"Under God"... should be removed from the "Pledge"

I trust Conservative judges who render Originalist opinion.

You keep parroting this line. Why say it? There's no point in debate if you simply fall back on that sort of stupidity.

Since you won't defend your Christianity, even when the Constitution has clearly given you the latitude to do so, then yes, you should be.

No, we are not all equals, according to SCOTUS. We are only granted equal opportunity via law applied equally.

Then why not do that with the entire Pledge? Or anything, for that matter?

You do not possess debate skills. My opinion is being argued. Yours...isn't. Your defense at this point has literally been reduced to bleatingly whiny statements such as "we'll have to agree to disagree" and "we all have our own opinions".

You should not engage in an argument that you cannot defend. I would have absolutely no problem whatsoever taking on anyone in this argument, and would do as well there as here.

Ugh. How does the phrase "under God" impose a religious belief on you any more than seeing a Freeway Billboard with the same words?

You're attempting to conflate the term "impose" with the term "be exposed to". You have no right to not be exposed to the views of another person in public.

If I'm wrong about the billboard with the religious message, you can lay out the distinctions for me. And - while you're at it - explain to me where a Nativity Scene in a town square fits in.

You don't seem to be able to draw distinctions. I'll wait.

Those who possess so little common sense as to trump their own use of it with the rulings of a politically active Court are of no use to me - only to the political agenda behind the activism. There is a term for such people: useful idiots.

And there we go again. This is what your argument has been reduced to: you crawl in your cardboard box, unable to defend your position intellectually anymore, while bleating "I'm entitled to think what I want!!"

Desperately waiting for a leftist political agenda to give you an illegitimate force of law for your voice.

I already addressed that. I'm not going to jump to any conclusion in addressing that. I cannot see how the pending court case would overlooked something you seem to think applies and is so apparently so obvious. For now, it seems your interpretation of that suits your position.

You didn't answer my question. "See the above" didn't address it at all, so I'll ask again:

1) How does holding Christian sermons in the House of Representatives violate the Constitution;

2) Why would those who had just WRITTEN the Constitution knowingly violate it in such a manner;

3) If there WAS a violation, why did not ONE SINGLE POLITICIAN OR CITIZEN file a complaint about these sermons, even though they took place every week? ​

The Pledge does not infringe upon your rights. There is no example of Congress making law respecting an establishment of a Religion here; however: if Congress makes a law BANNING "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, that would be an example of suppression of free expression, and a direct violation of the First Amendment.

Inclusion of the words "under God" aren't equatable with either an honor killing or a stoning. You just made my point for me. There is no violation of the rights of another, which is exactly why the examples you offer of true violations are so horribly incomparable.

Yeah. Atheists are looking to cut the celebration of your faith out from under you - and you're willing to help them. Pure idiocy.

I don't know. I don't know what 'fair' is. Do you? You think it's "fair" to remove "under God" from the Pledge. I - obviously - would be extremely irate about that, and think it's UNfair.

So your use of the word "fair" is completely illegitimate. The word is used by people who simply wish to impose their will on others through suppressions of any expressions they consider UNfair.

Two can play your game. And better than you, clearly.

You have never in any post on this or any other thread demonstrated how the inclusion of the word "under God" tramples yours or anyone else's freedoms.

Nor does it by appearing on our currency.

Liberals. I said that there are plenty of examples of Courts making bad law. You said "no, some laws are very good".

Are you incapable of seeing that response as a mental detachment from the question? Nothing I said declared that nothing the Court does is good.

Regardless: COURTS SHOULD HAVE NO POWER TO MAKE LAW. Courts only have the power to render rulings based upon existing law. LEGISLATURES make law.

By rendering judgement based upon Original Intent. As I've demonstrated, I understand Original Intent extremely well.

Um...no willful violation of the law "changes the Constitution". What we're talking about is your attempts to legally enforce ignoring the Constitution, and violating the rights of others which are supposed to be guaranteed in the Constitution.

You are literally co-opting the word "impose" and attempting to supercede your contrived claim to a right to not be offended over my right to free expression.

