'Under God' - Pledge Debate rises again

I'm a right-wing wacko; I say take the god crap out and restore the pledge to its original format- the way it SHOULD be...

Restore the Pledge!
 
In high school they would have students read the pledge every morning. A friend of mine read it like this "and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty..." It was pretty funny and I think they were kinda pissed at him.
 
This is all the result of lawsuits filed by Michael Newdow, an avowed atheist.

Congress (per the Bill of Rights) does not have the power to establish any religion, even that of atheism, or to prohibit the free exercise thereof. This ruling prohibits the free exercise of religion, limiting it solely to atheism.

It is wrong that one person or one unelected handful of judges should have the power to thwart the will of the people based on their personal views. That's tyranny. The constitution has already been written but they're changing it.
 
I say that you can either say "under God" or omit it. I don't need a judge to make that decision for me.

It's just like the Oath of Enlistment...you can either say "I do solemnly swear (or affirm)...". Your choice, free country.
 
FreeFaller said:
I say that you can either say "under God" or omit it. I don't need a judge to make that decision for me.

It's just like the Oath of Enlistment...you can either say "I do solemnly swear (or affirm)...". Your choice, free country.
Click to expand...

Well, the point of the suit is that the leaders of the pledge in schools do not say "One nation under God or with Liberty" they only lead the children in the under God version.

I'd be ok with it if the history of the pledge was taught at all, and thus the children had the choice of saying under God or with Liberty, but even when this was a big debate back when I was in high school, the teachers answers to questions were "Look it up".

Just because a bunch of christian legislators in the 1950s wanted to promote unity of the country, doesn't mean we should still be saying it as a unity under God.
 
raVeneyes said:
Just because a bunch of christian legislators in the 1950s wanted to promote unity of the country, doesn't mean we should still be saying it as a unity under God.
Click to expand...

And just because a literal handful of people who don't believe in God have a problem with it doesn't mean it should be savagely stricken from our schools.
 
fossten said:
And just because a literal handful of people who don't believe in God have a problem with it doesn't mean it should be savagely stricken from our schools.
Click to expand...

I suppose not (though your use of the term "handful" is a bit misleading)

Perhaps there's a COMPROMISE...hmmmmmm...like changing the pledge so that it says "one nation, in Liberty" or "one nation, under God" depending on how the person who is saying it wants to say it.

*DEE DEE DEE*
 
raVeneyes said:
I suppose not (though your use of the term "handful" is a bit misleading)

Perhaps there's a COMPROMISE...hmmmmmm...like changing the pledge so that it says "one nation, in Liberty" or "one nation, under God" depending on how the person who is saying it wants to say it.

*DEE DEE DEE*
Click to expand...

You didn't back up your statement that "handful" is misleading.

"DEE DEE DEE"
 
then why did you comment on it in the first place? and what the hell is this dee dee dee crap?
 
MAllen82 said:
then why did you comment on it in the first place? and what the hell is this dee dee dee crap?
Click to expand...

I was just stating my opinion that it's more than a 'handful' of people who don't like the under god part of the pledge. I don't really feel the need to back that up with empirical data nor do I care about the discrepancy enough to find that empirical data or do a study of the situation...I still think that it's more than a handful of people and so expressed the opinion.

*DEE DEE DEE* comes from the show on Comedy Central called Mind of Mencia
 
raVeneyes said:
*DEE DEE DEE* comes from the show on Comedy Central called Mind of Mencia
Click to expand...

That still doesn't explain to the rest of us what it actually means. Not all of us get all our news from Comedy Central like you Fibs.

"DEE DEE DEE"
 
for those that dont like the "under God" part of the pledge, i guess you dont carry dollar bills, cause of the "in god we trust".

it is freedom of speech, you either say under god or fill it in yourself. in my elementary school we had a kid that stepped outside everytime we said it cause he was a jehovas witness.

i agree with freefaller
 
Raveneyes, you seem to like conspiracies, so I'll get you in on this one. There is a movement across the nation not only to take away our freedoms, but also to remove all vestiges of religion from any public forum. This is being done through the court system since legislators who vote for this kind of crap don't get reelected: ergo, the people don't like it. This is being done little by little, and the last two major rulings, the one about eminent domain and the most recent one about the pledge, which restricts freedom of speech, are more blatant attempts cresting the wave built up over time. If you look at a cross-section of judges, you will find that the majority of these types of decisions were made by Carter and Clinton appointees, although the eminent domain involved Reagan appointees as well.

Anyone who doesn't see our freedoms eroding in this manner is simply hiding his/her head in the sand.
 
Maddog121483 said:
for those that dont like the "under God" part of the pledge, i guess you dont carry dollar bills, cause of the "in god we trust".

it is freedom of speech, you either say under god or fill it in yourself. in my elementary school we had a kid that stepped outside everytime we said it cause he was a jehovas witness.

i agree with freefaller
Click to expand...

Maddog, you're right our money does say "in god we trust" however that is not so much a declaration of the individual as it is a motto or creedo of the issuer of the money. Also it is not affiliating the country with a specific god so much as it is stating that the trust of the money is not backed by gold or anything specific...it is backed by the reputation of the country.

The problem with saying this is a matter of freedom of speech is that the Pledge of Allegiance is supposed to be a binding legal pledge...an oath that everyone takes and affirms their affiliation with the nation. By adding "under God" in the 1950s the congress violated separation of church and state and made the pledge one of an allegiance with a country led by a more or less specific 'God' which is only referred to in the capital letter by christendom.

The congress by changing the text of the pledge has made it illegal (in theory though I've never heard of anyone arrested for it) to say it any other way than "under God"

The original pledge said "in Liberty" which makes much more sense and is not affiliated with anything other than freedom.
 
Although your argument sounds nice, it doesn't make sense. To say that "in God we Trust" is to say that our money is backed not by gold, but by our reputation is nice theoretically. But then shouldn't it really say "in America we trust"?
 
MAllen82 said:
Although your argument sounds nice, it doesn't make sense. To say that "in God we Trust" is to say that our money is backed not by gold, but by our reputation is nice theoretically. But then shouldn't it really say "in America we trust"?
Click to expand...

I think we should stick to the point of the thread...the debate on the Pledge of Allegiance. What's on the back of our money is an entirely different matter.
 
raVeneyes said:
I think we should stick to the point of the thread...the debate on the Pledge of Allegiance. What's on the back of our money is an entirely different matter.
Click to expand...

"DEE DEE DEE"

You're the one who brought it up in order to make your point.

"DEE DEE DEE"

Backtracking, are we?
 
fossten said:
"DEE DEE DEE"

You're the one who brought it up in order to make your point.

"DEE DEE DEE"

Backtracking, are we?
Click to expand...

No I didn't bring it up...

*DEE DEE DEE*
 
so instead of conceding you are going to "go back to the point of the thread"? I made a valid point, and both money and the pledge are related within their references to a God. How is it that for one, God represents our faith in our reputation, but in the other case, it is the State sponsoring a religion? As I said before, your explanation sounds nice and thoughtful, but when you break it down, it is intellectually unsound.
 
fossten said:
Raveneyes, you seem to like conspiracies, so I'll get you in on this one. There is a movement across the nation not only to take away our freedoms, but also to remove all vestiges of religion from any public forum. This is being done through the court system since legislators who vote for this kind of crap don't get reelected: ergo, the people don't like it. This is being done little by little, and the last two major rulings, the one about eminent domain and the most recent one about the pledge, which restricts freedom of speech, are more blatant attempts cresting the wave built up over time. If you look at a cross-section of judges, you will find that the majority of these types of decisions were made by Carter and Clinton appointees, although the eminent domain involved Reagan appointees as well.

Anyone who doesn't see our freedoms eroding in this manner is simply hiding his/her head in the sand.
Click to expand...

This is not the only positive (to those whose agenda is is to internationalize America) outcome. It is important to destroy a nations symbols, like when the statue of Sadaam was toppled, or when the Nazi symbols were torn from buildings at the end of WWII.

The majority of Americans have stated they have a belief in god, so why do the "live and let live" liberals always have to attack religions, mainly focusing on the the christians? Just what is it in the Ten Commandments they find so objectionable? Why do they champion radical muslims, who have stated for decades it is their intention to destroy us? Why do they act outraged when a mosque is damaged (it doesn't seem to bother the insergents to destroy a mosque), yet remain silent when churches are burned to the ground?

This same judge fought for the right of muslims in jail to pray, wear beards, and follow their religious dogmas. Why does he turn his back on HIS countrys' traditions and christian base? What's his agenda?

These people have an agenda that is bad for YOU and your FAMILY, that is why they attend to it through the back door over a long period of time. To sneak it past you.
 
President GEORGE W. BUSH concluding the Katrina Recovery Speach:

"Thank you, and may God bless America."

Oops.

-lol-
 
Whether or not you believe in God, you have to admit the morals and ideals are good and just. I believe the reason most people want God and Christ out of everything is because of there own concience. They cannot stand the fact that those of us who do believe in God, truly look to him for our guidance. What in this world could possibly be wrong with having Gods name in a pledge? When everything about God is just and moral. I don't understand it at all. I certainly want my daughter to grow up in a place where moral and just values are taught. What better way to teach them than include the holy and just God. Whether or not you believe in God..the message is good. What the heck is wrong with that?
 
immusicman said:
Whether or not you believe in God, you have to admit the morals and ideals are good and just. I believe the reason most people want God and Christ out of everything is because of there own concience. They cannot stand the fact that those of us who do believe in God, truly look to him for our guidance. What in this world could possibly be wrong with having Gods name in a pledge? When everything about God is just and moral. I don't understand it at all. I certainly want my daughter to grow up in a place where moral and just values are taught. What better way to teach them than include the holy and just God. Whether or not you believe in God..the message is good. What the heck is wrong with that?
Click to expand...

To me the Christian faith is good and just. I agree with it most of the time, and I usually like those who practice it. Look at it however from outside your own perspective. There are many who do not think that Christians are good or just. There are literally more people in the world who think Christians are evil than there are that think Christians are inherently good. Now imagine you are one of those people, and you live in this country. You may on one hand be willing to pledge your allegiance to this country, but on the other hand not want to pledge your allegiance to the Christian god or the puritanical roots of our government...maybe you like the way it works now, but don't believe in the god that is the one that the people in power worship. (This is just a hypothetical...not me, but a very likely position)

If you don't think you can look at it that way, then try the other good way of explaining why a strong separation of church and state is the way to go, the Taliban government.

Taken to an extreme the Taliban government was the antithesis of a Christianized american government. You have to realize that they were only doing what they thought was theologically good and right...what God wanted them to do...what God said was the way it should be...and their God is just as good and holy as your God. In fact, it's the same God, because the religions share the same roots. Now many people within Afghanistan's borders didn't believe in Allah, or Mohammed, nor did they agree with the Taliban's interpretation of the Koran, but since the Taliban were in power, they demanded that everyone within their borders pledge their allegiance to the government and Allah. If you didn't you ran the risk of being shot.

Now very much like the United States...most of the Taliban's laws were based on their interpretation of the bible. Only...they don't allow dissenting voices to say "Hey...I don't believe in God or Allah".

Now in essence that's what the 1950's legislature did...they said, that you must pledge an allegiance to God and thus, imposing their views on everyone. Regardless of where the imposition of belief comes from or if it's good or bad in your eyes, it should not be allowed to stand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 237 (members: 0, guests: 237)
Back
Top