Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

AlbqOwl · Sep 19, 2005

alex said:
I cannot believe I just read this. It doesn't interfer with an Atheist's liberties?

"Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

"...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Show where in The Constitution it says the government can endorse religion.

Show me how the phrase 'under God' endorses religion. What religion does it endorse? What God does it refer to? Whose God is it?

And show me the Constitutional clause that says government cannot mention, acknowledge, or include religion. Show me the article that says no evidence of any religious belief may be part of anything having to do with government.

Show me how the athiest is required or coerced in any way into reciting the phrase s/he doesn't believe. Show me the reward or punishment for anyone who does or does not recite the Pledge as it is currently written.

Nobody's rights are affected at all. It is a matter of community preference. When the community no longer wants it, it will cease to exist. Until then, I suggest the athiests accept their minority status gracefully and stop trying to force others into behaving in an equally godless manner. Coercion and shame go both ways. It is just as offensive for an athiest to attempt to force his preferences and lifestyle on a person of faith as it is for a person of faith to attempt to force his preferences and liestyle onto an athiest.

shuamort · Sep 19, 2005

AlbqOwl said:
Show me how the phrase 'under God' endorses religion. What religion does it endorse? What God does it refer to? Whose God is it?

And show me the Constitutional clause that says government cannot mention, acknowledge, or include religion. Show me the article that says no evidence of any religious belief may be part of anything having to do with government.

Show me how the athiest is required or coerced in any way into reciting the phrase s/he doesn't believe. Show me the reward or punishment for anyone who does or does not recite the Pledge as it is currently written.

Nobody's rights are affected at all. It is a matter of community preference. When the community no longer wants it, it will cease to exist. Until then, I suggest the athiests accept their minority status gracefully and stop trying to force others into behaving in an equally godless manner. Coercion and shame go both ways. It is just as offensive for an athiest to attempt to force his preferences and lifestyle on a person of faith as it is for a person of faith to attempt to force his preferences and liestyle onto an athiest.

It's like all of the arguments I've offered so far are being ignored. Go back and read my posts and try and refute those facts.

Cheers.

Columbusite · Sep 19, 2005

AlbqOwl said:
However much you resent any deference to a diety, the fact remains that the United States was founded with a diety in mind. This would suggest that both historically and culturally, the phrase 'under God' is appropriate in the Pledge. To wit:

America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and
state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledge God in their
state constitutions:

Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the
favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following
Constitution ..

Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to
those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ..

Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to
Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...

Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful
to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...

California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California,
grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .

Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe .

Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with
gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy ...

Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature,
the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the
dictates of their consciences .

Florida 1845, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to
Almighty God for our constitutional liberty ... establish this
Constitution...

Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection
and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine
Guidance . establish this Constitution

Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to
Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings ..

Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful
to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath
so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our
endeavors

Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to
Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of
government

Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the
Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence
on Him for a continuation of these blessings ... establish this Constitution

Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God
for our civil and religious privileges . establish this Constitution.

Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of grateful to
Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...

Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful
to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy ..

Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine .. acknowledging with grateful
hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us
an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction

Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful
to Almighty God or our civil and religious liberty...

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts,
acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of
the Universe...in the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly
imploring His direction ...

Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful
to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom ... establish this Constitution

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota,
grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to
perpetuate its blessings

Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention
assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.

Missouri 1845, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence
for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ..
establish this Constitution ..

Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution ..

Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our
freedom .. establish this Constitution

Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to
Almighty God for our freedom . establish this Constitution ..

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural
and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own
conscience .

New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey,
grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so
long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our
endeavors
.

New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to
Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ..

New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful
to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings .

North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina,
grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil,
political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon
Him for the continuance of those

North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to
Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...

Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to
Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our
common

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to
secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure
in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of
their consciences .

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to
Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly
invoking His guidance

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island
grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath
so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South
Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this
Constitution

South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to
Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties . establish this

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible
right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their
conscience...

Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging,
with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God

Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we
establish this Constitution .

Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the
individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other
blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ...

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we owe
our Creator . can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual
duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each
other...

Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington,
grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain
this Constitution .

West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the
blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West
Virginia .. reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God .

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty
God for our freedom, domestic tranquility

Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ... establish this
Constitution .

After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one
is faced with the prospect that maybe, just maybe, the ACLU and the
out-of-control federal courts are wrong!

And finally, reflecting the sentiment of the founder of our Constitution: "Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants."--William Penn

All moot. Read my reply to Not a Democrat.

SKILMATIC · Sep 19, 2005

It's like all of the arguments I've offered so far are being ignored. Go back and read my posts and try and refute those facts.

Cheers.

HEY TRY REFUTING THIS FACT.:2wave:

cheers

Let me just say this to everyone who thinks this pledge is unconstitutional.

