• 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.
Re: There's TWO Reasons The Pledging Should Cease

AlbqOwl said:
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.

The First Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of yu need to look at some of the decisions of the Supreme court. They have interpreted and extended this to mean that people have no right to force their religious beliefs on others. Freedom of religion now also means freedom from religion. Individual choice. Sometimes Christians seem to try to rewrite history to support their own believes. Yet so do others besides Christians.
Personally I am do not think, that,, In God We Trust on money,, or Under God in the pledge of allegiance do not as one to believe anything. I am not offended by it at all.
 
The First Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of yu need to look at some of the decisions of the Supreme court. They have interpreted and extended this to mean that people have no right to force their religious beliefs on others. Freedom of religion now also means freedom from religion. Individual choice. Sometimes Christians seem to try to rewrite history to support their own believes. Yet so do others besides Christians.
Personally I am do not think, that,, In God We Trust on money,, or Under God in the pledge of allegiance do not as one to believe anything. I am not offended by it at all.

Please read post 318 this should give you some insight.

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.

Again please read post 381

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.

Please read post 381

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.

Again I will tel you the same as everyone else. go read post 381

I again thank you for your arguments in regards to this matter but when it comes down to it post 381 sums it all up for you kind people. You have been well heard and pondered but it comes down to post 381. I hope you finally understand the facts at hand and the simplicity of it.
 
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.

It's unconstitutional, sorry. Government can't and shouldn't endorse religion. Thank you, come again.
 
Re: There's TWO Reasons The Pledging Should Cease

AlbqOwlThus said:
Forget the historical cultural claptrap, a pledge is made to what is, not to what was. This is not a "nation under God". Not one thing has this nation ever accomplished been done to deliberately glorify God. Every goal, every act, has been the result of human greed or human need.

If, as has been said, the words "under God" have no current religious significance, then they're not needed. Since they weren't in the original poem, what's the point in having them there? Since the intruding words were added after 1945, couldn't the words "under the Bomb" been apropos?

How about this version:

I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and the Republic for which it stands,
One nation, self-reliant,
with liberty and justice for all.

That "self-reliant" part certainly captures the true spirit of our American heritage. It wasn't God that did anything to build this country, it was men working hard for themselves. Men plowed the fields. Men cut the trees. Men built the ships, the railroads, and the factories. Men invented the telegraph, the telephone, and the digital watch. Men whipped the slaves to get the cotton picked, and men killed the Indians. What did God do?

On the Establishment thingy. Atheism is not a religion. However, to say the pledge correctly, that is, to follow the wording according the law, the atheist is required to be false to his beliefs. Congress has written a law that establishes recognition of a deity as a pre-condition for allegience.
 
Columbusite said:
It's unconstitutional, sorry. Government can't and shouldn't endorse religion. Thank you, come again.


Again you are freaking getting annoying casue gov isnt endorsing it. If they dont make you recite it then gov isnt endorsing it how many times do I have to explain this to you nimrods!!!

Again read post 381.

Until gov makes you recite it word for word the its not gov endorsed. Let me ask you how is it gov endorsed if they dont even make you recite it? Your right they dont make you recoite it therefore it isnt endorsed. Get a freking clue dude. You are getting seriously really annoying becasue you arent making an ounce of sense. Even if the school has pledge of allegance time I am sure if there is a student who refuses to say the under god part the gov isnt going to storm into the school and arrest everyone who didnt say it properly. If they are please tell me casue I will be the first to say its unconstitutional.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Again you are freaking getting annoying casue gov isnt endorsing it. If they dont make you recite it then gov isnt endorsing it how many times do I have to explain this to you nimrods!!!

Again read post 381.

Until gov makes you recite it word for word the its not gov endorsed. Let me ask you how is it gov endorsed if they dont even make you recite it? Your right they dont make you recoite it therefore it isnt endorsed. Get a freking clue dude. You are getting seriously really annoying becasue you arent making an ounce of sense. Even if the school has pledge of allegance time I am sure if there is a student who refuses to say the under god part the gov isnt going to storm into the school and arrest everyone who didnt say it properly. If they are please tell me casue I will be the first to say its unconstitutional.

Congress signing the bill to add the phrase "under God" to the pledge into law is a " law respecting an establishment of religion". This is what you are not getting. Government endorsing religion is unconstitutional and whether they make you say the pledge or not doesn't matter in the end. If they do, then it becomes blatantly unconstitutional as opposed to being unconstitutional. The government can endorse religion without making you do anything and still endorse religion. I am making plenty of sense, you just need to sharpen your ability to reason. :doh
 
Columbusite said:
Congress signing the bill to add the phrase "under God" to the pledge into law is a " law respecting an establishment of religion". This is what you are not getting. Government endorsing religion is unconstitutional and whether they make you say the pledge or not doesn't matter in the end. If they do, then it becomes blatantly unconstitutional as opposed to being unconstitutional. The government can endorse religion without making you do anything and still endorse religion. I am making plenty of sense, you just need to sharpen your ability to reason. :doh


Again its NOT ENFORCED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Therefor its NOT ENDORSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get the picture?
 
SKILMATIC said:
Again its NOT ENFORCED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Therefor its NOT ENDORSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get the picture?

Jesus H. Christ. :roll: I can't believe I have to resort to this, (English is your 1st language, correct?):lol: but here is the definition of "endorse" as it is on dictionary.com .

en·dorse Audio pronunciation of "endorse" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-dôrs) also in·dorse (n-)
tr.v. en·dorsed, en·dors·ing, en·dors·es

1. To write one's signature on the back of (a check, for example) as evidence of the legal transfer of its ownership, especially in return for the cash or credit indicated on its face.
2. To place (one's signature), as on a contract, to indicate approval of its contents or terms.
3. To acknowledge (receipt of payment) by signing a bill, draft, or other instrument.
4. To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement; sanction: endorse a political candidate.

(italics mine)

Where does it say anything about forcing someone else to do something? Now keep in mind that to endorse something does not mean to enforce it. If I wanted to say "enforce" I would, but that word doesn't mean endorse, nor is it a synonym. Read my last post again with this in mind and things will all click together. The learning process is never over.
 
Again you are completely off. I know what endorsing and enforcing means. However, if congress endorsed originally the phrase in the pledge and they dont enforce it then they really didnt endorse it now did they? Besides the pledge itself wasnt even endorsed let alone have it be enforced. Its just like the congress endorsed the 10commandments to be present in courtrooms. Are ou going to whine about that too becasue they are there but ypu also have the right to look away. Just like you do here you have the right to not say the phrase which mkes it very constitutional. However, when they make you say the phrase then thats when it gets unconstitutional. Please understand simple things
 
Navy Pride said:
The 9th circuit court in San Francisco is the most activisr appeals court in this country...About 40% of their rulings are overturned by the SCOTUS.......So will this one...........Take it to the bank.......
Just wondering why you've completely ignored my request for you to prove that the statement you made in this post is not complete and utter bullshit?

I clearly requested that you prove that 40% of their rulings have been overturned and that it is the "most activist appeals court in the country."

You posted this untruth multiple times in this thread yet you never respond when your untruths are exposed. How come?

Anyone can lie or twist facts to make their point. It's oh so interesting when someone posts lies and then when asked to prove that he is not lying he just ignores the challenge.

Pretty lame, you know?
 
SKILMATIC said:
Again you are completely off. I know what endorsing and enforcing means. However, if congress endorsed originally the phrase in the pledge and they dont enforce it then they really didnt endorse it now did they? Besides the pledge itself wasnt even endorsed let alone have it be enforced. Its just like the congress endorsed the 10commandments to be present in courtrooms. Are ou going to whine about that too becasue they are there but ypu also have the right to look away. Just like you do here you have the right to not say the phrase which mkes it very constitutional. However, when they make you say the phrase then thats when it gets unconstitutional. Please understand simple things

No, you can't possibly understand simple things. Look how badly you're tripping over the concept of "endorsement".

I can give my whole hearted endorsement of a new nuclear power plant that'll be built in your backyard and I don't have to spend a dime or call a politician to do so.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Again you are completely off. I know what endorsing and enforcing means. However, if congress endorsed originally the phrase in the pledge and they dont enforce it then they really didnt endorse it now did they? Besides the pledge itself wasnt even endorsed let alone have it be enforced. Its just like the congress endorsed the 10commandments to be present in courtrooms. Are ou going to whine about that too becasue they are there but ypu also have the right to look away. Just like you do here you have the right to not say the phrase which mkes it very constitutional. However, when they make you say the phrase then thats when it gets unconstitutional. Please understand simple things

No, you don't know the difference between "endorse" and "enforce" otherwise you wouldn't have intertwined their meanings. "Endorse" like "approval" does not require enforcement. By endorsing something you are showing that you approve of that something. Show me where endorsing something means having to push it onto other people. You first used it incorrectly when you said "the pledge itself wasn't even endorsed". Congress signed the bill to add those two words into law and you are telling me that isn't endorsement of the phrase? You used the word correctly when you said that "congress endorsed the 10commandments" (when did that happen again?), so I'll give you that. Yes, I've already talked about the 10 commandments before and how unless they are displayed properly (with other relevant religious and secular documents) they have no place in a courthouse. I do understand the difference between "endorse" and "enforce", which is rather simple if you ask me.
 
thapcballa said:
why does it matter if under god is in there or not. not a big deal.


Thank you. It all comes down to this. Does it really hurt you that bad? If it does you people need to grow some balls and have them drop. Because this whining is getting retarded. Again if they dont enforce it then they really didnt endorse it. Thats what it comes down to. Sure they physically endorsed it in the beginning but if they dont even inforce what they endorse then its meaningless if you ask me. So whats the big deal then? If its not a big deal to government then why is it a big deal to you?
 
SKILMATIC said:
Thank you. It all comes down to this. Does it really hurt you that bad?

Yeah, it does. It's an affront to everyone that doesn't have their own personal sky demon to worship. It's a lie. Since I don't wish to raise my kids to believe in lies, it harms them to force them to babble semi-religious nonsense first thing in the morning at school.

If you wish to lie to your kids and tell them about magical fairies that drown the world, go ahead. Why do you need the government to tell your lies? It's my government, too.
 
Columbusite said:
It's unconstitutional, sorry. Government can't and shouldn't endorse religion. Thank you, come again.

I agree 100% that Government and Religion should never mix, and I am definitely a christian.

Yet the Term God, is a traditional generic term. People used the word God, in ancient Eqypt, greece, America, and china etc.etc etc. The word God, has been around for many thousands of years before Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other modern religion was founded or even thought of. Now days, many seem to think of the word God as Biblical only. When I pray, I am speaking to the Biblical God, yet People all over the world, folk pray each day to other Gods from other traditions. Whether they are riight or wrong is not part of this discussion. This is not a discussion of whether there is or is not a God. It is a discussion of whether the Term God should be on our money or in our pledge of allegiance.

The general conception of God may be said to be that of an infinite being (often a personality but not necessarily anthropomorphic).:mrgreen:

In God We Trust , on paper money, or Under God, in the pledge, is not asking for, or even stating a religious presence. It is a generic traditional term. For the life of me, I cannot understand why it would matter to anyone.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yeah, it does. It's an affront to everyone that doesn't have their own personal sky demon to worship. It's a lie. Since I don't wish to raise my kids to believe in lies, it harms them to force them to babble semi-religious nonsense first thing in the morning at school.

If you wish to lie to your kids and tell them about magical fairies that drown the world, go ahead. Why do you need the government to tell your lies? It's my government, too.

Sky demon? LOL ok c'mon now you are being over zealous about this. This is rediculous. And its no wander why liberalism is a mental disorder. Just dont say it without the phrase simple as that end of discussion. Its not going to hurt you anyway unless you let it. Theres no way if you hear that phrse that its literally going to hurt you physically or mentally. So if it doesnt do this then its irrelevant.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Sky demon? LOL ok c'mon now you are being over zealous about this. This is rediculous. And its no wander why liberalism is a mental disorder. Just dont say it without the phrase simple as that end of discussion. Its not going to hurt you anyway unless you let it. Theres no way if you hear that phrse that its literally going to hurt you physically or mentally. So if it doesnt do this then its irrelevant.

So if it was "under no God" you wouldn't have a problem with it?
 
Columbusite said:
So if it was "under no God" you wouldn't have a problem with it?

Of course I wouldnt. I would just say it "under God". I have every right to say the pledge how I please. I have the freedom of speech. So your dam right I have no problem.
 
Furthermore, you could just say it without the whole phrase. Its totally up to you. Its when the gov starts enforcing our way of speech is when it becomes unconstitutional. I have no problem in a room full of people saying watever they beleive in that portion of the speech. Some can say allah, God, Son god, Buddha, or whatever. You get the picture.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Thank you. It all comes down to this. Does it really hurt you that bad? If it does you people need to grow some balls and have them drop. Because this whining is getting retarded. Again if they dont enforce it then they really didnt endorse it. Thats what it comes down to. Sure they physically endorsed it in the beginning but if they dont even inforce what they endorse then its meaningless if you ask me. So whats the big deal then? If its not a big deal to government then why is it a big deal to you?

When people use the pledge/10 commandments/etc to push a pro-theocratic agenda it is a big deal. And you still don't know the difference between "endorse" and "enforce". I don't see how we can continue this discussion when you refuse (or are just incapable) to understand the words being used (I'm not being sarcastic).
 
Columbusite said:
When people use the pledge/10 commandments/etc to push a pro-theocratic agenda it is a big deal. And you still don't know the difference between "endorse" and "enforce". I don't see how we can continue this discussion when you refuse (or are just incapable) to understand the words being used (I'm not being sarcastic).

How many time do I have to tell you that I am very aware of what th difference of both of the words mean but what you fail to understand is that which I just told you. Please understand common sense. Likewise I cant continue a debate with a person who doesnt understand common sense. The phrase will not hurt you or I in anyway therefor its not unconstitutional and it doesnt breech any bill of rights or ammendment. Becasue they physically endorsed it in the beginiing doesnt matter if they dont enforce it. You still fail to realize this.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Of course I wouldnt. I would just say it "under God". I have every right to say the pledge how I please. I have the freedom of speech. So your dam right I have no problem.

That's fine and dandy, but it would be unconstitutional, just as it is to have "under God" in the pledge. This isn't about what you feel or believe to be constitutional, but what is constitutional or not. When we look at optional school led prayer it was found unconstitutional for having government approval (public schools). Being forced to say prayer or not, that was not the case. Similarly today, it is not about whether people are forced to say the pledge, but the government showing preference towards religion. That is unconstitutional and should not be allowed. This should have been taken care of long ago or better yet, not added in the first place.
 
SKILMATIC said:
How many time do I have to tell you that I am very aware of what th difference of both of the words mean but what you fail to understand is that which I just told you. Please understand common sense. Likewise I cant continue a debate with a person who doesnt understand common sense. The phrase will not hurt you or I in anyway therefor its not unconstitutional and it doesnt breech any bill of rights or ammendment. Becasue they physically endorsed it in the beginiing doesnt matter if they dont enforce it. You still fail to realize this.

Look, you have not demonstrated the ability to differentiate between the two which you clearly show here, "Again if they dont enforce it then they really didnt endorse it.". Clear as can be (except to you). I have already argued with much detail that their enforcement isn't what makes it (un)constitutional. You are arguing a moot point and that is what I've realized, but do you?
 
Columbusite said:
That's fine and dandy, but it would be unconstitutional, just as it is to have "under God" in the pledge. This isn't about what you feel or believe to be constitutional, but what is constitutional or not. When we look at optional school led prayer it was found unconstitutional for having government approval (public schools). Being forced to say prayer or not, that was not the case. Similarly today, it is not about whether people are forced to say the pledge, but the government showing preference towards religion. That is unconstitutional and should not be allowed. This should have been taken care of long ago or better yet, not added in the first place.

IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH ENFORCEMENT. I dont even think its constitutional to make people pray in a church let alone at school. But in school if I wanted to pray I could. They couldnt tell me no. I have the right to. Just like vice versa. If schoool led prayer they had the opportunity to pray to whatever they beleived. They still had their freedoms. Just like here. You still have your freedom to say what you want therefor it is constitutional. What does the constitution say about the prohibits on religion? Please show me where word for word that it says people must say the pledge word for word in unicen on a daily basis and if this isnt abided then we will prosecute them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom