AlbqOwl said:Really? Don't you think your opinion is based on fact regardless of the fact that you haven't shown how it is? Can you show how you have qualified your opinion in any way? Those who agree with you are the reasonable ones, right? And there is no point in debating me because I hold a different point of view?
This is an amazing thing. The only productive debate is with people who agree with you or that you can persuade no matter how irrational an emotional rant may be? I'll have to give that some serious thought. It certainly is a new approach to the concept.
Caine said:Your the one who's rant is emotional.
I guess you haven't read the constitution to see where our "opinion" is based on, and backed up by, fact.
Your rant is based on your Christianity. Otherwise, you wouldn't want to sit here and debate whether god is in the pledge, you wouldn't TRULY care. Its okay, I know your going to say your not really all that religious. But, then, why would it matter?
So yes, our position is based on, and backed up by fact that the constitution has the establishment clause which is to put a seperation between church and government, and official pledge talking about a god used to coerse children into respecting a divine being is definately in violation.
AlbqOwl said:The constitution also has a prohibition clause that says that the government cannot say that I cannot say 'under God' in a voluntary Pledge of Allegiance. You guys seem to always want to overlook that part.
You must also show what God and what religion is being established (or even favored) by the phrase , and you must be able to show in a substantive way how you are inconvenienced or deprived of any legal or unalienable right, in order for it to be a violation of the establishment clause.
You must also prove that this phrase is used to coerce children into respecting a divine being, show that children are not capable of understanding the cultural and historical significance of the phrase, and you must also ignore all the history that preceded it, to make your point of view anything other than one based on emotionalism.
Caine said:Ummm. Nobody is saying you can't voluntary say it.
Im saying, the OFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF-IIIIICCCIIIAAAALLLLLL ( did you get it this time?) version has god in it, and it doesn't belong there.
God damn, are you church people stupid? Ive not only showed you that it is official, told you the date of which it became official....geez, what the hell.
And, we on the side of REMOVAL of "under god" shouldn't have to prove hing except that its addition was unconstitutional, which it clearly is.
AlbqOwl said:You haven't shown how it is unconstitutional. Several others have shown how it is. But you are basing your opinion on emotionalism.....naw.......
A practical point however: what is more disruptive to a social exercise?: A couple of people leaving a couple of words out of a group recitation? Or a couple of people inserting words that aren't there into a group recitation? If it is a matter of a voluntary recitation, who should prevail? The many or the few?
Caine said:The few, cause its thier right not to have to listen to or be coerced to recite government official religious garbage.
AlbqOwl said:I believe that most people who strongly object to 'under God' in the Pledge because they have a deep seated revulsion for religion altogether. Some seem to relate it to Christianity for which they have a deep seated revulsion.
I don't care what religion these people profess to be. Their MO suggests that if they could, they would wipe anything remotely religious completely out of the public experience altogether. I think such people, if they could, would wipe anything remotely religious from the public experience altogehter.
Warning: It has never been determined if anything promoted or taught in this place has ever happened or if promises made have ever been fulfilled. The user is cautioned that repeated use may result in the loss of reason and the possible departure from reality.
AlbqOwl said:You haven't shown how it is unconstitutional. Several others have shown how it is. But you are basing your opinion on emotionalism.....naw.......
A practical point however: what is more disruptive to a social exercise?: A couple of people leaving a couple of words out of a group recitation? Or a couple of people inserting words that aren't there into a group recitation? If it is a matter of a voluntary recitation, who should prevail? The many or the few?
Scarecrow Akhbar said:The government forcing words in that don't belong.
If the illegal words weren't put there in the first place, this thread would not exist.
Since those extra words were installed by only 500 people, clearly it's the few inserting the words that's the problem, not the millions that weren't saying them before the few interfered.
Deegan said:Still on about this are we?
Anyone ever find a logical reason that the same judge that threw out "under God" in the pledge, just himself earlier, asked, oh......sorry, told someone to put their hand on the bible, and ask for Gods mercy.:roll:
The explanation so far has been, they only do this once in a long while, so it's perfectly o.k. I don't know about anyone else, but this is indeed hypocritical, no matter how you try and justify it.
AlbqOwl said:Really? Don't you think your opinion is based on fact regardless of the fact that you haven't shown how it is? Can you show how you have qualified your opinion in any way? Those who agree with you are the reasonable ones, right? And there is no point in debating me because I hold a different point of view?
This is an amazing thing. The only productive debate is with people who agree with you or that you can persuade no matter how irrational an emotional rant may be? I'll have to give that some serious thought. It certainly is a new approach to the concept.
AlbqOwl said:Unless you can show that religion is illegal--which the Constitution pretty much squashes that idea--then there is no way a cultural and historical metaphor alluding to it is illegal.
Your personal ideology should not be able to dictate public policy than should mine. I have again and again invited the anti-under-God-prhase people to show how they are harmed in any way by the presence of those two voluntary words.
In matters of personal preference, the majority should prevail. When you side is in the majority, you can take out the prhase, throw out the Pledge, do anything you want. Until that time, as the Pledge does you or nobody else no harm whatsoever and brings pleasure to many, I will go with the democratic principle that the people should decide what their Pledge will be.
The rest should take lessons in anger management and study the definition of tolerance.
AlbqOwl said:Unless you can show that religion is illegal--which the Constitution pretty much squashes that idea--then there is no way a cultural and historical metaphor alluding to it is illegal.
JOHNYJ said:So why can;t the Malcontents that dont like ' UNDER GOD ' just delete it when they say it. The way Catholics deleted the Protestant addiion to the Lords Prayer?
Scarecrow Akhbar said:I didn't say religion is illegal. You should address posts instead of igniting strawmen.
I said the words were illegal, ie, the "under God" words appended to the Pledge, which is what this thread is about. That violates the Establishment Clause, as you know perfectly well.
JOHNYJ said:RE : RightatNYU
It was Jehova's witness's that got the Supreme Court to say you didn't have to recite the pledge only stand respectfuly or leave the room.
In the ancient days of my youth we had opening excercises.In which we had the pledge of allegiance,a reading from psalms in the KJV and we recited, out loud the lords prayer. It was the protestant version , so the Catholics stoped befor the protestants. You know what, no one fainted, had an epileptic fit, or was mentaly injured. You will note the Catholics and protestants reited the Lords prayers slightly diferently yet nothing catastrophic happened. So why can;t the Malcontents that dont like ' UNDER GOD ' just delete it when they say it. The way Catholics deleted the Protestant addiion to the Lords Prayer?
AlbqOwl said:I didn't say that you said religion is illegal. I was addressing the post. If you don't like the way I express myself, please feel free to ignore the expressions.
You say that the words 'under God' included in the last of several amended Pledges of Allegiance--I did rewrite your sentence a bit here to make it more accurate--violates the establishment clause. You say that I know that perfectly well. Well, no I don't know that perfectly well. In order to show that it violates the establishment clause, you would have to show that every state Constitution is illegal because children of the respective states are expected to study their state constitutions and history.
You would further have to show what religion is being established. What God is being referred to? What doctrine is being taught? What forms of worship are being required. What is the reward for supporting these beliefs? What are the consequences if you do not? Is this being presented as religious faith? Or as a voluntary patriotic exercise?
And finally you would have to show how this is any way harmful to any person. You would have to show that somebody's livelihood, safety, security, or any unalienable right is being violated. The idea that the non-believing child might not like to have to hear the Pledge simply won't wash. Any child may have to hear any manner of things in school they don't like to hear, but there is no implied constiuttional right to be able to hear only what you like. If there was, schools wouldn't be able to teach much of anything.
Take it from an old debate coach. You don't get points for saying something is or is not true with nothing to back it up. "Because I said so" works for Mom or Dad with the kids. It doesn't make your argument convincing.
AlbqOwl said:I didn't say that you said religion is illegal. I was addressing the post. If you don't like the way I express myself, please feel free to ignore the expressions.
You say that the words 'under God' included in the last of several amended Pledges of Allegiance--I did rewrite your sentence a bit here to make it more accurate--violates the establishment clause. You say that I know that perfectly well. Well, no I don't know that perfectly well. In order to show that it violates the establishment clause, you would have to show that every state Constitution is illegal because children of the respective states are expected to study their state constitutions and history.
AlbqOwl said:You would further have to show what religion is being established. What God is being referred to? What doctrine is being taught? What forms of worship are being required. What is the reward for supporting these beliefs? What are the consequences if you do not? Is this being presented as religious faith? Or as a voluntary patriotic exercise?
AlbqOwl said:And finally you would have to show how this is any way harmful to any person. You would have to show that somebody's livelihood, safety, security, or any unalienable right is being violated. The idea that the non-believing child might not like to have to hear the Pledge simply won't wash. Any child may have to hear any manner of things in school they don't like to hear, but there is no implied constiuttional right to be able to hear only what you like. If there was, schools wouldn't be able to teach much of anything.
RightatNYU said:You used to be a debate coach? Right.
Shouldn't you have learned then that you also don't get points for ignoring everything that contradicts your previously held notions?
JOHNYJ said:RE ; Caine
Some would relegate Religion to a shelf somewhere to be taken out rarely. They would drive it out of the public square completly. They are sucjh fanatics about it that they edit history .So even there you can't mention religion, that shows who the extremists are.
AlbqOwl said:Hey I've been asking for responses to the criteria that would make two words in the pledge constitutionally illegal. So far not one person has decided to take up that challenge. And yes, any good debater will ignore the 'It's so because I said so' argument.
robin said:I do believe that the topic "Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?", is currently the daftest waste of time on DP. IMO of course.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?