Are you made to say this pledge at all in your life? If you dont say this pledge is your arms twisted, do people throw in jail, do people burn you at the steak, is your family targeted, are you boycotted? I think its suffice to say this argument is done.

I dont think that saying the pledge even if your made to and substitute that phrase with whatever you want would be so wrong. Get over this argument. Its simply rediculous.

However, let me know when you get thrown in jail for not saying "under god". I will be the first to say your innocent.

steen · Sep 20, 2005

AlbqOwl said:
Yes, and since the national pledge is for ALL of us, it should not be the prerogative of a small minority to dictate what the content of it should be for everybody.

So even if it violates the US Constitution, it should be pushed through because the majority wants it?

yes, you have clearly shows how much you hate the US Constitution protection of the minority's civil rights. Your claim is one of the most un-American claims yet in this tread.

The principle at play here is that when nobody's rights are being violated and no Constitutional principle is in play, the preference of the community should prevail. In this particular case the entire nation is the 'community'. And the only reasonable way for the community to prevail is for the majority to decide it.

As long as it doesn't violate the US Constitution. But OOOPS, it does. So there goes your majority wish.

Not that you care. Christian fundies always push to have the establishment clause overriden so they can inflict their faith and unique punitive moralistic theocracy on everybody else. But you can stuff your biblical dictatorship. You want a civil war? The go right on ahead and try to establish your theocratic fundamentalist state. The blueprint already exists in Iran, but you will find Americans better able to protect their civil rights from such fundamentalism that the Iranian population was. Whatever version of Khromeni that you will find to try to lead your theocratic coup-d'etas won't survive the dictatorship.

You see, here in America we love the US Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees us. And fundie theocrats like you won't get the chance to come in and impose your punitive dictatorship on us.

Christians are certainly not the only Americans who believe in a diety. But 90 percent of Americans do believe in a diety.

Irrelevant. REAL Americans believe in the US Constitution, including the Establishment Clause.

Until that time, as nobody's rights are being violated, a majority of Americans prefer the phrase and should prevail in that preference.

You are lying as all atheists, agnostics, buddists etc are having their rights violated.

But we are not surprised. Fundie theocrat conservatives always seem to bear more false witness than nearly everybody else.

And you don't have a clue what my religious beliefs are in this matter.

But we do know that you don't give a **** about the US Constitution, instead believing that the majority has the right to impose a religious tyranny on the minority.

steen · Sep 20, 2005

AlbqOwl said:
Show me how the phrase 'under God' endorses religion. What religion does it endorse? What God does it refer to? Whose God is it?

And show me the Constitutional clause that says government cannot mention, acknowledge, or include religion. Show me the article that says no evidence of any religious belief may be part of anything having to do with government.

That was shown earlier. Why did you skip it?

Show me how the athiest is required or coerced in any way into reciting the phrase s/he doesn't believe. Show me the reward or punishment for anyone who does or does not recite the Pledge as it is currently written.

That was shown earlier. Why did you skip it?

Nobody's rights are affected at all. It is a matter of community preference. When the community no longer wants it, it will cease to exist. Until then, I suggest the athiests accept their minority status gracefully and stop trying to force others into behaving in an equally godless manner. Coercion and shame go both ways. It is just as offensive for an athiest to attempt to force his preferences and lifestyle on a person of faith as it is for a person of faith to attempt to force his preferences and liestyle onto an athiest.

And thus we witness your disregard for the US Constitution.

AlbqOwl · Sep 20, 2005

Sorry Steen. I skipped nothing, but your argument is simply illogical based on the facts that you have thus far ignored and the unverifiable and unsubstantiated points you have presented as facts. Saying that something is unconstitutional does not make it so unless there is a credible basis, and you have not shown one. Saying that your rights as an athiest (or whatever) are being violated does not make it so when you have not been able to show how any inalienable or legal right of any athiest has been violated. Further you have not shown how your not getting your preference in this matter is more unconstitutional than people of faith not getting their preference in this matter.

And again the argument has become to circular to be productive, and again I will wait until somebody provides a fresh perspective.

wrath · Sep 20, 2005

I think it's quite clear how all this is going to be played out anyway. It will go before the US Supreme Court (once again) and they will finally nail the coffin shut on this nonsense - as should have been done last time.

AlbqOwl · Sep 20, 2005

If the President is true to his promise to appoint strict constitutional constructionists to the high court, I think you are right, Wrath. One can only hope.

MSgt · Sep 20, 2005

What garbage!

The right wants to protect the flag from burners and the liberal left wish for flag burning to be protected under the "freedom of speech" as the right is accused of political tactics.

*Reverse positions*.....

