• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Pledge of Allegiance

I understand and agree with argexpat. The name of this thread is “Constitution/1st Amendment/The Pledge of Allegiance”. There is a lot of “the liberals this and that”, “liberals can‘t tolerate two little words”, and even, “atheists fear God”, for crying out loud! It’s time for someone to step up to the plate and demonstrate the unconstitutionality of a law which removes those two little words. I don’t think it necessary to start a thread entitled: What motivates some Americans to insist “under God” remain in Pledge?
 
GySgt said:
My stance is that I don't care either way because it is a waste of time to focus on and the people that are demanding it come out are as STUPID and PATHETIC as the ones that want it in...

"The lady doth protest too much..."

Why so defensive, GySgt, did I hit a nerve? You claim you "don't care either way" and then call those who disagree with you "stupid and pathetic." For someone who claims to not care because everyone is stupid, you sure do spend a lot of time rebutting their arguments. The mind fairly boggles at the the kind of mindless, insulting, inarticulate vitriol you'd be spewing if you actually cared.

If you displayed the same enthusiasm for fighting the real enemies of America as you do for insulting and ridiculing your fellow Americans who happen to be exercising one of the very freedoms you in the military claim to protect (from the safety of your computer foxhole), then you really would be a patriot. Semper fidelis? Semper ignoramus.
 
Last edited:
argexpat said:
"The lady doth protest too much..."

Why so defensive, GySgt, did I hit a nerve? You claim you "don't care either way" and then call those who disagree with you "stupid and pathetic." For someone who claims to not care because everyone is stupid, you sure do spend a lot of time rebutting their arguments. The mind fairly boggles at the the kind of mindless, insulting, inarticulate vitriol you'd be spewing if you actually cared.

If you displayed the same enthusiasm for fighting the real enemies of America as you do for insulting and ridiculing your fellow Americans who happen to be exercising one of the very freedoms you in the military claim to protect (from the safety of your computer foxhole), then you really would be a patriot. Semper fidelis? Semper ignoramus.


Defensive? I believe you were offensive. Fool your intelligence and follow a long "Madam." Where did I call some one "stupid and pathetic" for disagreeing with me? What I said was...."people that are demanding it come out are as STUPID and PATHETIC as the ones that want it in" - This means that everyone arguing this is stupid. This has nothing to do with whether or not a person agrees with me. And no, the nerve struck was you, who obviously has a little too much emotion staked over such a rediculous issue, as it was you who chose to shed tears in Post #298. You also seem to have issues with the military and Marines specifically. Could it be that you are against Iraq and are practicing a little Internet spitting? Care to expound on this "personal inadequacy issue of yours?" Could it be that I embarrased you in another thread somewhere and I just didn't find you worthy to remember? Must you continue to set yourself up?:shrug:
 
Last edited:
"If you displayed the same enthusiasm for fighting the real enemies of America as you do for insulting and ridiculing your fellow Americans who happen to be exercising one of the very freedoms you in the military claim to protect (from the safety of your computer foxhole), then you really would be a patriot. Semper fidelis? Semper ignoramus."

You know nothing about me or my exploits, but I can tell you that you just stuck you foot right in your mouth. You revealed alot about yourself to everyone with this little bit. How sad for you. Don't worry. You don't have to be in the military to be a man.:3oops:
 
Last edited:
marchare said:
Atheists fear God? Manifestly silly. Editing history? How’s “founded on Christian principals” for editing history? Atheists fear religion? If any atheists are afraid, they should be:Look closely at this. This person is clearly implying that atheists can be jailed in America. It is the Christian Right that oozes with intolerance, and a lot of them vote.
Hold it right there. I was that person, and I am no "Religious Right wingnut" that you can just dismiss. I pulled out the Constitution, and made an argument, as you yourself asked for. What's this about jailing? I argued that Atheists, who believe in no religion, cannot seek protection under the First Amendment's "Freedom OF Religion" language. That's it. The rest still applies.

So deal with the argument or not, but trying to paint me as a nut only weakens your position, because as my thread with Shuamort over gay marriage proves, I'm about the law of the United States. Which will you argue from, marchare, strict interpretation, or liberal? If you want to go strict, I have already made my argument: atheists get no protection of the freedom of religion because they have no religion to practice. When you believe in a religion, you can practice any one you want. Until then, you have your freedom of speech and to peacefully assemble, and all the other rights in that and the other Amendments. If you want to go interpretive, I can pull out the first national day of prayer in the FIRST congressional session, put into law by George Washington (*the* Founding Father) himself. Which will it be?

And here's some good news for you: the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times against those who would have prayer in schools, moments of silence, and mandating the Pledge of Allegiance. It's only a matter of time before "under God" will be stricken from the Pledge. What a joyous day that will be. Sleep well knowing that you've helped to contribute to marginalizing one of the core reasons that people come to America: to worship whatever God they choose to. Religion matters to the vast, vast majority of human beings on this planet. Millions, millions more of people have been killed in the name of a secular state than in the name of any God. But you can pretend that the Founding Fathers had no God, be it a Deist God, a Christian God, or any other, and deny that in their FIRST session they declared a national day of prayer and Thanksgiving to God. So when "under God" is removed from the Pledge, then will you endorse it? Will you become "indivisible" with the rest of us who believe in the existance of a higher power, or will you continue to work to divide us up more and ensure that the desires of the few outweigh the desires of the many?
 
marchare said:
I understand and agree with argexpat. The name of this thread is “Constitution/1st Amendment/The Pledge of Allegiance”. There is a lot of “the liberals this and that”, “liberals can‘t tolerate two little words”, and even, “atheists fear God”, for crying out loud! It’s time for someone to step up to the plate and demonstrate the unconstitutionality of a law which removes those two little words. I don’t think it necessary to start a thread entitled: What motivates some Americans to insist “under God” remain in Pledge?

"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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Okay. If a school decides to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on its own, no Congress did so. If a school tries to make the Pledge compulsory, or punish noncompliance, the SCOTUS has already allowed for children to opt out of the Pledge in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

Second, Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Atheist: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods". They have no religion to exercise. They deny the existence of a God. The Pledge does not deprive you therefore of any religious freedom, since an Atheist has no religion.

Step up yourself and argue those two points.
 
TheBigC said:
"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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Okay. If a school decides to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on its own, no Congress did so. If a school tries to make the Pledge compulsory, or punish noncompliance, the SCOTUS has already allowed for children to opt out of the Pledge in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

Second, Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Atheist: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods". They have no religion to exercise. They deny the existence of a God. The Pledge does not deprive you therefore of any religious freedom, since an Atheist has no religion.

Step up yourself and argue those two points.


I still have seen no intelligent argument for what was wrong with the pledge before they decided to change it.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
 
Freedom is freedom, Under God needs to stay. Besides who are we to infringe on the rights and freedoms of our students. Never really mattered before this whole politically correctness ordeal.
 
MCcorno89 said:
Freedom is freedom, Under God needs to stay. Besides who are we to infringe on the rights and freedoms of our students. Never really mattered before this whole politically correctness ordeal.

So the students do not have the right to a secular pledge of allegiance that has no reference to a diety? They must be complelled to learn a pledge that is pretentious in its claim that we are "under god".
 
They can say it as much as they want to, There really won't be a time where thay stop and think what this is all about. Not a big priority in my book.
 
MCcorno89 said:
They can say it as much as they want to, There really won't be a time where thay stop and think what this is all about. Not a big priority in my book.

Im just trying to make a point that we don't have a 1st amendment in the constitution for nothing.
 
As the world is right now we need to be paying more attention to foreign policy instead of pledge of allegience. And even if they changed it, we would still be able to say under god, because in the student handbook, rulebook etc it states that you can practice religious activities gatherings etc as long as it dosnt interfere with school activities. And teachers aren't allowed to stop them.
 
MCcorno89 said:
As the world is right now we need to be paying more attention to foreign policy instead of pledge of allegience. And even if they changed it, we would still be able to say under god, because in the student handbook, rulebook etc it states that you can practice religious activities gatherings etc as long as it dosnt interfere with school activities. And teachers aren't allowed to stop them.

But, the teachers can scrutinize students who say the pledge now without saying under god?
It has happened, hell, it happened to me when I was in elementary school.
 
Really? Wow, our teachers don't even care if we stand up, hell they don't care if we say it or not.
 
MCcorno89 said:
Really? Wow, our teachers don't even care if we stand up, hell they don't care if we say it or not.

Well. post Elementary school we didn't do that crap anymore.
I went to elementary school in the late 80s and very early 90s.
 
The Big C said:
Marchare said:
Atheists fear God? Manifestly silly. Editing history? How’s “founded on Christian principals” for editing history? Atheists fear religion? If any atheists are afraid, they should be:
TheBigC said:
…The language in the Article states that the free exercise of religion cannot be prohibited. Belief in no God is not a religion. It is no religion. It is the absence of religion. Atheists by default are not protected by that language since they do not recognize the existence of any God. I cannot be protected by a law if I am not in the group for whom the law applies...
Look closely at this. This person is clearly implying that atheists can be jailed in America. It is the Christian Right that oozes with intolerance, and a lot of them vote.
Hold it right there. I was that person, and I am no "Religious Right wingnut" that you can just dismiss. I pulled out the Constitution, and made an argument, as you yourself asked for. What's this about jailing? I argued that Atheists, who believe in no religion, cannot seek protection under the First Amendment's "Freedom OF Religion" language. That's it. The rest still applies.
Your view that atheism is not protected by the amendment implies that congress has the power to criminalize atheism, so I must ask you “about jailing”. You pulled out the constitution and proceeded to twist “of religion” into “of a particular religion”. Have you something against atheists?
The Big C said:
So deal with the argument or not, but trying to paint me as a nut only weakens your position, because as my thread with Shuamort over gay marriage proves, I'm about the law of the United States. Which will you argue from, marchare, strict interpretation, or liberal? If you want to go strict, I have already made my argument: atheists get no protection of the freedom of religion because they have no religion to practice. When you believe in a religion, you can practice any one you want. Until then, you have your freedom of speech and to peacefully assemble, and all the other rights in that and the other Amendments. If you want to go interpretive, I can pull out the first national day of prayer in the FIRST congressional session, put into law by George Washington (*the* Founding Father) himself. Which will it be?
Hmmmmmm… Atheists have rights, but are given additional rights upon conversion? And you’re not a wing nut? Look pal, in a free society, faith is not government issue.
The Big C said:
And here's some good news for you: the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times against those who would have prayer in schools, moments of silence, and mandating the Pledge of Allegiance. It's only a matter of time before "under God" will be stricken from the ledge. What a joyous day that will be. Sleep well knowing that you've helped to contribute to marginalizing one of the core reasons that people come to America: to worship whatever God they choose to. Religion matters to the vast, vast majority of human beings on this planet. Millions, millions more of people have been killed in the name of a secular state than in the name of any God. But you can pretend that the Founding Fathers had no God, be it a Deist God, a Christian God, or any other, and deny that in their FIRST session they declared a national day of prayer and Thanksgiving to God. So when "under God" is removed from the Pledge, then will you endorse it? Will you become "indivisible" with the rest of us who believe in the existance of a higher power, or will you continue to work to divide us up more and ensure that the desires of the few outweigh the desires of the many?
Here you ask that I become indivisible with “believers” so that I won’t continue to divide us and deny the desires of the “vast majority“. And I am the one being intolerant?
The Big C said:
Marchare said:
I understand and agree with argexpat. The name of this thread is “Constitution/1st Amendment/The Pledge of Allegiance”. There is a lot of “the liberals this and that”, “liberals can‘t tolerate two little words”, and even, “atheists fear God”, for crying out loud! It’s time for someone to step up to the plate and demonstrate the unconstitutionality of a law which removes those two little words. I don’t think it necessary to start a thread entitled: What motivates some Americans to insist “under God” remain in Pledge?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Okay. If a school decides to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on its own, no Congress did so. If a school tries to make the Pledge compulsory, or punish noncompliance, the SCOTUS has already allowed for children to opt out of the Pledge in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

Second, Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Atheist: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods". They have no religion to exercise. They deny the existence of a God. The Pledge does not deprive you therefore of any religious freedom, since an Atheist has no religion. Step up yourself and argue those two points.
The very fact that you appear on this thread arguing that atheists enjoy no First Amendment protection, betrays your motive. Read it folks. Is this the answer to my above question about motive? This kind of reasoning displays the lack of nuance observable in the pre-packaged heap of sound bites that make up the whole of reductionist neocon thought. No kidding, “under God”, is meaningless? What is it that ties all of the clauses of the First Amendment together? Freedom of thought, that’s what. Atheism included.

You say that the Pledge doesn’t deprive me? You weren’t there to see my daughter crying about others teasing her. She wasn’t old enough to understand why I objected to her doing what “all the other kids” were doing, which was pledging that, among other things, this republic is under God, a religious opinion. I have serious objections to this, she was taunted as unpatriotic. We ended up removing her from this inculcation, and home-schooling her. The cost to her? No signing of yearbooks, Prom night, class reunions, class trip, school classmates, etc. Has she the right to a learning environment free of this coercion? I insist that she does. She still cries about it by the way.

The family commotion this caused brings into question the Righteous-Right’s crap about “family values”. They claim the right to plaster the Ten Commandments on anything government, and then ignore the one about honoring thy mother and father. You may have repeated those other two words, “liberty and justice” hundreds of times and I sure you understand the word “liberty” when talking about your own. Where is the justice for my little girl. It’s that justice part that you don’t understand, because justice protects the minority from the majority.

The fact that I stand up for atheists in no way implies that I am atheist, I just believe in freedom of thought and justice, and have risked life and limb in defense of other’s liberties.

My question: What motivates some Americans to insist “under God” remain in Pledge?
So far, the only responses are, “Maybe it is as simple as not wanting to let an atheist win over God”, and “atheists fear God”. Heck of a way to show that removal of those “two little words” infringes on their rights. I think I have shown in my family’s case, that “this republic is under God”, is an infringement on many rights, including the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law.
 
marchare said:
Your view that atheism is not protected by the amendment implies that congress has the power to criminalize atheism
How so? This is the part you're not getting: this isn't about how I personally feel, this is about language that I see in the First Amendment that when taken literally ensures that people can practice whatever religion they want, and Atheism is not a religion. Personally, believe whatever you want, I couldn't care less. For me, this is about what's there and what isn't. If we want to talk about the "spirit" of the Amendment, it was written to ensure we wouldn't have a repeat of the religious persecution that was a part of Europe's history. How that treated Atheists, I don't honestly know.

marchare said:
Atheists have rights, but are given additional rights upon conversion? And you’re not a wing nut?
You are totally misreading what I'm saying. I'm not asking you to convert, and if I was, please show me where I told you which religion to convert to. What you're not seeing, again, is that this is about how the rules are written. What you personally believe is unimportant to me; you have the right to make your own personal decisions. I'm arguing about how the rules are written, and you're repeatedly projecting things on to me that I do not feel.

marchare said:
Here you ask that I become indivisible with “believers” so that I won’t continue to divide us and deny the desires of the “vast majority“. And I am the one being intolerant?
Again, out of context. Once you've won, and "under God" are removed, my question is: is that the end of your dissent? Will you declare victory and really feel "indivisible" ? Will that strengthen your bond with the rest of us, or will you continue to feel like an outsider? That's the question. It's personal, you don't have to answer if you don't want to.

marchare said:
The very fact that you appear on this thread arguing that atheists enjoy no First Amendment protection, betrays your motive. Read it folks. Is this the answer to my above question about motive?
It's because I like to debate. This site is like the Elysian Fields for me, I love it.

marchare said:
You say that the Pledge doesn’t deprive me? You weren’t there to see my daughter crying about others teasing her.
This is going too personal, I'm not going here. There's nothing I can say that will change your experience, or that of your daughter.

marchare said:
The cost to her? No signing of yearbooks, Prom night, class reunions, class trip, school classmates, etc. Has she the right to a learning environment free of this coercion? I insist that she does. She still cries about it by the way.
Again, leaving it alone. Safe to say though that we all got made fun of to one degree or another, and for some of us, there was no choice involved. I couldn't choose to do something and make the ridicule go away, it stayed with me until I graduated and went on to a bigger pond (University). Kids can be mean, that's all I'll say.

marchare said:
They claim the right to plaster the Ten Commandments on anything government, and then ignore the one about honoring thy mother and father.
There is much hipocrasy in society. Human beings are flawed. I don't think you'd be happier if dogmatic people were *more* dogmatic, would you?

marchare said:
You may have repeated those other two words, “liberty and justice” hundreds of times and I sure you understand the word “liberty” when talking about your own. Where is the justice for my little girl. It’s that justice part that you don’t understand, because justice protects the minority from the majority.
You will never protect your child from buttheads. Try to social-engineer all you want, it will never end as long as people are free to think what they want; the same freedom you wish to enjoy unfettered. People will cluster, there will be majorities and minorities and cliques and in-crowds until the end of time. The solution to that isn't to try to make everything as neutral as possible, because I contend that it drives humanity even more strongly to accentuate their differences.

marchare said:
The fact that I stand up for atheists in no way implies that I am atheist, I just believe in freedom of thought and justice, and have risked life and limb in defense of other’s liberties.
Then you can appreciate that while I stand up for the letter of the law, by no means does it mean I personally feel one way or another about it. The Atheist will always be on the outside, and will always be fighting for their place under the sun, because their beliefs are so far in the minority. If you're arguing against the Pledge simply on principle, in principle you've already won, it's the social stigma of Atheism that stings you, and you will never legislate that away.

Are all forms of thought protected? Sure. All forms of speech protected? No they are not; if you check out what SCOTUS has to say about "fighting words", they are not protected under the First Amendment. Ask yourself why that might be? I should think that the First Amendment is clear about not regulating speech, yet SCOTUS, the champions of the Constitution, felt otherwise. Why?

I think that the best analogy for this whole debate is that of smokers versus nonsmokers. It takes just one smoker to deprive an entire room of nonsmokers of their life and liberty. So in order to preserve the rights of the many, we deprive the rights of the few. Does that make sense? I don't know. Does one believer in a room of Atheists deprive them of their rights to have no God? Do we remove the exercise of religion to ensure no Atheist is offended?

marchare said:
My question: What motivates some Americans to insist “under God” remain in Pledge?
I don't know. I don't care either way. I just jumped in on this side of the argument because it was fun. If I had to venture a guess, it's because there is a deep-rooted sense of gratitude, thanks, and even a sense that America would not be what it is without the blessing of a God. I think it's because to remove it would run counter to that sense of duty, of gratitude, that "we did it ourselves, there was no God involved", and to people of faith, that's like biting the hand that feeds you.

marchare said:
So far, the only responses are, “Maybe it is as simple as not wanting to let an atheist win over God”, and “atheists fear God”. Heck of a way to show that removal of those “two little words” infringes on their rights. I think I have shown in my family’s case, that “this republic is under God”, is an infringement on many rights, including the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law.
How was the law unequally applied to you? Did I miss that part? If you mean that some people enjoy the First Amendment's protection of religious practice and you don't, again, it's like me claiming that I'm being deprived of my Fourteenth Amendment rights if I can't seek relief under murder codes if I've been beaten up at a bar. How is that equal protection under the law if some victims can prosecute their attacker under harsher statutes than I can? How is that equal? If you stop for a second, and can explain to yourself why that wouldn't make sense, you can see the origin of my argument about Atheists seeking relief from the "freedom of religion" clause of the First Amendment.
 
TheBigC said:
This is the part you're not getting: this isn't about how I personally feel, this is about language that I see in the First Amendment that when taken literally ensures that people can practice whatever religion they want, and Atheism is not a religion.
I think you are being dishonest about how you feel about atheists. What you see in the First Amendment is colored by something, and that something is not love for atheists. Atheists are, ”not in the group for whom the law applies“. The Bill of Rights applies according to group?

Still, instead of any effort to show the unconstitutionality of the removal of “under God” from the Pledge, we get more crap about the exclusion of atheists from protection. Any atheists reading this thread feel like adding something here? Are you in an excluded group?
 
marchare said:
I think you are being dishonest about how you feel about atheists. What you see in the First Amendment is colored by something, and that something is not love for atheists. Atheists are, ”not in the group for whom the law applies“. The Bill of Rights applies according to group?

Still, instead of any effort to show the unconstitutionality of the removal of “under God” from the Pledge, we get more crap about the exclusion of atheists from protection. Any atheists reading this thread feel like adding something here? Are you in an excluded group?

Being an Athiest, I think this guy is way out of line. I really don't have much more to say.
 
I think the Pledge of Allegiance should absolutely be in our schools with the reference to God. Because:

1.) It doesn't violate the seperation of church and state because it's just a thing that's indicative of the heritage of our nation. Our nation was founded on Christianity. Don't try to tell me that the founding fathers were deists because the majority were Christian.

2.) I think it's healthy for kids to hear because it might instill a sense of morality in them when they hear the term, "god".

3.) The term god could actually mean any god or any religion, it doesn't have to neccessarily mean the Christian religion. Although like I said, our nation was founded on Christianity.

4.) I dare anyone to show me how atheists are or have been directly hurt by the pledge. Atheists are free to do whatever they want in this country. Nobody is holding them back.

5.) There are much more important things to worry about than something as insignificant as this.
 
George_Washington said:
I think the Pledge of Allegiance should absolutely be in our schools with the reference to God. Because:

1.) It doesn't violate the seperation of church and state because it's just a thing that's indicative of the heritage of our nation. Our nation was founded on Christianity. Don't try to tell me that the founding fathers were deists because the majority were Christian.

2.) I think it's healthy for kids to hear because it might instill a sense of morality in them when they hear the term, "god".

3.) The term god could actually mean any god or any religion, it doesn't have to neccessarily mean the Christian religion. Although like I said, our nation was founded on Christianity.

4.) I dare anyone to show me how atheists are or have been directly hurt by the pledge. Atheists are free to do whatever they want in this country. Nobody is holding them back.

5.) There are much more important things to worry about than something as insignificant as this.


Again, it is not the right of our schools or government to impose religion upon children. They have no right to "instill morality with the term god".

Also, it does not matter what the founding fathers believed in, in terms of personal religious preference, they created the constitution so that people could believe OR not believe if they wanted to.
By stating telling an Athiest that disagrees with the "under God" in the pledge that it is indicative of the heritage of the nation is basically telling them that your country doesn't like you because you don't believe in god like the founding fathers did, thats just completely unintelligent.

And if there are more things to worry about that this little "insignificant" thing, they why argue it? Just let it be changed, and stop forcing kids to pledge allegiance to the flag at school, and we will be all smiles.

I'll provide some information about the problems this pledge has caused....

Link Here
Link Here

These are a couple of examples.
 
Caine said:
Also, it does not matter what the founding fathers believed in, in terms of personal religious preference, they created the constitution so that people could believe OR not believe if they wanted to.
By stating telling an Athiest that disagrees with the "under God" in the pledge that it is indicative of the heritage of the nation is basically telling them that your country doesn't like you because you don't believe in god like the founding fathers did, thats just completely unintelligent.

I just don't see how it's telling atheists that. They're perfectly free to be atheists, anybody is. Why can't they just appreciate it as a historical thing?


And if there are more things to worry about that this little "insignificant" thing, they why argue it? Just let it be changed, and stop forcing kids to pledge allegiance to the flag at school, and we will be all smiles.

Thank you for the links, I'll check them out. But as far as arguing about it, I would rather not, to be honest. It just seems like such a hot topic right now.
 
George_Washington said:
I just don't see how it's telling atheists that. They're perfectly free to be atheists, anybody is. Why can't they just appreciate it as a historical thing?




Thank you for the links, I'll check them out. But as far as arguing about it, I would rather not, to be honest. It just seems like such a hot topic right now.

The pledge didn't always exhist in its current form, And everyone who debates that it is "historical" are using that to cover the fact that they know the constitution proves them wrong.
The original pledge of allegiance had no reference to our nation being "under god"

Info here
 
Caine said:
The pledge didn't always exhist in its current form, And everyone who debates that it is "historical" are using that to cover the fact that they know the constitution proves them wrong.
The original pledge of allegiance had no reference to our nation being "under god"

Info here

Yes, I know it was put in there back in the 1950's. But the question is, was it really a bad thing?
 
George_Washington said:
Yes, I know it was put in there back in the 1950's. But the question is, was it really a bad thing?

Well, being as how our congress/senate/president and all them completely ignored the constitutionality of it because they wanted to "stick it" to the Communist heathens by claiming that we are under god, yeah I would say it was really a bad thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom