• 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.
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. 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.
Click to expand...

I did address this, you chose to ignore it. See post #39 in this thread.
 
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. 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.
Click to expand...

Wrong. When it comes to religion, the Supreme Court has set up The Lemon Test (Lemon vs. Kurtzman). All religious cases before the court must pass all the following conditions:

1.The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

"Under god" in the pledge violates all these conditions.

Goes to show how much you know about our legal system.
 
alex said:
I did address this, you chose to ignore it. See post #39 in this thread.
Click to expand...

Actually I think it was post #38. But there, Alex, you just stated in a different way that the Pledge is unconstitutional without explaining HOW. That's something all you anti-Pledge-as-it-is people keep doing--you restate, repeat, reword, reemphasize that it is not constitutional but you can provide no law, no statute, not even a logical reason for why it is not. Not one of you has been able to state a single instance of how you are personally or materially injured, compromised, coerced, persuaded, or threatened by those two little words 'under God'. Not one of you can provide a single definition of what those two words mean that is not purely speculation on your part.

The words are not an establishment of religion. They are cultural, historical, traditional or any of a dozen other adjectives, but they are not required of any citizen nor is there any reward or punishment for saying or not saying them.

The words are not unconstitutional.
 
Wrong. When it comes to religion, the Supreme Court has set up The Lemon Test (Lemon vs. Kurtzman). All religious cases before the court must pass all the following conditions:

1.The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

"Under god" in the pledge violates all these conditions.

Goes to show how much you know about our legal system.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with a pledge that isnt made to be recited. I am sorry but its not unconstitutional if its not made to be recited. All of you who oppose this is wrong. If it werent dont you think it wouldve changed already? But no tonly 4 schools arent made to say under god.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Actually I think it was post #38. But there, Alex, you just stated in a different way that the Pledge is unconstitutional without explaining HOW. That's something all you anti-Pledge-as-it-is people keep doing--you restate, repeat, reword, reemphasize that it is not constitutional but you can provide no law, no statute, not even a logical reason for why it is not. Not one of you has been able to state a single instance of how you are personally or materially injured, compromised, coerced, persuaded, or threatened by those two little words 'under God'. Not one of you can provide a single definition of what those two words mean that is not purely speculation on your part.

The words are not an establishment of religion. They are cultural, historical, traditional or any of a dozen other adjectives, but they are not required of any citizen nor is there any reward or punishment for saying or not saying them.

The words are not unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Once again, I have provided what you asked for and you chose to ignore it. You discredit yourself with every post.
 
Once again, I have provided what you asked for and you chose to ignore it. You discredit yourself with every post.
Click to expand...

Actually I think this phrase is what I call a vice versa phrase.
 
SKILMATIC said:
This has nothing to do with a pledge that isnt made to be recited. I am sorry but its not unconstitutional if its not made to be recited. All of you who oppose this is wrong. If it werent dont you think it wouldve changed already? But no tonly 4 schools arent made to say under god.
Click to expand...

Irrational post. Where do the conditions state that?
 
Something interesting to note that I wasn't aware of: school led prayer was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court despite it being optional. So the whole "you have the choice not to say it" argument must be given up.
http://fray.slate.msn.com/id/2067499/
 
Something interesting to note that I wasn't aware of: school led prayer was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court despite it being optional. So the whole "you have the choice not to say it" argument must be given up.
Click to expand...


Bologna. Talk to people who attended school in those day in ages and they will tell you they were made to pray. I know all of my grandparents were. I dont know about yours but mine was subject to pray. The only choice they had was that they could pray to whatever god they chose as far as religion goes. But they had to pray in the time of prayer. That argument is hogwash.

Try getting facts from people who have been there in those times instead of reading some athiest column
 
SKILMATIC said:
Bologna. Talk to people who attended school in those day in ages and they will tell you they were made to pray. I know all of my grandparents were. I dont know about yours but mine was subject to pray. The only choice they had was that they could pray to whatever god they chose as far as religion goes. But they had to pray in the time of prayer. That argument is hogwash.

Try getting facts from people who have been there in those times instead of reading some athiest column
Click to expand...
I disagree, sorry.

Here's a very simple example of why religion is not part of our government. Ready? There is not ONE MENTION of God in the Constitution, not a one.

