to the US just because they're here?

Or put it this way, let's say you work for Lenovo (A Chinese Company that bought a big chunk of IBM) Lenovo is moving their headquarters to China. My cousin was asked to move to China for 3 years while Lenovo sets up shop. Would you want his children , or yours, to "pledge allegiance" to the Chinese Government every morning?
 
hipsterdufus said:
Where I work, we have a substantial number of educators and students who aren't citizens of the US. You don't have to be a citizen of the US to go to a public school, nor do you have to be one to be an educator at a US school.

Mind you, these students aren't "illegals" - most are children of professionals from India, Pakistan, Russia, China or Japan.

It's very awkward for these non-Americans to be put in a position to "pledge allegiance" to a country that is not their own every morning - god or no god.
Would you like to require those people to pledge their allegiance to the US just because they're here?

Or put it this way, let's say you work for Lenovo (A Chinese Company that bought a big chunk of IBM) Lenovo is moving their headquarters to China. My cousin was asked to move to China for 3 years while Lenovo sets up shop. Would you want his children , or yours, to "pledge allegiance" to the Chinese Government every morning?

What's the big deal....when you are in another country you respect their customs. I guarantee you that if I moved my family to China we would probably have to do all kinds of things we wouldn't have to do here. People understand that and get over it.

Look at the whole Mexico illegal alien thing. Do you know even if you have a Visa to be in Mexico legally you cannot protest. If you protest in the street you will be deported from Mexico whether your visa is valid or not. But does that stop the Mexican government from commenting on why we in the US should tolerate illegals protesting in the streets???? Nope. That's 'cause the world is full of hypocrites. If my kids were in another country due to the fact that I willingly moved them there I would have no problem with them learning the customs and following traditions in schools. If I did.....then I'd move. That simple.

Certainly you are not suggesting we change our traditions for people who are not even citizens????? That's absurd. And that gets back to my whole point on the patriotism thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom