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

shuamort said:

So, you're saying it's just about the verbiage and that should be of no concern to those whom it offends?

Click to expand...

There is no constitutional right to not be offended. I would be offended by a phrase 'under no god' in the Pledge and would in fact refuse to say that. But as the phrase would have no material effect on my property, my person, my livelihood, etc., I would have no constitutional right for it not to be there. And such time as enough Americans who wanted the Pledge to say 'under no god' constituted a majority and voted that way, that is the way it should be.

Originally Posted by shuamort
So, you're saying it's just about the verbiage and that should be of no concern to those whom it offends?


There is no constitutional right to not be offended. I would be offended by a phrase 'under no god' in the Pledge and would in fact refuse to say that. But as the phrase would have no material effect on my property, my person, my livelihood, etc., I would have no constitutional right for it not to be there. And such time as enough Americans who wanted the Pledge to say 'under no god' constituted a majority and voted that way, that is the way it should be.

Click to expand...

Exactly, as I have said before. When the state or federal gov makes you say it word for word at gunpoint then I will be the first to bet shot for our freedom of speech. This isnt what I have bled, sweated and teared, and sacrificed for. If I am laying down my life for this country I expect all inalienable human rights to be followed through. Which indellably incl. the right to free speech. I have no remorse if someone wants to say it with the god of their choice or without the phrase. But by no means is it unconstitutional.

SKILMATIC said:

Exactly, as I have said before. When the state or federal gov makes you say it word for word at gunpoint then I will be the first to bet shot for our freedom of speech. This isnt what I have bled, sweated and teared, and sacrificed for. If I am laying down my life for this country I expect all inalienable human rights to be followed through. Which indellably incl. the right to free speech. I have no remorse if someone wants to say it with the god of their choice or without the phrase. But by no means is it unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

You're right, if the government didn't doctrinate the Pledge of America and then the state of California consider it a fulfillment of their code that I posted earlier, then we'd be on the same page. Since both of those have happened, then what you and I have both bled, sweated and teared, and sacrificed for is lost.

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...

Yes I do: when a decision is unconstitutional it should not be put up to vote. Just as school led prayer was found unconstitutional for state endorsing religion so should the pledge be unconstitutional for the same reason. Reverting the pledge back to the way it was is really the only way for the pledge to work. The pledge is about unity and you can't have that when the pledge divides Americans. In order for the pledge to do what it's supposed to it will have to be reverted so that all Americans are included, not excluded.

Columbusite said:

Yes I do: when a decision is unconstitutional it should not be put up to vote. Just as school led prayer was found unconstitutional for state endorsing religion so should the pledge be unconstitutional for the same reason. Reverting the pledge back to the way it was is really the only way for the pledge to work. The pledge is about unity and you can't have that when the pledge divides Americans. In order for the pledge to do what it's supposed to it will have to be reverted so that all Americans are included, not excluded.

Click to expand...

There is no way to have a Pledge that includes all Americans. For instance the Jehovah Witnesses would not say the Pledge either the old way or the new way as their religion forbids making any kind of secular pledge or oath. Some on this thread for whatever reason dislike this country enough they wouldn't say a pledge of allegiance to its flag no matter how it was worded.
Over the years various organizations such as The American Legion and the Ku Klux Klan, to name two, have changed the wording to suit their particular agenda. I think it was in the 1940's that the first constitutional challenge to the Pledge was filed and lost in court but the ruling that nobody can be required to recite the Pledge has prevailed.

The version most people use is the version preferred by a substantial majority of Americans now. It is not an establishment of any religion for reasons I have detailed in prior posts. It is not unconstitutional. And the majority should prevail until a new majority wishes to change it.

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...

If that was the case, you wouldn't be upset about having that religious context removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

So you are deceptive in your claim.

AlbqOwl said:

There is no constitutional right to not be offended. I would be offended by a phrase 'under no god' in the Pledge and would in fact refuse to say that.

Click to expand...

And you are offended that the Judge removed the reference to God. But hey, you just said that your dislike is irrelevant. Yet you keep on harping on it, showing that you are not entirely honest with us here.

AlbqOwl said:

There is no constitutional right to not be offended. I would be offended by a phrase 'under no god' in the Pledge and would in fact refuse to say that. But as the phrase would have no material effect on my property, my person, my livelihood, etc., I would have no constitutional right for it not to be there. And such time as enough Americans who wanted the Pledge to say 'under no god' constituted a majority and voted that way, that is the way it should be.

Click to expand...

I do not understand some of you? The Constitution is plain, so clear, NO MENTION OF GOD, period.

It's a totally moot point whether it says UNDER GOD or UNDER NO GOD, both are not permissable.

What is so bizarre to me is that this is a pledge of allegiance to the USA so what does pledging allegiance to the USA have to do with God? I know!!! NOTHING!

It is not a pledge of allegiance to God!

BTW - Majority rule has zero, yes, zero to do with this issue. It too is moot.

I love that some of you want to ignore the Constitution. Talk about a slippery slope! But it's no surprise because since the dawn of the USA there have been those of you who want to infuse God into the government yet no matter how many times the courts shoot you down someone else tries again to force their religion into the US Government.

One last time, this is a pledge of loyalty to the USA and the USA has no official view of God, for or against.

tHE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THIS. It is not constitutional to even make anyone say a pledge in this nation. For it breeches the freedom of speech amendemnt. So again your not made to say it and the state or federal level doesnt endorse it casue they dont make you and I recite it. So therefore its not unconstitutional. Its realy that simple.

SKILMATIC said:

tHE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THIS. It is not constitutional to even make anyone say a pledge in this nation. For it breeches the freedom of speech amendemnt. So again your not made to say it and the state or federal level doesnt endorse it casue they dont make you and I recite it. So therefore its not unconstitutional. Its realy that simple.

Click to expand...

Dude, is it a pledge of allegiance to the USA or God? The USA you say? So what is God doing in a pledge to the USA?

Religion has no place in the pledge.

SKILMATIC said:

tHE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THIS. It is not constitutional to even make anyone say a pledge in this nation. For it breeches the freedom of speech amendemnt. So again your not made to say it and the state or federal level doesnt endorse it casue they dont make you and I recite it. So therefore its not unconstitutional. Its realy that simple.

Click to expand...

The fact of the matter is that the pledge, whether mandatory or not, is state endorsing religion and therefore unconstitutional PERIOD.

Dude, is it a pledge of allegiance to the USA or God? The USA you say? So what is God doing in a pledge to the USA?

Religion has no place in the pledge.

Click to expand...

Again its not state endorsed how many times do I have to go over this little simply common sensed fact. Until it is let me know and I will be the first to denounce it.

The fact of the matter is that the pledge, whether mandatory or not, is state endorsing religion and therefore unconstitutional PERIOD.

Click to expand...

No its not state endosed and I can proves this by simply asking you what you did today? Was the recessitation of the pledge and its unforsaken phrase "under god" in any shape or form apart of your day? I think the answer to this question says it all.

Thank you please try again. :2wave:

AlbqOwl said:

There is no way to have a Pledge that includes all Americans. For instance the Jehovah Witnesses would not say the Pledge either the old way or the new way as their religion forbids making any kind of secular pledge or oath. Some on this thread for whatever reason dislike this country enough they wouldn't say a pledge of allegiance to its flag no matter how it was worded.
Over the years various organizations such as The American Legion and the Ku Klux Klan, to name two, have changed the wording to suit their particular agenda. I think it was in the 1940's that the first constitutional challenge to the Pledge was filed and lost in court but the ruling that nobody can be required to recite the Pledge has prevailed.

The version most people use is the version preferred by a substantial majority of Americans now. It is not an establishment of any religion for reasons I have detailed in prior posts. It is not unconstitutional. And the majority should prevail until a new majority wishes to change it.

Click to expand...

True, you'll always have a few who won't. That's why I said earlier we should just scrap it, but realistically that won't happen anytime soon. I don't want a pledge not because I hate this country, quite the contrary, pledging allegiance to a flag does nothing to show patriotism and looks like something out of a dictatorship. Liberty and Justice for all? Don't make me laugh. Instead, at the very least our pledge should not have state endorsing religion. You have not shown it is not "respecting an establishment of religion", because it clearly is. Just like school led prayer was found unconstitutional for the state endorsing religion so too should the pledge be found unconstitutional on the same grounds. You have yet to even attempt to refute that point.

SKILMATIC said:

Again its not state endorsed how many times do I have to go over this little simply common sensed fact. Until it is let me know and I will be the first to denounce it.





No its not state endosed and I can proves this by simply asking you what you did today? Was the recessitation of the pledge and its unforsaken phrase "under god" in any shape or form apart of your day? I think the answer to this question says it all.

Thank you please try again. :2wave:

Click to expand...

Sorry, 26 X World Champs, I just couldn't resist. Not endorsed by the state? So that's why Congress passed that bill to add the phrase and it was signed into law in 1954 . Looks like common sense to me.

SKILMATIC said:

No its not state endosed and I can proves this by simply asking you what you did today? Was the recessitation of the pledge and its unforsaken phrase "under god" in any shape or form apart of your day? I think the answer to this question says it all.

Click to expand...

My son had to say it today, and it included "under God." So it was very much a part of my day.

Was he forced to say "under God"? No....but he was forced to omit God from somewhere that God did not belong.

You didn't answer my question, how come? Is this a pledge to the USA or God? If you say USA than what is God doing in a pledge to the USA? Try to not avoid answering please?

Columbusite said:

Sorry, 26 X World Champs, I just couldn't resist. Not endorsed by the state? So that's why Congress passed that bill to add the phrase and it was signed into law in 1954 . Looks like common sense to me.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY...I wonder how many times you and I have to repeat to the loyal opposition that they're intruding into my life with their religion?

The cold harsh reality is that this is a Christian vs. the USA issue, in reality, always has been. The intrusion of God into politics is inevitable, and will always be there, but that does not mean that it is Constitutional. I think Pro-God people have every right to try to infuse their God into my life so long as they abide by the laws of the land. If the laws say it's unconstitutional that means it is and unless reversed there really isn't any argument that can be made, especially re the Pledge which has NOTHING to do with God or religion.

My son had to say it today, and it included "under God." So it was very much a part of my day.

Click to expand...

Ha! Im sure his arm was twisted when he said it.

Was he forced to say "under God"? No....but he was forced to omit God from somewhere that God did not belong.

Click to expand...

What? Can you please make sense of this please.

You didn't answer my question, how come? Is this a pledge to the USA or God? If you say USA than what is God doing in a pledge to the USA? Try to not avoid answering please?

Click to expand...

Again this has nothing to do with anything. If you arent made to say it from the state or federal level then its irrelevant. Again its like putting your hand on the Bible in court. What? Are you going to complaign about the book you put your hand in in a state or federal court? What are you going to say? I want to put my hand on last months issue of Playboy?

O but wait! Why is it that out court system the same system that outlawed the recisitation of under god in a pleadge when it used the Bible as the keystone to pledge yourself under oath? Hmmmmm.... good question isnt it? Mabe the founding fathers made a mistake and meant to implement the use of any literature when it came to pleadging yourself under oath?

EXACTLY...I wonder how many times you and I have to repeat to the loyal opposition that they're intruding into my life with their religion?

Click to expand...

And please explain to me how we are doing that? I will tell you the same thing I told the athiest who didnt want the cross on Mt. Soledad. "Just dont look at it." And you'll never know its there. Simple easy answer to all the problems. So in your case just dont say that phrase. Simple as that. Let me know if you get thrown in jail for not including that phrase. I will be the first to post your bail.

Now I am liberal democrat, and I truly can not see why everyone is worked up over the Phrase under god in the Pledge of Allegiance.

When you say the Pledge, you are pledging allegiance to the United States not to God. When I was a kid and going to school the Pledge under god was not in the Pledge of Allegiance. After 1949, the pledge of allegiance was in the pledge. The Pledge is not a religious pledge, it is not asking you to become a Christian, a Jew, or a Moslem. It is asking you to be an American.
If youi are an atheist, it means nothing to yu, and therefore cannot offend.

I think this is just lot BS, Bushshit, and Liberals are not offended by the the Pledge.

I think those that claim to be offended are actually right wing fascist types in disguise, trying to spread more lies about Liberals like me, and to make liberals look bad. A true liberal will not be offended by the words Under God. So it has to be rightwing anti-american lackies telling more lies about liberals.

I one time read while I was in college that Mao Tse Sung, of china fame, once said that " If everyone lived by the principles of the Sermon on the Mount, then there would never have been to need to create communism."

I am a christian, and we all know that it is corporatism and greed that is controling our government, and the world has not seen the end of communism, I am afraid. Believe it or not but People do not wish to Die for Exxon and starve to make Haliburton rich. Bush is making a serious error privatizing everything. Bush is making greed the motivation for taking care of the poor, instead of service. The right is very very very dangerous to America, To God, to the land itself, and to our constitution.

Check out these sites and keep an open mind. Think of our terrible hurricanes. Maybe ????:doh

http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/

http://www.earthpulse.com/src/category.asp?catid=1

also, lets think about it. what exactly does the pledge say?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

All it impllies is that God is watching over the country. it was implemented by Lincoln during the Civil War, the one nation under God part. as it was put onto our money. It was a dark period in the north, and they were on the verge of loosing. it was to bring the country together as it lwas ment to do here as well. If athiests were really against it, then they would stop using US currency as it is on there too.

t125eagle said:

also, lets think about it. what exactly does the pledge say?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

All it impllies is that God is watching over the country. it was implemented by Lincoln during the Civil War, the one nation under God part. as it was put onto our money. It was a dark period in the north, and they were on the verge of loosing. it was to bring the country together as it lwas ment to do here as well. If athiests were really against it, then they would stop using US currency as it is on there too.

Click to expand...

It is as absurd for the anti-religious types to attempt to deny our historical and cultural heritage that is reflected in the 'under God' phrase in the Pledge, as it would be for religious types to say that this phrase is any kind of religious imperative. As is apparent in the Federalist papers, other supporting documents, and the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers believed that it is God, by whatever name, and not man, that gives humankind certain inalienable rights, and thus man shall not be given authority to take those rights away.

I simply cannot fathom how this threatens anybody or how anyone could be so anti-anything-religious to get their shorts in a wad over two little, non compulsory words in a non-compulsory Pledge that has zero affect on one's person, one's livelihood, or one's opportunities.

The funny thing is that many who object so adamently to the Pledge are the same people who demand that everybody else be tolerant and accepting of any new or wierd notion of social engineering or anti-establishment practices that don't offend the anti-religious types. The majority is expected to be tolerant of minority preferences, but somehow the minority should be able to dictate acceptance of their preferences to the majority.

I just find that kind of thinking a bit fuzzy and out of kilter in the grand scheme of things.

AlbqOwl said:

It is as absurd for the anti-religious types to attempt to deny our historical and cultural heritage that is reflected in the 'under God' phrase in the Pledge, as it would be for religious types to say that this phrase is any kind of religious imperative. As is apparent in the Federalist papers, other supporting documents, and the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers believed that it is God, by whatever name, and not man, that gives humankind certain inalienable rights, and thus man shall not be given authority to take those rights away.

Click to expand...

It would also be absurd to claim two things which you're alluding to. That the founding fathers had any agreement whatsoever on religion. We can cherrypick quotes from Jefferson and others to show they were secular or others to demonstrate they were deist or possibly even Christian. The one thing they did agree on though was that the government's stance on religion should not be taken. Why? Because there was enough acrimony with the religious sects of Christianity and the thought of the government taking preference of one over another would surely loosen the country's footing. So they did what any sensible people would do, they left it out. Any other claims are purely folly and revisionist's history.

The pledge's addendum that was pushed by the Knight's of Columbus in 1953, a Catholic Fraternal group which Johnny Appleseeded the cities in America with the Judeo-Christian 10 Commandments, does not just dishonor the country's Constitution but also its forefathers' beliefs. To say that their position and movement to have the pledge include "under God" is completely secular or even not based on Christianity is a falsehood.

shuamort said:

It would also be absurd to claim two things which you're alluding to. That the founding fathers had any agreement whatsoever on religion. We can cherrypick quotes from Jefferson and others to show they were secular or others to demonstrate they were deist or possibly even Christian. The one thing they did agree on though was that the government's stance on religion should not be taken. Why? Because there was enough acrimony with the religious sects of Christianity and the thought of the government taking preference of one over another would surely loosen the country's footing. So they did what any sensible people would do, they left it out. Any other claims are purely folly and revisionist's history.

The pledge's addendum that was pushed by the Knight's of Columbus in 1953, a Catholic Fraternal group which Johnny Appleseeded the cities in America with the Judeo-Christian 10 Commandments, does not just dishonor the country's Constitution but also its forefathers' beliefs. To say that their position and movement to have the pledge include "under God" is completely secular or even not based on Christianity is a falsehood.

Click to expand...

The founders did not agree on all points of religion, nor was that ever their intent. They did agree on the concept of 'God-given' rights, however, Even the Diest Thomas Jefferson who composed the Declaration of Independence included that concept in its text. And they in no way concluded that inclusion of that concept in the Declaration (or anywhere else) was a merging of government and religion--it certainly was not an establishment of religion. It was an affirmation that this is the sense of the majority.

It is still a sense of the majority and that is all that the phrase 'under God' implies. Unless you can show where the rationale for inclusion of the phrase, its use, or its historical underpinnings are exclusively 'Christian', you are simply drawing assumptions of facts that do not exist.

AlbqOwl said:

The founders did not agree on all points of religion, nor was that ever their intent. They did agree on the concept of 'God-given' rights, however, Even the Diest Thomas Jefferson who composed the Declaration of Independence included that concept in its text. And they in no way concluded that inclusion of that concept in the Declaration (or anywhere else) was a merging of government and religion--it certainly was not an establishment of religion. It was an affirmation that this is the sense of the majority.

Click to expand...

Wait, so the Declaration of Independence is a variable but Jefferson's letter to the baptists which declared a separation of church and state isn't?

Or the Treaty of Tripoly where it states that the country is NOT a christian country?
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen and as the said States have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

You're cherry picking once again.

AlbqOwl said:

It is still a sense of the majority and that is all that the phrase 'under God' implies. Unless you can show where the rationale for inclusion of the phrase, its use, or its historical underpinnings are exclusively 'Christian', you are simply drawing assumptions of facts that do not exist.

Click to expand...

You mean, a Catholic organization that planted Ten Commandments around the country had no religious intentions by unconstitutionally inserting "under God" into the pledge. You can stick your fingers in your ears as deep as they go and the facts are still going to remain.