If our founding fathers had wanted God mentioned in our public areas that are supported by taxpayer dollars they would have mentioned God at least once.

It's amazing to me that all of the bible thumpers out there want to shove God down people's throats and think they're right, amazing!
 
Last edited:
26 X World Champs said:
I disagree, sorry.

Here's a very simple example of why religion is not part of our government. Ready? There is not ONE MENTION of God in the Constitution, not a one.

If our founding fathers had wanted God mentioned in our public areas that are supported by taxpayer dollars they would have mentioned God at least once.

It's amazing to me that all of the bible thumpers out there want to shove God down people's throats and think they're right, amazing!
Click to expand...

There are a million things that we take for granted as lawful, our right, our privilege that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

The fact is, however, that very credible studies have indicated that 90 percent or better of all Americans do believe in some sort of diety.

It does the people who believe in a god no harm whatsoever if the phrase 'under God' is removed from the Pledge or remains. They have no constitutional right for it to be there.

It does the people who do not believe in a god no harm whatsoever if the phrase 'under God' is removed from the Pledge or remains. They have no constitutional right to demand that it be removed.

Because the phrase harms no one, affords no advantage or disadvantage to anybody, the only reasonable way to decide the issue is via majority vote. In this case, the majority happens to want the phrase 'under God' to be there.

At suchtime as the majority wants it removed, it will be removed.

Why should the godless have more authority to say there shall be no such phrase as the believers have to say that they want it?

It is the only way to handle issues like this don't you think?
 
I disagree, sorry.

Here's a very simple example of why religion is not part of our government. Ready? There is not ONE MENTION of God in the Constitution, not a one.

If our founding fathers had wanted God mentioned in our public areas that are supported by taxpayer dollars they would have mentioned God at least once.

It's amazing to me that all of the bible thumpers out there want to shove God down people's throats and think they're right, amazing!
Click to expand...

Actually on the contrary my fun loving friend, I just said its not unconstitutional for anything that is not made to do or say by the gov. If gov doesnt make you or enforce you to say the pleadge then its not unconstitutional. Now once they make you recite it and if you dont do so they punish you then I can see it being unconstitutional. Cause I beleive that no one should make you say or do anything. Thats totalitarianistic. And thats wrong.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Bologna. Talk to people who attended school in those day in ages and they will tell you they were made to pray. I know all of my grandparents were. I dont know about yours but mine was subject to pray. The only choice they had was that they could pray to whatever god they chose as far as religion goes. But they had to pray in the time of prayer. That argument is hogwash.

Try getting facts from people who have been there in those times instead of reading some athiest column
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, but whether it was really optional or not (officially it was, although when it was made optional I don't know, and I'd guess before it was going to be found unconstitutional as an attempt to keep it going on in school) is not the main issue. Even if all schools actually did allow you to sit silent while prayers went on, that would still be unconstitutional. We are talking about the government endorsing religion. That was the constitutional problem with school led prayer in, but now instead of a school prayer we are talking about the phrase added to the pledge.
 
I see what you're saying, but whether it was really optional or not (officially it was, although when it was made optional I don't know, and I'd guess before it was going to be found unconstitutional as an attempt to keep it going on in school) is not the main issue. Even if all schools actually did allow you to sit silent while prayers went on, that would still be unconstitutional. We are talking about the government endorsing religion. That was the constitutional problem with school led prayer in, but now instead of a school prayer we are talking about the phrase added to the pledge.
Click to expand...

No no no, the separation between church and state was only implemented to prevent instances in the early european times when the catholic religion ruled the law which didnt work very well by the way. It was also implemented for the reason of prohibiting reformations. They saw it that in order for society and for the gov body to work properly over long periods of time they needed to separate the conglomerates of church and state so to say. In other words they needed to be seperated in the form that no one could have say over the other.

That had nothing to do with the state endorsing prayer. Which is also not any of the talking points. It is the fact whether or not the church can tell you whether you can pray at school or not which in all factness it cant tell you whether you can or not you have the freedom to do which ever you choose much like in the case of the pledge you have the freedom to recite it or not.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Actually on the contrary my fun loving friend, I just said its not unconstitutional for anything that is not made to do or say by the gov. If gov doesnt make you or enforce you to say the pleadge then its not unconstitutional. Now once they make you recite it and if you dont do so they punish you then I can see it being unconstitutional. Cause I beleive that no one should make you say or do anything. Thats totalitarianistic. And thats wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is the heart of it. It is not required. Now admittedly, if the Pledge said 'under no god', I wouldn't like it and I wouldn't say it, but, if that is what the majority wanted, I would just shut up and wait until it was over. In matters that do not violate anybody's rights, the majority preference should prevail.

But some wish for it not to be allowed. They even go so far as to say the "Christians" are trying for force their religion down the throats of the nonbelievers. But in fact, they are trying to force their nonbelief down the throats of the believers even though the nonbelievers are in the minority. It would be disruptive to the recitation to add words that are not included. It is in no way disruptive to just not say any 'offensive' words or just not to say the Pledge at all when it is recited. There is a degree of tolerance and courtesy at stake here.

PROPOSITION: Who should decide what lifestyle, culture, or practices shall be the identity of the community? Does the Constitution suggest that the people will decide that or does the government dictate that? Should the lifestyle, culture, traditions that people enjoy be decided by some activist judge with his own ax to grind? It's fine if he thnks like you do. It is not so fine if he does not.

It is no contest when Constitutional rights are at stake. The majority must not be allowed to override the rights of the few or even the one.

The one rule that we should all agree on, however, is that if nobody's rights are at risk, the community should decide. And as it is likely that not all will agree, that decision should be by majority decision. There is no other fair way to decide such things.
 
Last edited:
SKILMATIC said:
No no no, the separation between church and state was only implemented to prevent instances in the early european times when the catholic religion ruled the law which didnt work very well by the way. It was also implemented for the reason of prohibiting reformations. They saw it that in order for society and for the gov body to work properly over long periods of time they needed to separate the conglomerates of church and state so to say. In other words they needed to be seperated in the form that no one could have say over the other.

That had nothing to do with the state endorsing prayer. Which is also not any of the talking points. It is the fact whether or not the church can tell you whether you can pray at school or not which in all factness it cant tell you whether you can or not you have the freedom to do which ever you choose much like in the case of the pledge you have the freedom to recite it or not.
Click to expand...


If you are aware of what happened when church and state mix then I don't see how you can be for a pledge which states we are under the authority of the Christian God. Separation wasn't just for the younger years of our nation, but for all. Our Constitution makes it very clear that our government is based on reason, not faith, and we are all better for it. The similarity between government endorsed prayer is there because in both cases what is unconstitutional is the government endorsing religion when it shouldn't and whether you have the option to opt out is moot as the state is still endorsing religion. If you want to make the pledge religious or atheistic then go ahead, but that's not what the government should be doing. The pledge should be neutral in the matter (like our government), especially when the point of it is to unify which is done perfectly well without the "under God" part. What is the problem with having the citizens add to their pledge? There is no reason people should be mad we're reverting it back to the original to represent all Americans as it should.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The one rule that we should all agree on, however, is that if nobody's rights are at risk, the community should decide. And as it is likely that not all will agree, that decision should be by majority decision. There is no other fair way to decide such things.
Click to expand...
And since you haven't read the opinion by the judge, I'll need you to stop yammering on because those things were addressed in there. :roll:

Moreover, the country was specifically set up so majority does not rule. The US has never been a democracy and never should be.
 
shuamort said:
Moreover, the country was specifically set up so majority does not rule. The US has never been a democracy and never should be.
Click to expand...
Does the majority agree with this?...cheesy smile....
 
AlbqOwl said:
Yes, this is the heart of it. It is not required. Now admittedly, if the Pledge said 'under no god', I wouldn't like it and I wouldn't say it, but, if that is what the majority wanted, I would just shut up and wait until it was over. In matters that do not violate anybody's rights, the majority preference should prevail.

But some wish for it not to be allowed. They even go so far as to say the "Christians" are trying for force their religion down the throats of the nonbelievers. But in fact, they are trying to force their nonbelief down the throats of the believers even though the nonbelievers are in the minority. It would be disruptive to the recitation to add words that are not included. It is in no way disruptive to just not say any 'offensive' words or just not to say the Pledge at all when it is recited. There is a degree of tolerance and courtesy at stake here.

PROPOSITION: Who should decide what lifestyle, culture, or practices shall be the identity of the community? Does the Constitution suggest that the people will decide that or does the government dictate that? Should the lifestyle, culture, traditions that people enjoy be decided by some activist judge with his own ax to grind? It's fine if he thnks like you do. It is not so fine if he does not.

It is no contest when Constitutional rights are at stake. The majority must not be allowed to override the rights of the few or even the one.

The one rule that we should all agree on, however, is that if nobody's rights are at risk, the community should decide. And as it is likely that not all will agree, that decision should be by majority decision. There is no other fair way to decide such things.
Click to expand...

This quote is very telling,"Now admittedly, if the Pledge said 'under no god', I wouldn't like it and I wouldn't say it, but, if that is what the majority wanted, I would just shut up and wait until it was over." Like I already said before (I'm not going to let this convenient case of amnesia go by) whether it is the state endorsing religion or atheism both cases are unconstitutional. Be honest, you know very well that if the pledge did somehow have "under no God" added that it would be struck down. The government is not to bow to the will of the majority just because they are the majority. They must do what is right even if it doesn't have much support. What is constitutional isn't up for vote and for good reason. Taking out "under God" in no way forces non-belief. Like the current pledge which clearly favors monotheistic religion you would need a phrase like "without God"/"under no God"added in order for the state to be endorsing atheism. Otherwise it is simply neutral and citizens can make it have prefernce for religion or no religion on their own. The people shall (ideally) decide lifestyle, culture, and practices so long as they are constitutional. That is the one big caveat.
 
Columbusite said:
This quote is very telling,"Now admittedly, if the Pledge said 'under no god', I wouldn't like it and I wouldn't say it, but, if that is what the majority wanted, I would just shut up and wait until it was over." Like I already said before (I'm not going to let this convenient case of amnesia go by) whether it is the state endorsing religion or atheism both cases are unconstitutional. Be honest, you know very well that if the pledge did somehow have "under no God" added that it would be struck down. The government is not to bow to the will of the majority just because they are the majority. They must do what is right even if it doesn't have much support. What is constitutional isn't up for vote and for good reason. Taking out "under God" in no way forces non-belief. Like the current pledge which clearly favors monotheistic religion you would need a phrase like "without God"/"under no God"added in order for the state to be endorsing atheism. Otherwise it is simply neutral and citizens can make it have prefernce for religion or no religion on their own. The people shall (ideally) decide lifestyle, culture, and practices so long as they are constitutional. That is the one big caveat.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you have a better plan then? Who should decide what the people's lifestyle, culture, or practices shall be when nobody's rights are at stake? Should you have that responsibility? Should I? Do you want to trust it to a judge to decide? Or even the legislature? How about the president whomever he or she shall be?

Don't you see that the ONLY way a democratic people decide these things is by majority will. The Constitution profoundly protects us from a tyranny of the majority or a minority. But a majority vote is the only reasonable way to decide whether green or blue wallpaper is going to be put up or any other matter that hinges purely on preference.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Perhaps you have a better plan then? Who should decide what the people's lifestyle, culture, or practices shall be when nobody's rights are at stake? Should you have that responsibility? Should I? Do you want to trust it to a judge to decide? Or even the legislature? How about the president whomever he or she shall be?

Don't you see that the ONLY way a democratic people decide these things is by majority will. The Constitution profoundly protects us from a tyranny of the majority or a minority. But a majority vote is the only reasonable way to decide whether green or blue wallpaper is going to be put up or any other matter that hinges purely on preference.
Click to expand...
And since this subject goes deeper than preference, Constitutional law triumphs. As the old saying goes, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." And we're fortunate to not live in one of those.
 
That's where we disagree. The subject goes no deeper than preference because it affects absolutely nothing or nobody other than a few sensibilities. And none of us have a constitutional right to be comfortable in our sensibilities.
 
AlbqOwl said:
That's where we disagree. The subject goes no deeper than preference because it affects absolutely nothing or nobody other than a few sensibilities. And none of us have a constitutional right to be comfortable in our sensibilities.
Click to expand...
So, you're saying it's just about the verbiage and that should be of no concern to those whom it offends?
 
I don't believe that the government should forcibly spoonfeed anyone into saying anything. We must respect everybody's different views. Even though I don't believe in a mythological "God", I do repect people that do. It is their wish to do so. Prayer means more IMO, when done in private.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom