• 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.
marchare said:
The public schools instructing children daily to say a pledge, a solemn promise, which insists that the republic is under God, and you don’t see this as an endorsement of theism, an inculcation? C’mon.
Perhaps worst is teaching children that this republic is “under God”, and somehow guided divinely, and therefore can do no wrong. The Republic is man made, an artifact like the flag.
Click to expand...

The Pledge says a generic "under God" as symbolic of the nation's heritage, the Declaration of Independence, acknowledgement that the Preamble of EVERY state constitution (except I think Oregon or Washington) makes reference to God or a Creator, in respect for the 90+ percent of Americans who do believe in some form of higher power, and in recognition of the nation's culture. The Pledge does not state who God is, what God is, or how God is to be seen or understood, and there is no implication that God is to be worshipped.

The phrase takes nothing away from you or anybody else, it has failed to corrupt or harm anybody in its 50+ years of existence, and it is important to a large majority of Americans. Get over it.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
The Pledge says a generic "under God" as symbolic of the nation's heritage, the Declaration of Independence, acknowledgement that the Preamble of EVERY state constitution (except I think Oregon or Washington) makes reference to God or a Creator, in respect for the 90+ percent of Americans who do believe in some form of higher power, and in recognition of the nation's culture.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. It violates the establishment clause, it imposed a religious "fiat" on people who disgrees with it. It violates the US Constitution.
The Pledge does not state who God is, what God is, or how God is to be seen or understood, and there is no implication that God is to be worshipped.
Click to expand...
it pushes the implication that there is a God. Again, this is prohibited per the US Constitution. Yes, you can try to Change the US Constitution and remove the establishment clause, having Pat Robertson or Carl Rove decide what religion you should follow if THAT is what you want
 
AlbqOwl said:
Personally I think those legislators who want services of a chaplain should hire one out of pocket; or I can't imagine that there aren't plenty of clergy types all over Washington who wouldn't be thrilled to come to the chamber and give the opening prayer on a volunteer basis. Or they could take turns themselves. I agree that the chaplain, paid for with taxpayer money, is out of line.



No, I don't think the Constitution either says nor implies that there is total separation. What is says is that government shall not set up its own religion, it shall not require religion, and it shall not interfere with religion. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that bans religion in government or anywhere else, however. Such a notion is strictly an invention of modern judges.
Click to expand...

We agree about the chaplains, but statement that there is nothing in the Constitution that bans religion in government is staggering. The Constitution says the government can't make a law respecting an establishment of religion, interfere with the people's right to practice religion, and cannot use a religious test for public office. Religion is both times mentioned in an exclusionary matter. Notice the words "respecting an establishment" so not just an establishment but anything leading up to one. No one is stopping anyone from adding that phrase if they choose, but like I said, the state is not to do that. We have separation of chuirch and state and I don't know how much clearer that could be. So I fail to see how this is unfair to anyone. Religious people can add "under God" and non-Christians and non-religious people, in order to recite the pledge do not have to put up with an unconstitutional state sponsored religious statement. The government cannot back religion, but that doesn't mean the people in it can't be religious. They just be religious with the state's backing. Just as it would be unconstitutional for the pledge to say "one nation, without God" for endorsing Atheism, so is it unconstitutional for it to say "one nation, under God". In a later post you mention the DoI and state constitution preambles to support your stance. This just shows your ignorance on the matter. The DoI is not what we base our laws on (that would be the Constitution) and you can throw as many preambles at me as you wish as they carry no legal weigth whatsoever. You're free to believe they do, but you'd be wrong.
 
steen said:
Irrelevant. It violates the establishment clause, it imposed a religious "fiat" on people who disgrees with it. It violates the US Constitution.
it pushes the implication that there is a God. Again, this is prohibited per the US Constitution. Yes, you can try to Change the US Constitution and remove the establishment clause, having Pat Robertson or Carl Rove decide what religion you should follow if THAT is what you want
Click to expand...

Correct, short, and sweet.
 
Sorry Gentlemen. The whole intent of the First Amendment was to prevent the Federal government from restricting religious freedom or imposing any requirement for a specific religion on anybody. The Constitution further specifies that this protection extends to those elected to government, hired by government, and appointed by government as well. That protection extends to a Pledge of Allegiance that is said the way most Americans wish to say it and the law does not require anyone to say it who does not wish to say it. It is not a requirement of citizenship nor eligibility for elected office or to be hired or to be appointed to government positions.

It is not an establishment of religion, and therefore it is not unconstitutional.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Sorry Gentlemen. The whole intent of the First Amendment was to prevent the Federal government from restricting religious freedom or imposing any requirement for a specific religion on anybody. The Constitution further specifies that this protection extends to those elected to government, hired by government, and appointed by government as well. That protection extends to a Pledge of Allegiance that is said the way most Americans wish to say it and the law does not require anyone to say it who does not wish to say it. It is not a requirement of citizenship nor eligibility for elected office or to be hired or to be appointed to government positions.

It is not an establishment of religion, and therefore it is not unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

You didn't read my post and you don't comprehend a very important part of the 1st amendment; "Congress shalll make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That is more than just preventing the establishment of religion like I said earlier. Yes, freedom of religion applies to all citizens including those in government. I see no one arguing that point. That extends to the pledge in that anyone can midify as they wish, however the government has no business backing religion or non-religion. If you want to make it specifically religious add "under God/Allah/Ahura Mazda/etc". If you want to make it specifically irreligious add "without God/etc". This is the way it should be with citizens making the option of making the pledge religious/irreligious. No one is prevented from saying it the way they want and the government is not siding with either in this case. I don't see how you can argue with that. Yes the law doesn't require people to say the pledge, but the pledge in it's current state says we are "under God" and has no right to do so. It was added with the purpose of saying that we are under the Christian God (although a generic "God" isn't more permissible either). It only makes sense that we get a secular government from a secular Constitution.
 
Until you can make a reasoned argument that the undescribed and undefined phrase 'under God' is an establishment of religion, person preferences or personal interpretations count for naught. If you think it is religious, the next person may think it is historical, the next cultural, the next symbolic, the next respecting of heritage. What the phrase means to me is no doubt entirely different than imagery the phrase conjures up in you.

The phrase is not unconstitutional because it is not an establishment of religion. And the Constitution in no way suggests that there shall not be any religious references attached to or associated with government. It's just that government can neither require, forbid, reward, or punish you according to what you believe respective of religion.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
That protection extends to a Pledge of Allegiance that is said the way most Americans wish to say it and the law does not require anyone to say it who does not wish to say it. It is not a requirement of citizenship nor eligibility for elected office or to be hired or to be appointed to government positions.

It is not an establishment of religion, and therefore it is not unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
The reality is that YOU are wrong, it is, according to the law of the land, ILLEGAL to use the words "Under God" in the Pleadge and will be so from now on.

Allow me to repeat this key fact? "Under God" is NOT permitted in the Pledge, period, no exceptions unless you want to say those words yourself, that is always allowed.

It is ILLEGAL for our government to bring God into anything they do on an official basis. That does not mean that anyone, if politicians are prohibited from mentioning God one zillion times in public or private.

I say "get over it" if you want to say "Under God" do so! Just leave it out of the official government version.

This is not about the Pledge, it is about the intrusion of our government into religion which is ILLEGAL. Very simple indeed.
 
It isn't illegal because YOU say it is illegal. It is illegal only if the law says it is illegal, and in my opinion, any law that says it is illegal is in itself unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment.

This argument has become too circular to be productive to continue. So until someone offers a fresh perspective, I will retire for now.

Thank you all my esteemed opponents on this issue--at least most of you--for an intelligent and worthy debate and for your courtesy.
 
As I already said it does not matter what the people say that want God out of everything in this country.......The 9th circuit court is a radical court filled with activist jusdges whose decisions are constantly overturned by the SCOTUS and that is what will happen in this case........

You can take it to the bank.....
 
Navy Pride said:
As I already said it does not matter what the people say that want God out of everything in this country.......The 9th circuit court is a radical court filled with activist jusdges whose decisions are constantly overturned by the SCOTUS and that is what will happen in this case........

You can take it to the bank.....
Click to expand...

We can only hope. It makes it all the more critical that the President appoint strict Constitutional constructionists--such as Judge Roberts appears to be--to the high court and we can hope that so will the next President. That will ensure that our most cherished protections and freedoms will not be taken away by activist judges with their own agendas.

As I said earlier, lose a little freedom here....a minor freedom there...no real big deal. But add them all up and before long you realize you have lost something huge. It's time to take a stand for those of us who do not wish our freedoms undermined by small minorities with an agenda aided and abetted by activist judges who make law instead of interpret it.

If we want 'under God' in the Pledge, it hurts no one, it does not violate the Constitution, and it should stand. At such time as a majority does not want the phrase, then it should go. Again it would hurt no one and would not violate the Constitution.
 
AlbqOwl said:
It isn't illegal because YOU say it is illegal. It is illegal only if the law says it is illegal, and in my opinion, any law that says it is illegal is in itself unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
It IS the 1st Amendment that dictates the Government not imposing religion on anybody. And you obviously missed what was in the post above yours. YOU are not restricted in your speech. YOU are free to include it all you want. But the Government can't impose any form of religion on anybody.

YOU are free to say "Under God" all you want. You just can't make anybody else say it.

So the very premise of your claim is incorrect, your 1st Amendment rights clearly remain intact.
 
AlbqOwl said:
If we want 'under God' in the Pledge, it hurts no one,
Click to expand...
Your claim is false. It hurts those who do not have any belief in God, and whom you are inflicting Religion throiugh Government order. You are hurting those who do not believe as you do. Yes, fundies have tried to get around the Establishment Clause for generations, but it still is the infliction of Government religion, something clearly illegal. Fundies don't LIKE the US Constitution because it gives freedom to those who don't believe as they do. Well, that's just to bad, that the fundies don't get to push their illegal theocracy on everybody else.

it does not violate the Constitution,
Click to expand...
It violates the establishment clause.
and it should stand.
Click to expand...
Though it imposes religion on those who don;t want it, in strict violation of the US Constitution? Why do you hate the Constitution so much?
At such time as a majority does not want the phrase, then it should go.
Click to expand...
Ah, so you believe the majority should always be right, and the entire Bill of Rights should be abolished? It is OK for the majority to impose on the minority, even at the expense of their Civil Rights? Somehow you seem to be in disagreement with what we have decided American Values to be. Hmm....
Again it would hurt no one and would not violate the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Both claims are false.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Its like when a athiest sees a church. Is the athiest going to get all hissy fitted casue he sees a church and becasue he sees one it offends him? No that would be rediculous. And if that was the case we would have to do away with all churches and other religious things. The point is its rediculous to say that.
Click to expand...

Well it is rediculous because it is a completely bogus statement. Those who do not believe in Chrisitanity are certainly trying to get churches torn down and not has a "hissy fit" as you so childishly put it. It has nothing to do with you PRIVATE worship in your church or home or other private property. It has to do with our NATION our collective NATION whcih ALL of us are citizens of and not just YOU. But again it is telling that your side has to so completely misrepersent the other side when you know full well it has nothing to do with your private worship.

And its the same instance on the pledge.
Click to expand...

No it is not it is completely different, you can't make the intellicual distinctintion between the private religious and the public gatherings where YOU want YOUR religious practices injected?

No one makes you say the pledge
Click to expand...

Fine then let's take out the references to faith and then you don't have to say it anymore. Or let's change it to Allah and you don't have to say it anymore.

Why do YOU insist of making the pledge, as codified under law, devisive when it clearly states we should be indivisable.

Tell me why you insist on the under God phrase even being in there.

nor does anyone make you watch a cross or look at a church.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with the issue.
 
Hoot said:
I think it's a shame that the courts' time has to be wasted on such an unimportant matter. It's also a shame that someone felt they had to bring a lawsuit. Where do these people come from?

If you don't like your children saying "under God," then don't say it.
Click to expand...

Take the religious reference out and then if you don't like saying the pledge then don't say it.
 
Driving along the highway this morning, I noticed a traffic informational sign that denoted (by arrow and name) the location of a house of worship. I suppose those small tokens will be the next victim of 'religious cleansing'.


 
AlbqOwl said:
The phrase takes nothing away from you or anybody else, it has failed to corrupt or harm anybody in its 50+ years of existence, and it is important to a large majority of Americans. Get over it…….Until you can make a reasoned argument that the undescribed and undefined phrase 'under God' is an establishment of religion, person preferences or personal interpretations count for naught. If you think it is religious, the next person may think it is historical, the next cultural, the next symbolic, the next respecting of heritage. What the phrase means to me is no doubt entirely different than imagery the phrase conjures up in you……..It isn't illegal because YOU say it is illegal. It is illegal only if the law says it is illegal, and in my opinion, any law that says it is illegal is in itself unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment………If we want 'under God' in the Pledge, it hurts no one, it does not violate the Constitution, and it should stand. At such time as a majority does not want the phrase, then it should go. Again it would hurt no one and would not violate the Constitution.
Click to expand...
It hurts no one?
My wife and I have been home schooling our daughter since March ‘03. I just couldn’t subject her to daily humiliation of pledging to a thing, let alone the repeating, hand on heart, that this thing is “under God”, or the lie that there is “liberty and justice for all”.
“She has the right to remain seated and not say anything”, you may say. Tell that to the rest of the kids, the ones who taunted her to the point of tears. Please note the utter callousness of “it hurts no one”. He didn’t see her crying, and I doubt he has empathy for anyone but “people of faith” as he calls them.
Don’t let this person fool you. He knows darn well that nobody wants to stop him from leading his family in the Pledge, or prayer, or what words to say. Doesn’t anyone wonder why he insists that the First Amendment mandates state expression of faith of the majority? I doubt he will tell us the real motivation. You see, It’s not about his rights or his family or his faith, since he has every right, independently pledge, pray, worship, as he pleases. It’s your kids soul he’s after.
 
Navy Pride said:
The 9th circuit court is a radical court filled with activist jusdges whose decisions are constantly overturned by the SCOTUS and that is what will happen in this case.
Click to expand...
Prove it, please? I am very interested in seeing what rulings if any have been overturned by the Supremes? Wait a minute, that's not enough! You wrote that their decisions are "constantly overturned by the SCOTUS" and I would love to see you prove this blustery and what I believe to be completely untrue statement.

Let's see if you're able to back up your statement meant to attack people without proof just like many Republicans like to do. Where's the beef Mr. Pride.

You wrote that the decision re "Under God" will not stand the Supreme test (if it even ever gets tested IMHO) so now let's see if Navy Pride can pass the truth in post test? I think you need to post a detailed list of rulings made by the 9th Circuit Court that have been overturned by the Supremes. Not one, not two, but lots because you wrote it is happening "constantly."

The ball is in your court Mr. Pride. Are you going to score or dribble it off your foot?
 
AlbqOwl said:
If we want 'under God' in the Pledge, it hurts no one, it does not violate the Constitution, and it should stand.
Click to expand...
Simply an untrue statement, sorry. It is ILLEGAL and has been ruled so. Until it is challenged and changed it is now officially unconstitutional and against the law. Whether you think its right or not does not matter, you're not a judge.
AlbqOwl said:
At such time as a majority does not want the phrase, then it should go. Again it would hurt no one and would not violate the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Fortunately our founding fathers were way smarter than this statement. They recognized that majority rule is not the be all end all in deciding constitutionality so people who argue that line of thinking don't have a leg to stand on in the eyes of the law.

You're free to believe what you like and you're most definitely free to say "Under God" whenever you recite the pledge, no one will stop you. What you cannot do is make it an official part of the Pledge and no amount of whining or denying will change this oh so simple fact.

How would you feel if it said instead "Under Jesus"? The majority of Americans would want that too? Talk about a can of worms!

I'm Jewish and I would be excluded if it said "Under Jesus." That is wrong and illegal. The exact same logic applies to "Under God" because it excludes millions and millions of Americans who are not OK with God being in their government nor in their tax dollars nor anywhere else that government hangs out.

Now if you said change it to "Under Yankees" you might persuade me to allow that....:mrgreen:
 
marchare said:
It hurts no one?
My wife and I have been home schooling our daughter since March ‘03. I just couldn’t subject her to daily humiliation of pledging to a thing, let alone the repeating, hand on heart, that this thing is “under God”, or the lie that there is “liberty and justice for all”.
“She has the right to remain seated and not say anything”, you may say. Tell that to the rest of the kids, the ones who taunted her to the point of tears. Please note the utter callousness of “it hurts no one”. He didn’t see her crying, and I doubt he has empathy for anyone but “people of faith” as he calls them.
Don’t let this person fool you. He knows darn well that nobody wants to stop him from leading his family in the Pledge, or prayer, or what words to say. Doesn’t anyone wonder why he insists that the First Amendment mandates state expression of faith of the majority? I doubt he will tell us the real motivation. You see, It’s not about his rights or his family or his faith, since he has every right, independently pledge, pray, worship, as he pleases. It’s your kids soul he’s after.
Click to expand...
\

And I would homeschool a child rather than have him/her exposed to a school system in which his/her belief in God was unacceptable or where people got their shorts in a wad over two words in a Pledge of Allegiance or even in a Pledge of Allegiance without those two words.

The difference between you and yours and me and mine at this time is that I am in the majority. The next time, the situations may be reversed and I won't be able to force the majority to bow to my preference either.

So if the school is unacceptable to you, then sure, home school. Meanwhile, neither her rights nor anybody else's rights are being violated. When no individual rights are involved, nobody gets to dicate how society shall be at the expense of the majority preference. Or at least they should not get to dictate how society shall be at the expense of the majority preference.

Any teacher that would not put an instant stop to taunting in the classroom should be fired. But so long as the activity is legal and sanctioned, the others should not have to give up something important to them because one child doesn't enjoy it.
 
Last edited:
Alex to you
Quote:
Where in our Constitution are "godly principles"?

SKILMATIC said:
You cant just look at one piece of literature and conclude anything you must look at the whole picture. The fact is up and down the billl of rights and the ammendments were all provinged by Gods devine human rights.
Click to expand...

Really?

What "godly principle" is the three branches of government based on?
What "godly principle" is our Republican form of government based on?
What "godly principle" is freedom of speech based on?
What "godly principle" is freedom of religion based on (I really want to hear that explaination)?
What "godly principle" is the right to keep and bear arms based on?
What "godly principle" is the writ of habeous corpus based on?
What "godly principle" is property rights based on?
What "godly principle" is the right to trial by jury based on?

Those are founding principles of our country, what are the "godly principles"?

Please tell us which specific parts of the Consitution and Bill of Rights are found in the Bible.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The difference between you and yours and me and mine at this time is that I am in the majority. The next time, the situations may be reversed and I won't be able to force the majority to bow to my preference either.
Click to expand...
You TRULY are utterly ignorant of the US Constitution. It's purpose is majorly to protect the minorities from the "tyrrany of the majority." Your very comment here shows how truly ignorant you are of these matters.
So if the school is unacceptable to you, then sure, home school. Meanwhile, neither her rights nor anybody else's rights are being violated.
Click to expand...
Per the US Constitution, yes they are. And this has been explained to you and you simply reject it. hence you are now outright lying. This is disappointing as I had not taken you for an outright liar.
When no individual rights are involved, nobody gets to dicate how society shall be at the expense of the majority preference.
Click to expand...
But the individual right of not having religion forced on them IS being violated here. So your clkaim is false.
Or at least they should not get to dictate how society shall be at the expense of the majority preference.
Click to expand...
So you spit on on the US Constitution. Yes, I am not surprised.
Any teacher that would not put an instant stop to taunting in the classroom should be fired.
Click to expand...
Uhum, that wors so well, have a teacher walk with that kid every monent they are in school to prevent bullying. Your remarks are now getting downright stupid.
But so long as the activity is legal and sanctioned, the others should not have to give up something important to them because one child doesn't enjoy it.
Click to expand...
Yes, they should have to, as long as the one's rights are protected by the US Constitution, in this case the Esstablishment Clause.
 
Stinger said:
Alex to you
Quote:
Where in our Constitution are "godly principles"?



Really?

What "godly principle" is the three branches of government based on?
What "godly principle" is our Republican form of government based on?
What "godly principle" is freedom of speech based on?
What "godly principle" is freedom of religion based on (I really want to hear that explaination)?
What "godly principle" is the right to keep and bear arms based on?
What "godly principle" is the writ of habeous corpus based on?
What "godly principle" is property rights based on?
What "godly principle" is the right to trial by jury based on?

Those are founding principles of our country, what are the "godly principles"?

Please tell us which specific parts of the Consitution and Bill of Rights are found in the Bible.
Click to expand...
As far as I understand, a lot of this came from the Iroquois Confederacy, right? Nothing biblical about that.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The difference between you and yours and me and mine at this time is that I am in the majority. The next time, the situations may be reversed and I won't be able to force the majority to bow to my preference either.
Click to expand...
I think you have been taking long pulls on the bubbling bong of bigotry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom