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

steen · Sep 22, 2005

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.

Nope, it was implemented in the mid-50's to contrast US with the "Godless commies." Can you at least get that part right

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.

Rest assured that once the Pledge of Allegiance is cleaned up according to the 1st Amendment, so will the currency.

steen · Sep 22, 2005

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.

A majority position that was cleaned up when it was time to implement the US Constitution, whihc was to be for ALL Americans. hence, the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause.

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.

It was pushed by a decidedly Christian organization specifically as a Cold War Gimmic to contrast the holy Christian spirit of America with the Godlessness of communism. It very much was a religious, political ploy.

26 X World Champs · Sep 22, 2005

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.

Ahh......this part of this post is pure BS. I am not "anti-religious" and it is the sign of someone prejudiced against anyone who disagrees with their point of view to suggest otherwise. I am against religion in our government, not anti-religious and I am very offended when anyone accuses me of being against religion. It is a bullshit accusation meant to incite trouble, and it is wrong. For example, if I were to say that you are "anti-athiests" because of your stand on this subject it would be equally wrong.

AlbqOwl said:
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.

None of this has anything to do with the law and the Constitution and you certainly must know that, right? For every "founding father" you claim wrote about being pro-religion in government there's another one, including Jefferson, who wrote against it.

AlbqOwl said:
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.

If it's supposed to be so minor why are you up in arms over this issue? You wrote again "anti-anything-religious" to stir trouble just like you did earlier in this post. Are you not smart enough to comprehend that being against the inclusion of any God in government does not make one anti-religious?

Since it is so meaningless then why not drop it? Huh? Put your money where your keyboard is, so to speak.

What's so interesting and IMHO hypocritical is that the poster cites the Federalist Papers and Declaration of Independence as old documents that supposedely justify God's presence in government YET ignores the fact that the Pledge did not include any reference about God until 1954.

If you're writing that you believe in the old traditions established so long ago how come that does not apply to the Pledge in it's original form before the bogus fear of Communism made Congress pass a law that is unconstitutional?

Hypocrisy IMHO.

AlbqOwl said:
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.

I have no clue as to what you just wrote? Please elaborate and share with all of us what you mean about "weird notion of social engineering" that you tossed out? For that matter, define "anti-establishment"? What do you mean? I can speculate but I way prefer to read your reasoning without my assumptions.

SKILMATIC · Sep 22, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
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.

Again please read this post one more time. Maybe you didnt get it the forst time. This should be the end of this argument.

Alex · Sep 22, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
Again please read this post one more time. Maybe you didnt get it the forst time. This should be the end of this argument.

Again, see post #39 in this thread.

SKILMATIC · Sep 22, 2005

alex said:
Again, see post #39 in this thread.

Ok cool. :2wave:

Columbusite · Sep 22, 2005

26 X World Champs said:
Ahh......this part of this post is pure BS. I am not "anti-religious" and it is the sign of someone prejudiced against anyone who disagrees with their point of view to suggest otherwise. I am against religion in our government, not anti-religious and I am very offended when anyone accuses me of being against religion. It is a bullshit accusation meant to incite trouble, and it is wrong. For example, if I were to say that you are "anti-athiests" because of your stand on this subject it would be equally wrong.

That term being thrown around is old, tired, and false. Funny thing is he and others like him can't see that separation of church and state is actually very good for religion and is the reason why religions have done so well here. Why they want the government involved I don't know, but some have a very specific prupose in mind and that is to use things like the pledge, "In God we trust" on currency, and the 10 commandments in courthouses to support the claim that this is a "Christian nation". Alone, the pledge certainly can't do much harm, but when it is used in the way mentioned above it will. It isn't much of a stretch for our government to go from acknowledging God (the true Christian one, of course) to the nexxt logical step, which is to obey that God. Unlike others on this board I am not going to wait until constitutional rights have been stripped away because by then it will be too late to fix. I prefer preventative measures, though while on the surface looks like nit-picking, are what can be sure to keep that wall of separation up. Both the religious and non-religious will be much better off in the long run even though some are upset now.

AlbqOwl · Sep 22, 2005

shuamort said:
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?

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was nothing more than assurance that they were in no danger from their government. It was in response to a letter from them, and the phrase was never used as more than that until Justice Hugo Black invoked somewhere in the mid century and it caught on mostly with people who want the First Amendment to say 'there shall be no religion' period.

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.

This actually should persuade you that the words 'under God' is not a Christian phrase.

You're cherry picking once again.

Cherry picking what? I'm not bringing up unrelated analogies. I've been quite consistent in this entire discussion.

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.

What do the Catholics have to do with this? I haven't mentioned any Catholics. The Catholics are pertinent to the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge how?

Scarecrow Akhbar · Sep 23, 2005

There's TWO Reasons The Pledging Should Cease

Haven't dredged the entire thread yet, but skimmed about every other page.

Seems like lots of folks don't want to discuss the hearts of this issue. lots of repitition and dodge ball playing, with few catches and fewer hits. Take this little popular quote, for example:

The First Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

No one disagrees that the United States Congress passed a bill eventually signed into law that added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. (Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 4 of the US Code)

This part of the issue then boils down to "does Congress's addition of the words "under God" represent an "establishment" of religion, or not? If it does, it's in violation of the First Amendment, and the words gotta go.

How do lawyers define "establishment"? Does Congressional monkeying with the Pledge constitute "establishment"? I contend that the magic words "under God" in the official context of the pledge DO establish a baseline validation in law of the presumption of God's existence, and as such violates the First Amendment.

But that's only the establishment clause. There's more to this than that, if y'all'll stop and think. There's the act of recitition itself, which is independent of any potential establishment clause violation.

The education code of the State of California, where Newdow filed his law suit, contains this:

SECTION 52720. In every public elementary school each day during the school year at the beginning of the first regularly scheduled class or activity period at which the majority of the pupils of the school normally begin the schoolday, there shall be conducted appropriate patriotic exercises. The giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements of this section.

In every public secondary school there shall be conducted daily appropriate patriotic exercises. The giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy such requirement. Such patriotic exercises for secondary schools shall be conducted in accordance with the regulations which shall be adopted by the governing board of the district maintaining the secondary school.

This doesn't exactly mandate the Pledge of Allegience be recited, but neither does it offer alternative acceptable "patriotic exercises". Needless to say, most teachers and school administrators view this code as requiring the Pledge only.

Read the First Amendment again. For this discussion on Newdow II, no one's posting past the establisment clause, but the next part is just as important:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Demanding someone speak specific words is a far more egregious a violation of the freedom of speech as any possible gag. Of couse, there are legal beagles that will state that the word "abridging" is the limiting concept there, ie, the concern was the cutting short, or limiting of speech, and not it's opposite. I can't agree with them.

(And if someone could tell me how to post links I'd appreciate it)

dragonslayer · Sep 23, 2005

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.

I too, believe that UnderGod is Ok, yes, but you have your facts wrong Under God was added to the Pledge in 1949 or 1950. after the Second world war. I was in school at the time and remember it well. All during WW2, we said the pledge in school daily without saying under God. I can't honestly say if it it important or not to our nation. We certainly did well with out Undergod being in the Pledge., It had nothing to do with Lincoln. In God we trust was added to our Paper currency i(one dollar silver certificate) in 1957, look at old bills in museums. they do not have In God We trust on them.
It was on some coins before that. Not all. The Famous double eagle 20 dollar gold piece had, IN God we Trust, on it

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

shuamort · Sep 23, 2005

AlbqOwl said:
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was nothing more than assurance that they were in no danger from their government. It was in response to a letter from them, and the phrase was never used as more than that until Justice Hugo Black invoked somewhere in the mid century and it caught on mostly with people who want the First Amendment to say 'there shall be no religion' period.

This actually should persuade you that the words 'under God' is not a Christian phrase.

What do the Catholics have to do with this? I haven't mentioned any Catholics. The Catholics are pertinent to the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge how?

I've mentioned the Catholics. A couple times and their exact relevence to the inclusion of how "under God" came about. You've denied the fact that the "God" isn't exactly a Christian saying, I've shown that on the contrary that that's the revisers' intent.

AlbqOwl · Sep 23, 2005

shuamort said:
I've mentioned the Catholics. A couple times and their exact relevence to the inclusion of how "under God" came about. You've denied the fact that the "God" isn't exactly a Christian saying, I've shown that on the contrary that that's the revisers' intent.

If that was their intent, that is what they would have said, and that is what they would have included in the phrase. Intent and actuality are never the same thing. The intent to commit murder is a far lesser crime than the actual committing.

What 'under God' is supposed to mean to anybody is not specified, nor is it associated with any group, Christian, athiest, or otherwise. It is a cultural and historical phrase only in keeping with the foundations of the beginnings of government for this country. That you prefer that rights be from a source other than God-given is fine. Even the phrase in the pledge does not specify that. But that is the historical basis for it since all the founders believed that is where inalienable rights originate. None attempted to convince the other of who or what God is, however.

Law should never be made on anybody's unique interpretation of anything. Law should be made on the basis of fact only. The fact is, the phrase 'under God' implies nothing other than what any individual wishes to make of it, it is not the law of the land so far as any federal mandate--the states do make their own rules regarding the use of the Pledge--and nobody anywhere is required to say it, believe it, or do anything related to it.

AlbqOwl · Sep 23, 2005

Re: There's TWO Reasons The Pledging Should Cease

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Haven't dredged the entire thread yet, but skimmed about every other page.

Seems like lots of folks don't want to discuss the hearts of this issue. lots of repitition and dodge ball playing, with few catches and fewer hits. Take this little popular quote, for example:

The First Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

No one disagrees that the United States Congress passed a bill eventually signed into law that added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. (Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 4 of the US Code)

This part of the issue then boils down to "does Congress's addition of the words "under God" represent an "establishment" of religion, or not? If it does, it's in violation of the First Amendment, and the words gotta go.

How do lawyers define "establishment"? Does Congressional monkeying with the Pledge constitute "establishment"? I contend that the magic words "under God" in the official context of the pledge DO establish a baseline validation in law of the presumption of God's existence, and as such violates the First Amendment.

But that's only the establishment clause. There's more to this than that, if y'all'll stop and think. There's the act of recitition itself, which is independent of any potential establishment clause violation.

The education code of the State of California, where Newdow filed his law suit, contains this:

This doesn't exactly mandate the Pledge of Allegience be recited, but neither does it offer alternative acceptable "patriotic exercises". Needless to say, most teachers and school administrators view this code as requiring the Pledge only.

Read the First Amendment again. For this discussion on Newdow II, no one's posting past the establisment clause, but the next part is just as important:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Demanding someone speak specific words is a far more egregious a violation of the freedom of speech as any possible gag. Of couse, there are legal beagles that will state that the word "abridging" is the limiting concept there, ie, the concern was the cutting short, or limiting of speech, and not it's opposite. I can't agree with them.

(And if someone could tell me how to post links I'd appreciate it)

Long ago, the court rightfully ruled that the recitation of the Pledge not be mandatory nor are alternate patriotic exercises prohibited for any who would choose to use them. The Pledge is a symbol, a tradition, an emblem if you will not unlike that of the flag and the corresponding rules for saluting, displaying, etc. There is no consequence imposed by law for anybody's failure to do either or for disrespecting either.

Thus, as the phrase 'under God' implies nothing other than the cultural and historical roots of the founding of the nation, and there is no reward or consequence for saying or not saying the phrase, there is no establishment of religion.

That is the root of this entire argument. Is any reference to religion an establishment of religion. I say it is not, and to forbid any reference to religion would be a violation of the First Amendment. The only way that government would be guilty of an establishment of religion is if any particular religion was favored (rewarded) over any other, if any particular religion was forbidden or afforded disadvantage for its beliefs.

There is nothing implied nor stated in the Constitution suggesting that religion would not be permitted within public view, on public lands, or even in government activity.

Welcome to DebatePolitics by the way. And you post a link by copying it from the website and pasting it into the buffer as you compose your post.

shuamort · Sep 23, 2005

AlbqOwl said:
If that was their intent, that is what they would have said, and that is what they would have included in the phrase. Intent and actuality are never the same thing. The intent to commit murder is a far lesser crime than the actual committing.

What 'under God' is supposed to mean to anybody is not specified, nor is it associated with any group, Christian, athiest, or otherwise. It is a cultural and historical phrase only in keeping with the foundations of the beginnings of government for this country. That you prefer that rights be from a source other than God-given is fine. Even the phrase in the pledge does not specify that. But that is the historical basis for it since all the founders believed that is where inalienable rights originate. None attempted to convince the other of who or what God is, however.

Law should never be made on anybody's unique interpretation of anything. Law should be made on the basis of fact only. The fact is, the phrase 'under God' implies nothing other than what any individual wishes to make of it, it is not the law of the land so far as any federal mandate--the states do make their own rules regarding the use of the Pledge--and nobody anywhere is required to say it, believe it, or do anything related to it.

The problem with your defense is obvious. You're equating "god", or in this case "God" to mean anything. Which. It. Doesn't. You'll need to back up your claim with facts that "God" could mean anything to anyone, including atheists.

Columbusite · Sep 23, 2005

shuamort said:
The problem with your defense is obvious. You're equating "god", or in this case "God" to mean anything. Which. It. Doesn't. You'll need to back up your claim with facts that "God" could mean anything to anyone, including atheists.

With that kind of reasoning I guess "under no God" could mean anything, even God if you want.:doh

AlbqOwl · Sep 23, 2005

shuamort said:
The problem with your defense is obvious. You're equating "god", or in this case "God" to mean anything. Which. It. Doesn't. You'll need to back up your claim with facts that "God" could mean anything to anyone, including atheists.

If 'God' in the Pledge does not mean whatever one wishes it to mean, please show me the specific instruction or order that dictates who or what "God" in the Pledge is. Show me the evidence that relates "God' to any particular denomination or any specific religion or faith group.

Quick history lesson:

In 1892, a Boston-based youth magazine–a private non-government entity–called “The Youth’s Companion” published the first wording of the a Pledge recommended for school children to recite in honor of Columbus Day that year (the 400th year celebration).

“I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.” (1892)

The concept caught on and was popular (and purely voluntery) in America’s schools after that.

In 1923, another non-government private gathering of a National Flag Conference added the words to designate the Pledge as one to the American flag as opposed to any other flag:

“I pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all,”

(A year later that was changed to be ‘the Flag of the United States of America’.)

The new version was also quickly adopted and voluntarily recited by school children. There was no government involvement at all at this point.

On June 22, 1942, the US Congress included the “Pledge to the Flag in the US Flag Code (Title 36). This was the first official sanction by government of the Pledge that had already been recited by school children for more than 50 years. A year later, as a free speech issue, the US Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite the Pledge.

In 1945, the Pledge received its official designation as “The Pledge of Allegiance”.

The last change was made by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on Flag Day, June 14, 1954, when he authorized the inclusion of the “under God” phrase in the Pledge. President Eisenhower's official proclamation was:

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

There is no mention of a specific religion, Christian or otherwise, or any specific relgious instruction. It is an affirmation of the importance of religious faith in America’s heritage and future. It is still important in America’s hertiage and future. When it no longer is, the phrase will certainly be dropped. Until then, it is in no way an establishment of religion, it is in no way mandatory for any person to say, believe, or act upon and there is no consequence for saying or not saying the Pledge, and thus is it not unconstitutional.

shuamort · Sep 23, 2005

AlbqOwl said:
If 'God' in the Pledge does not mean whatever one wishes it to mean, please show me the specific instruction or order that dictates who or what "God" in the Pledge is. Show me the evidence that relates "God' to any particular denomination or any specific religion or faith group.

You mean besides taking the facts, flattening them down into tablet form and slipping them into your sandwich? Knights of Columbus yadda yadda yadda. I've said it before, you've ignored it then and you're ignoring it now.

AlbqOwl said:
There is no mention of a specific religion, Christian or otherwise, or any specific relgious instruction. It is an affirmation of the importance of religious faith in America’s heritage and future. It is still important in America’s hertiage and future. When it no longer is, the phrase will certainly be dropped. Until then, it is in no way an establishment of religion, it is in no way mandatory for any person to say, believe, or act upon and there is no consequence for saying or not saying the Pledge, and thus is it not unconstitutional.

You're trying to allege, and it's almost humorous, that "god" or "God" has no religious background or connotations at all to it. LOL! And at the same time, mention that it reflects the importance of religious faith. So which is it? You can't have it both ways here.

On top of that, if we're talking heritage, one would think we would go back to the ORIGINAL pledge and not the bastardized one usurped by the Catholics.

"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." -Prez Ike

AlbqOwl · Sep 23, 2005

shuamort said:
You mean besides taking the facts, flattening them down into tablet form and slipping them into your sandwich? Knights of Columbus yadda yadda yadda. I've said it before, you've ignored it then and you're ignoring it now.

I'm ignoring the Knights of Columbus yadda yadda because they are irrelevent to the premise of the discussion. Anything they thought, believe, or did has zero impact on the premise of this discussion. 99% of Amercians would never even think of them when this topic comes up.

You're trying to allege, and it's almost humorous, that "god" or "God" has no religious background or connotations at all to it. LOL! And at the same time, mention that it reflects the importance of religious faith. So which is it? You can't have it both ways here.

Not at all. A 'god' or "God" of course has a religious connotation. Religon was extremely important both to the reason the initial colonies were established on the east coast to the basis for 'inalienable rights' which was pretty much a unique concept at the time, and the belief that morality and moral sense proceeds from a foundation of religious belief. That is our history and our heritage. The phrase 'under God' acknowledges that. It would simply be silly to pretend that U.S. history was never influenced by or did not include religion and religious expression.

On top of that, if we're talking heritage, one would think we would go back to the ORIGINAL pledge and not the bastardized one usurped by the Catholics.

We don't think it is a violation of our heritage that we don't do other things in the same manner as they were done in the Nineteenth Century. Why should the Pledge not also evolve? Dwight D. Eisenhower was not a Catholic by the way, nor were more than a handful, if any, members of Congress at that time.

"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." -Prez Ike

This is your own unique interpretation that is not shared by the huge majority of Americans.

shuamort · Sep 23, 2005

AlbqOwl said:
I'm ignoring the Knights of Columbus yadda yadda because they are irrelevent to the premise of the discussion. Anything they thought, believe, or did has zero impact on the premise of this discussion. 99% of Amercians would never even think of them when this topic comes up.

So, ignorance is an excuse now? Umm. No. The KoC are the fraternal Catholic organization that were the impetus for this bit of revisionism. They are the ones responsible for it and are thusly relevent.

AlbqOwl said:
Not at all. A 'god' or "God" of course has a religious connotation. Religon was extremely important both to the reason the initial colonies were established on the east coast to the basis for 'inalienable rights' which was pretty much a unique concept at the time, and the belief that morality and moral sense proceeds from a foundation of religious belief. That is our history and our heritage. The phrase 'under God' acknowledges that. It would simply be silly to pretend that U.S. history was never influenced by or did not include religion and religious expression.

It would also be silly to ignore the fact that religious freedom and freedom from religion also shaped US history pre-revolution to current as well.

AlbqOwl said:
We don't think it is a violation of our heritage that we don't do other things in the same manner as they were done in the Nineteenth Century. Why should the Pledge not also evolve? Dwight D. Eisenhower was not a Catholic by the way, nor were more than a handful, if any, members of Congress at that time.

You're the one beating the drum of heritage but wanting it to change but not. It's cherrypicking the details that support your cause and ignoring those which don't.

Alex · Sep 23, 2005

AlbqOwl said:
If 'God' in the Pledge does not mean whatever one wishes it to mean, please show me the specific instruction or order that dictates who or what "God" in the Pledge is. Show me the evidence that relates "God' to any particular denomination or any specific religion or faith group.

Quick history lesson:

In 1892, a Boston-based youth magazine–a private non-government entity–called “The Youth’s Companion” published the first wording of the a Pledge recommended for school children to recite in honor of Columbus Day that year (the 400th year celebration).

“I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.” (1892)

The concept caught on and was popular (and purely voluntery) in America’s schools after that.

In 1923, another non-government private gathering of a National Flag Conference added the words to designate the Pledge as one to the American flag as opposed to any other flag:

“I pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all,”

(A year later that was changed to be ‘the Flag of the United States of America’.)

The new version was also quickly adopted and voluntarily recited by school children. There was no government involvement at all at this point.

On June 22, 1942, the US Congress included the “Pledge to the Flag in the US Flag Code (Title 36). This was the first official sanction by government of the Pledge that had already been recited by school children for more than 50 years. A year later, as a free speech issue, the US Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite the Pledge.

In 1945, the Pledge received its official designation as “The Pledge of Allegiance”.

The last change was made by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on Flag Day, June 14, 1954, when he authorized the inclusion of the “under God” phrase in the Pledge. President Eisenhower's official proclamation was:

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

There is no mention of a specific religion, Christian or otherwise, or any specific relgious instruction. It is an affirmation of the importance of religious faith in America’s heritage and future. It is still important in America’s hertiage and future. When it no longer is, the phrase will certainly be dropped. Until then, it is in no way an establishment of religion, it is in no way mandatory for any person to say, believe, or act upon and there is no consequence for saying or not saying the Pledge, and thus is it not unconstitutional.

This does not take away from the fact that having "under god" in the official pledge of this country is establishing this country as a religious nation. What else does "one nation, under god" mean?

AlbqOwl · Sep 23, 2005

alex said:
This does not take away from the fact that having "under god" in the official pledge of this country is establishing this country as a religious nation. What else does "one nation, under god" mean?

There is no law, Constitutional or otherwise, that says the nation cannot be religious. The law only specifies that Congress cannot specify what religion the country should or must be. The 'under God' phrase neither establishes a specific religion nor does it specify that the nation is or should be religious. It is a phrase interpreted by most as an understanding of our cultural and historical roots based on a common belief (at that time) that we have certain unalienable rights that are God given. These rights are for everybody, not just those who believe in God. And because they are God-given, they cannot be overridden or taken away by laws instituted by mankind.

The phrase is no more coercive in any way than the opening words of the Pledge, "I Pledge allegiance to the flag. . . " What does that mean to you? Does it mean the same thing to you as it meant to the one(s) who wrote it? Does it mean the same thing to you as it means to me? Is there anything in the Pledge that specifies that?

What does "God" as referenced in the Pledge mean to you? What does it order you to do? Does it mean the same thing to you as it does to the one(s) who included it? Does it mean the same thing as it meant to the founders of the country and authors of the Constitution?

Without specificity or requirement, there is simply no Constitutional problem with either phrase.

Alex · Sep 23, 2005

AlbqOwl said:
There is no law, Constitutional or otherwise, that says the nation cannot be religious. The law only specifies that Congress cannot specify what religion the country should or must be. The 'under God' phrase neither establishes a specific religion nor does it specify that the nation is or should be religious. It is a phrase interpreted by most as an understanding of our cultural and historical roots based on a common belief (at that time) that we have certain unalienable rights that are God given. These rights are for everybody, not just those who believe in God. And because they are God-given, they cannot be overridden or taken away by laws instituted by mankind.

The phrase is no more coercive in any way than the opening words of the Pledge, "I Pledge allegiance to the flag. . . " What does that mean to you? Does it mean the same thing to you as it meant to the one(s) who wrote it? Does it mean the same thing to you as it means to me? Is there anything in the Pledge that specifies that?

What does "God" as referenced in the Pledge mean to you? What does it order you to do? Does it mean the same thing to you as it does to the one(s) who included it? Does it mean the same thing as it meant to the founders of the country and authors of the Constitution?

Without specificity or requirement, there is simply no Constitutional problem with either phrase.

The Constitution does state that the government cannot be religious. Reread the Establishment Clause, you obviously do not have an understanding of it, if you are even aware of it at all. You are trying use it to your liking when the actual meaning of it is very clear and not consistent with your ideas. You can twist and turn the meanings of this clause as you wish, but the truth remains the same.

Columbusite · Sep 23, 2005

Re: There's TWO Reasons The Pledging Should Cease

AlbqOwl said:
The only way that government would be guilty of an establishment of religion is if any particular religion was favored (rewarded) over any other, if any particular religion was forbidden or afforded disadvantage for its beliefs.

So it's OK for government to favor religion, which would be a reward in itself?

There is nothing implied nor stated in the Constitution suggesting that religion would not be permitted within public view, on public lands, or even in government activity.

Public view, sure. Any land except for government-related. Boy, are you off on the last one. Guess that's why religion was kept out of what we base our laws on (the Constitution). To what level is it OK in government activity? I say none and let's keep our government impartial. Some conservative Christians are simply not going to stop at the pledge/10 commandments/etc. Like a certain senator who, during the rash of government endorsement of religion in the 50s, introduced a constitutional amendment that stated "This nation devoutly recognizes the authority and law of Jesus Christ, Saviour and Ruler of nations,through whom are bestowed the blessings of Almighty God." We can clearly see that if you give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile. You'd say I should wait for something like that to pass and then take action against it, but then the Constitution would have already been null and void. Is the severity of this getting through to you? Can you see why separation of church and state is so important? You still haven't bothered to show how optional school led prayer was found unconstitutional, but the pledge is OK. If government endorsment was found unconstitutional in the prayer issue, then why isn't it applicable to the official pledge? Not only that, but the point of the pledge was to unify and since that is its aim the pre-"under God" phrase version already accomplished that. Therefore, "under God" is rendered unnecessary.

Columbusite · Sep 23, 2005

alex said:
The Constitution does state that the government cannot be religious. Reread the Establishment Clause, you obviously do not have an understanding of it, if you are even aware of it at all. You are trying use it to your liking when the actual meaning of it is very clear and not consistent with your ideas. You can twist and turn the meanings of this clause as you wish, but the truth remains the same.

Not only that, but school led prayer was found unconstitutional despite being neither specific nor officialy required.

shuamort · Sep 23, 2005

Columbusite said:
Not only that, but school led prayer was found unconstitutional despite being neither specific nor officialy required.

That and the fact that the pledge as well has been found to be unconstitutional as well. But, so far, AlbqOwl hasn't responded to the points made in the Ninth Circuit Judge's opinion that I so generously supplied for this thread and his/her rebuttal.

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

Lie Detector

Lie Detector

Well-known member

Counselor

Pundit-licious

Pundit-licious

Well-known member

Pundit-licious

Pundit-licious

Well-known member

Well-known member

Pundit-licious