The liberal left wants to protect peoples rights to personal religion, while the right wish to keep 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance under the "freedom of speech" as the left is accused of political tactics.

The hypicrocy is sickening. I have a possible solution. SINCE our politicians are so egotistical that they can rehash the "intent of our Fore Fathers" or that they are so perverted that they like to re-interpret the "intent of our Fore Fathers" when the re-interpretation serves them,

Let's look at the two subjects and put this to bed.

1) Was American flag burners an issue back in 1776?.....no.

2) Was "under God" in the Pledge back in 1892?.....no.

This political partisan crap is such jack-assery.

shuamort · Sep 20, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
HEY TRY REFUTING THIS FACT.:2wave:
Let me just say this to everyone who thinks this pledge is unconstitutional.

Are you made to say this pledge at all in your life? If you dont say this pledge is your arms twisted, do people throw in jail, do people burn you at the steak, is your family targeted, are you boycotted? I think its suffice to say this argument is done.

I dont think that saying the pledge even if your made to and substitute that phrase with whatever you want would be so wrong. Get over this argument. Its simply rediculous.

However, let me know when you get thrown in jail for not saying "under god". I will be the first to say your innocent.
cheers

I've already rebutted that fact. Go back and re-read the points I've made. The recitatition has never been the point. The point is that it was unconstitutional when the law was written in 1954 even if no one ever recited the pledge since then.

shuamort · Sep 20, 2005

AlbqOwl said:
Sorry Steen. I skipped nothing, but your argument is simply illogical based on the facts that you have thus far ignored and the unverifiable and unsubstantiated points you have presented as facts. Saying that something is unconstitutional does not make it so unless there is a credible basis, and you have not shown one.

How about a Federal Court ruling that has said that it's "Unconstitutional". Pretty credible basis there.

AlbqOwl · Sep 20, 2005

shuamort said:
How about a Federal Court ruling that has said that it's "Unconstitutional". Pretty credible basis there.

In this last case it was a District Court restricted to its own jurisdiction. Its jurisdiction does not extend to anybody else's jurisdiction. The ruling will almost certainly be kicked up to higher courts and eventually the Supreme Court who hopefully will decide the issue once and for all. The phrase is not unconsitutional. It infringes on nobody's rights. It is not an establishment of religion. To refuse the phrase does in fact prohibit the constitutionally guaranteed right to the free exercise of religion.

Let's look at this business of rights.

To infringe on your rights:

1) It would have to be mandatory for citizens to say the phrase 'under God'. It isn't.

2) The phrase 'under God' would have to favor a particular understanding or interpretation of a specific diety. It doesn't.

3) The phrase 'under God' would have to be coercive or manipulative in nature offering reward or benefit for saying it or punishment or loss of benefit by refusal to say it. Neither condition exists.

4) The phrase would have to impact on your property, or

5) The phrase would have to impact on your ability to earn a living, or

6) The phrase would have to prevent your pursuit of happiness, or

7) The phrase would have to put you or yours in physical danger, or

8) The phrase would have to restrict a constitutional freedom that you possess.

Unless you can show reasonably and conclusively that any of these conditions exist as a result of the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, it is not unconstitutional for the phrase to be there.

shuamort · Sep 20, 2005

AlbqOwl said:
In this last case it was a District Court restricted to its own jurisdiction. Its jurisdiction does not extend to anybody else's jurisdiction.

Currently, since the ruling is under appeal it only affects said district court's jurisdiction. Should SCOTUS decide not to hear the case, it will be in effect for the entire country. Thusly into the whole US' jurisdiction.

AlbqOwl said:
The ruling will almost certainly be kicked up to higher courts and eventually the Supreme Court who hopefully will decide the issue once and for all. .

It's already been decided by the federal courts. So far, I've only seen the christians complaining that the two words be taken out and they're the ones pushing it to the SCOTUS. I wonder why that is.... hmm....

AlbqOwl said:
The phrase is not unconsitutional.

And you speak with what authority? Since U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton has deemed it to be unconstitutional and he has the rights and abilities to put that pronouncement on laws, it IS unconstitutional. Should SCOTUS overturn it, that would change its status. But since they

AlbqOwl said:
It infringes on nobody's rights. It is not an establishment of religion. To refuse the phrase does in fact prohibit the constitutionally guaranteed right to the free exercise of religion.

Let's look at this business of rights.

To infringe on your rights:

1) It would have to be mandatory for citizens to say the phrase 'under God'. It isn't.

2) The phrase 'under God' would have to favor a particular understanding or interpretation of a specific diety. It doesn't.

3) The phrase 'under God' would have to be coercive or manipulative in nature offering reward or benefit for saying it or punishment or loss of benefit by refusal to say it. Neither condition exists.

4) The phrase would have to impact on your property, or

5) The phrase would have to impact on your ability to earn a living, or

6) The phrase would have to prevent your pursuit of happiness, or

7) The phrase would have to put you or yours in physical danger, or

8) The phrase would have to restrict a constitutional freedom that you possess.

Unless you can show reasonably and conclusively that any of these conditions exist as a result of the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, it is not unconstitutional for the phrase to be there.

Luckily, I don't have to. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton has already ruled as such. It's up to you to prove him wrong. Here's his 31 page opinion. (.pdf file). Go to town.

AlbqOwl · Sep 20, 2005

You'll have to show me the statute that says an unchallenged Federal judge's ruling is binding on the entire country before I'll accept that as your authority to say.

shuamort · Sep 20, 2005

AlbqOwl said:
You'll have to show me the statute that says an unchallenged Federal judge's ruling is binding on the entire country before I'll accept that as your authority to say.

American law relies on the idea of stare decisis, which basically means that what the court has once decided, it won't re-examine.

SKILMATIC · Sep 20, 2005

shuamort said:
I've already rebutted that fact. Go back and re-read the points I've made. The recitatition has never been the point. The point is that it was unconstitutional when the law was written in 1954 even if no one ever recited the pledge since then.

Omg you are gravely mistaken. You are highly misinterpreting the constitution. IN no way shape or form does it prohibit that phrase in a pledge that isnt made to be recited. Y ou need to learn that fact. Now if we were made to recite it through gov then you aare correct but until then you will proceed to be wrong. Simple as that.

shuamort · Sep 20, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
Omg you are gravely mistaken.

"Omg"? Now that's funny.

SKILMATIC said:
You are highly misinterpreting the constitution. IN no way shape or form does it prohibit that phrase in a pledge that isnt made to be recited. Y ou need to learn that fact. Now if we were made to recite it through gov then you aare correct but until then you will proceed to be wrong. Simple as that.

I've re-read your sentences over and over and over again. They still make no sense. Can you please re-write them more clearly?

SKILMATIC · Sep 20, 2005

"Omg"? Now that's funny.

I thought it was funny too.

I've re-read your sentences over and over and over again. They still make no sense. Can you please re-write them more clearly?

Well in that case it sounds like you need phonics. "It works for me." :rofl

When you can read english let me know so we can start having a debate.

AlbqOwl · Sep 20, 2005

shuamort said:
American law relies on the idea of stare decisis, which basically means that what the court has once decided, it won't re-examine.

What the court has decided, that SAME COURT won't re-examine. That certainly does not mean another court won't hear an identical case and it absolutely does not mean that what a District Judge in California decides is binding on a court in New Mexico. There are principles of precedence, and many judges use those as a deciding factor, but in no point of law is a precedence binding.

There is no law of the land that forbids the use of "under God" as it is used in the pledge, it violates nobody's rights to privacy, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, their livelihood, or conjugal privileges. The phrase is harmless, historical, traditional, cultural, and constitutional.

shuamort · Sep 20, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
When you can read english let me know so we can start having a debate.

OK, I'm ready. Now, can you write in English?

shuamort · Sep 20, 2005

AlbqOwl said:
What the court has decided, that SAME COURT won't re-examine. That certainly does not mean another court won't hear an identical case and it absolutely does not mean that what a District Judge in California decides is binding on a court in New Mexico. There are principles of precedence, and many judges use those as a deciding factor, but in no point of law is a precedence binding.

There is no law of the land that forbids the use of "under God" as it is used in the pledge, it violates nobody's rights to privacy, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, their livelihood, or conjugal privileges. The phrase is harmless, historical, traditional, cultural, and constitutional.

So, can I assume by your response that you did not read the opinion by the judge?

SKILMATIC · Sep 20, 2005

OK, I'm ready. Now, can you write in English?

I thought you liked reading in hyroglyphics? Well at least thats what I thought you prefered. But if you want I will write in English. Hows that so far? Or mabe you want me to incl. websters definitions as well?

Kelzie · Sep 20, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
I thought you liked reading in hyroglyphics? Well at least thats what I thought you prefered. But if you want I will write in English. Hows that so far? Or mabe you want me to incl. websters definitions as well?

I'd like that. If you wouldn't mind. For each word please. :mrgreen:

AlbqOwl · Sep 20, 2005

shuamort said:
So, can I assume by your response that you did not read the opinion by the judge?

I certainly did, and in my never-to-be-considered-humble opinion, the man has a few screws loose.

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

No

Pundit-licious

Well-known member

Lie Detector

Lie Detector

Member

Read Some Books

Pundit-licious

Pundit-licious

Pundit-licious

Pundit-licious

Pundit-licious

Pundit-licious

Pundit-licious

The Almighty