I am absolutely biased against leftists - and I have the arguments to defeat their ideology.

I don't need to "interpret" what they said. I have already provided you proof of what they DID - that's exactly why I asked you those three questions in BOLD TYPE above.

The insipid tactic of the left: if you disagree with what something says, "interpret it" how you wish - and throw up a smokescreen to deny what you did.

No, you do not have to live with anything. You can fight. Our Founders warned us that would be necessary at some point. That time is approaching yet again.

You would be wise to be on my side.

 

The outcome will likely be the same as it has been in the recent past.

Since it is not infringing on any of your Right's it will be left as it is.

 

We'll see if that is what the court concludes. As I said before... it will be interesting.

 

Things have definitely gotten carried away in here... but I think it's only "unfair" if the public schools went on to define what "God" means for the students. The upshot is that it can provoke kids to come home and ask "what does under God mean?" And that is a great opportunity for parents to explain and reiterate that the government is not our ultimate authority or source of rights, value, etc. Even Stephen Hawking speaks of the mere order of the universe as "God."

On another note, I also agree with the various comments in here that reciting the pledge in schools is nothing short of creepy. I oppose taking the phrase out of the pledge, but, perhaps ironically, I do not oppose eliminating it from the daily ritual of primary education.

 

I generally agree with you. Still, I don't see the need to have the word "God" in the "Pledge"... if it is so universal that it could be "defined" any which way.

I'm no language expert, but I am certain I could re-write that "Pledge" to include ALL and also communicate the heartfelt meaning which it already holds for many (but certainly not all).

 

You cannot.

There is no such thing as writing a Pledge with which all Americans will agree. There have already been many Americans in this very forum which have expressed disdain for reciting any sort of Pledge of Allegiance to America regardless.

Making your entire argument moot. I'm not about to give up my right to free expression to entertain a fabricated notion on your part that you have a "right" to not hear my free expression.

 

Outcome will likely be the same as it is in the OP's poll. Always amazing how people start polls, then proceed to ignore the results. It's like they ask, but don't really want to hear... what others think.

 

I'm certain that I could.

I am sure a better one could be written.

Of course.

You're wrong about that. It matters that we be as just as possible about things such as this.

I never called for you to relinquish your perceived right to "free expression". I did however, call for greater justice for all where the composition of the "Pledge" itself was concerned.

 

I will bet you $100,000. Are you so naive as to claim that you can write a Pledge with which every American will agree?

Are you so seriously deluded? The Pledge has ALWAYS been about what the majority believes about this country. There will ALWAYS be outliers.

Those who do not want "under God" in the Pledge are also outliers. They are in the vast minority.

You fail. The moment you wish to remove "under God", your definition of "better" badly assaults the majority opinion of the word.

You're going to have to type that again, using something other than Engrish.

You did, and you did so against 90% of Americans whose demand for free expression includes leaving the Pledge alone.

Or did you miss that poll, and one you yourself started? Why did you ask for a poll, if you didn't wish to see and abide by the result?

There is no greater justice. There is just an alternative suppression of belief. The majority of this Nation believes that this Nation stands Under God.

As do the Founders. If you do not believe so, we have large enough hearts to allow you to stay, and express your beliefs to that end. That heart, however, ends abruptly the moment that you and yours think that your own personal outlier opinion should be the one publicly represented in our expressions of belief.

As such, you FAIL.

 

the pledge creates a feudal contract with the state, it should be abolished in its entirety

 

a pledge puts you your body and everything you own or ever will own at the disposal of the government. (collateral)

 

If that is the case, so does your oath of citizenship.

 

That poll is simply a sketch of the demographic here in this forum; it is hardly scientific. It's interestingly-entertaining... not much else.

 

No, not really. Try not distorting and exaggerating the points I make. I DO believe that the 1923 version of the "Pledge" would be more agreeable to Americans overall.

You might think so.

Those who disagree with the "Pledge" are not "outliers"; I don't think that "majority rules", when it comes to people's basic rights as Americans. Apparently, you do.

They aren't what you label them to be. I know you think you are correct, but it is fine to disagree with your views.

I'm not so concerned that the "Pledge" is popular... as much as it would INCLUDE every American (in principle). As it is presently written, it does not.

You imagine I do. Even so, I can assure you that I'm willing to fight for what I think/believe is right. (I won't "fail" in that sense.)

The word "God" does NOT need to be in the "Pledge of Allegiance". You disagree... but I have my view also.

Okay. What I am saying there , is that it is not just to subject school children to such indoctrination "daily" in public schools. All parents should NOT quietly abide the practice having that "Pledge" recited by their classmates... if their children cannot truly relate to it in good conscience. That would be a form of indoctrination, in my view.

Look, I know that 90% is some number you believe matters in all of this (wherever you found it)... but I don't think the majority necessarily rules in this case.

I didn't "miss" anything; the polling must mean something very different for you. In any case, it isn't a scientific poll... just a raw caricature representing those participating within this forum.

(See the above.)

That does not mean EVERYONE must be subjected to your/my beliefs. The majority cannot and does not always rule (in America). Got it?!

The views of the "Founders", are things we (today) interpret in many ways. When conflicts such as the one this thread represents occurs... we deliberate the matter within a court of law. And while it is nice to 'feel' we are "right" about any given thing... the best answer isn't always as clear and simple as we might believe.

How about, those who do not believe, allow YOU to stay? You do know that the "majority" do not determine the rights of all, don't you?

What about those who must endure those unwanted expressions of "belief"? Have they no basic rights? Or does "religion" trump people's basic human rights every time?

Fine. You continue to imagine that I do; I can see where your head is. In truth we disagree. I prefer a reasonable compromise; something other than subjecting those who do not relate to "God"... to what they do daily in many schools.

 

More things to consider here.

 

I think the pledge should represent all Americans, not just those that believe in a God, so yes I think it should go back to the way it was... all inclusive rather then divisive

 

I think if we are gonna force children to say it every morning that it should be neutral... neither pro-god or anti-god, that is just me though

 

Pantheism trumps atheism, thats all i really need to say.

we all exist under god (the all) and the laws of nature.

no amount of denial or magical thinking can change the fact that everybody lives under the laws of physics and nature.

all you atheists need to do is remove deism in "god."

not all definitions for "god" involve a supernatural diety.

in fact monotheism origonally never considered god supernatural, nature itself was/is god.

if atheists will just remove diety from god, a whole new world of enlightenment will follow.

from the stoics and great minds of greece, to modern scientists, einstein, hawking sagan etc. they all share one thing in common, they were/are pantheists.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

"under God" in the pledge is a non-issue among life's greater problems.

 

But people who shout Allahu akbar (God is great) is one of life's greater problems.

 

What I don't get about this excuse is that the people who say it still fight against change. Clearly it's issue enough that people continue to oppose the subject rather than just say "you know what, non-issue, change it if you want."

Nice necro btw.

 

Well if they are not going to remove the words "under god" ...then it should at the very least be spelled out exactly to which god they are referring!

With so many gods to choose from it would be nice for those of us who don't believe in fairy tales to know which god we don't believe in we are simply paying lip service to!

Me I just skip this silly line and jump back in when the silly part is over!

 

Congress may decide as it wishes, of course, on this issue. It is unimportant either way. Anyone who thinks Jesus cares does not understand the living gospel of the Savior.

 

Since the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance isn't mandatory, what difference doe's it make if God is mentioned? If you don't want to say the Pledge-don't say it.

 

I still find it odd that some people object to "religious indoctrination" in one part of the pledge but have no problem with the nationalistic indoctrination that encompasses the entire thing.

How about we just do away with having schoolchildren recite it altogether and then see if the republic is worthy of their allegiance when the time comes that they are capable of voluntarily offering it?

It seems to me that a system of government worthy of allegiance wouldn't have a need to indoctrinate small children before they were able to understand the concepts involved.