In accordance with the Supreme Ct's interpretation of the Establishment Clause, the words "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.
DonkeyDude said 04/23, 03:13 PM
The CA Supreme Court said it best:
"[T]he statement that the United States is a nation 'under God' is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism.
The recitation that ours is a nation 'under God' is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase 'one nation under God' in the context of the Pledge is normative.
To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and - since 1954 - monotheism.
The text of the ... Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."
theyoungdem said 04/23, 06:05 PM
The reason "under god" was added, was because it was felt that there was no reference to a Diety. The pledge was just a plain pledge before that and could have been for any nations, but with the reference to a diety. Diety can mean Vishnu,Zeus, anything.
The American way of life is described this way. God is just a term, its much simpler than saying " postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings", which is a Diety.
As Eisenhower said:
"These words [???under God???] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded."
DonkeyDude said 04/23, 07:49 PM
It wasn't "felt" there was no reference to a Deity. There WASN'T reference to one.
The pledge was far from non-descript or generic until the inclusion of the words "under God."
It doesn't matter what "deity" means. "Deity" isn't in the pledge. "God" is.
Whether "God" or "postulated preternatural ..." is in the pledge, it is still a reference to a religious notion of a divine entity. "One nation under God" in the context of a pledge of allegiance blatantly states that ours is a monotheistic nation. It is not. Religion has no part in the laws of this land or their administration.
It doesn't matter what Eisenhower said, but you help make my point. He said the words "under God" help us remember the spiritual principles "which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded." FALSE. spiritual principles do not universally have anything to do with "God." That is monotheistic bias. Nor is our way of life universally founded on principles that include belief in God. My life certainly isn't - yet I am a moral person. To imply that humility, morality & dignity derive from belief in God is so blatantly in support of my point that I don't know what we're even debating.
theyoungdem said 04/23, 08:24 PM
It was felt something was missing. What we are debating is whether or not "under god" should be removed. Yes, church and state is separate, but also you have to think about the reasons for inserting it. You think it got inserted through a Supreme Court ruling out of a a "blatantly wrong" opinion?
what about these opinions
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment had acquired a well-accepted meaning: it forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations.The Establishment Clause did not require neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the federal government from providing non-discriminatory aid to religion.
One who voluntarily recites the Pledge does not affirm his or her belief in 'God' or even his or her belief that the United States is and will be 'one Nation under God,' rather the adherent affirms his allegiance 'to the Republic,' which is then described as constituting a single indivisible nation, historically founded upon a belief and by those who believed in God
DonkeyDude said 04/23, 09:24 PM
You talk about the "reason" for inserting those words. Well, the legislative history of the 1954 amendment to the pledge indicates that it was decidedly not intended to be neutral with respect to religion. It takes sides on a controversial question: whether God exists and whether the nation is dependent on God.
Equally important are the reasons to remove the phrase - ensuring the viability of religious minority perspectives in this country. I would think that would appeal to a fellow Democrat's sense of fairness and equality, as well as any patriot's sense of true freedom.
Re: your first quote. Rehnquist said this, not in reference to the pledge. He notes that, at some point in the past, the Clause "DID not require neutrality between religion and irreligion." That doesn't help you NOW, because a good deal of cases have come down stating that it does in fact mean just that.
Re: your second quote. This is a Clintonian twisting of the words of the pledge. I'll cite the pledge in comments so you can analyze the grammar for yourself.
FYI: see these 3 cases (shorthand): Allegheny; Santa Fe; Newdow. Then see: Mergen's; Lamb's Chapel (for examples of permissible religious involvement).
theyoungdem said 04/23, 09:44 PM
The founding fathers all believed in one God, they created this nation under his name, also stating "all men are created equal", however they also kept the state seperate from the church.
I researched those cases more, and though I not only have no objection to the "under God" but I also appreciate its there.
However you are right, and I realized, that if it said "one nation under no God", then I would too be arguing due to the clause and such.
I admit you win, I now believe the opposite.
Comments
Add Your Comment
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK! OK, new rule: If I post a debate topic, please.. for the love of God, youngdem, PEACE&LOVE, JWise, Alexon96 and Chesty, don't accept it.
DonkeyDude | 04/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
DD, I'll take it, if you want to directly challenge me, or whatever. If not, so be it.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
How does youngdem have 3 votes already? His position is blatantly wrong, but he doesn't even know why - as evidenced by his rambling, meaningless first argument. I tend to start these things out 0-3... Something foul is afoot. I am going to leave this site for sure if this keeps happening. What's the point?
DonkeyDude | 04/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
DD, I told you this was happening. And to think, you suppported YoungDem's stance attacking someone for (paraphrasing) "complaining about losing" earlier. I have a theory as to what's going on here, but I'll keep it to myself for now. I outlined part of it last night for you, though.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
No, I agreed with your point, PB. But then P&L made a good point (without admitting guilt): if she were going to rig votes (collusion, etc), she'd have done it in a debate she was closer to winning. one of her debates with majestik was pretty close (forgot what about), so why not do it there where she'd have more credibility? I dunno. This is bullshit. Just vote - one time - for whomever you think has the strongest arguments. I myself have voted (and even argued) against positions I agree with, and I'd expect others can as well. Demographics play too much of a role on this site. I think that has hurt me and helped me. I admit I shouldn't have won that one about Iran against MarkW b/c he came off more knowledgeable (with good reason). Whatever. Read my opening argument here and then youngdem's response. I mean, .... come on.
DonkeyDude | 04/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
Hmmm.. PB, check out the third & fourth comments here: http://www.elephant-donkey.com/elephantdonkey/show/8101
DonkeyDude | 04/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
Also look carefully at this argument (just pay attention to who is arguing), and then the 1st and 2nd comments: http://www.elephant-donkey.com/elephantdonkey/show/7921
DonkeyDude | 04/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
DD, you now feel my pain. P&L made the ''good point'' to mitigate likely motive, in my opinion. If merely saying something hypothetical like ''Why would I do that [in whatever circumstance]?'' will make people say, ''Well, I guess that person wouldn't do it then''---then mission accomplished, bait taken. I actually think some of these debaters are the same person under different names. I'll leave that theory to others to explore. p.s., I'll take your Pledge of Allegiance debate, if you want to have a decent one.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
AHA! NICE WORK, DD. That was the theory I mentioned before, too --- that YoungDem is Peace&Love is weareallequal. Also notice who took the two new ''debates'' today about cheating in voting here (youngdem and weareallequal). And notice how youngdem defended the intelligence and effort of P&L when clearly, that is just foolish. So in the examples you (again major kudos) found, P&L got caught signing in under different names and forgot which one she was under when leaving comments. Nice teamwork here, DD. Who said liberals and conservatives can't work together? :)
USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
Also you're very full of yourself, obviously we both believe that each other's positions are "blatantly wrong", you're statements are simply cocky and ignorant.
theyoungdem | 04/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
Alright, PB. Let me finish this one first, and then I'll send you a link. Hey, if anybody out there is up for childish gamesmanship, I hope you didn't just try to screw me (although I'd believe I'm just paying a price for inflammatory rhetoric): http://www.elephant-donkey.com/elephantdonkey/show/7402
DonkeyDude | 04/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
I'm peace&love and weareallequal?! That's insane. That's like me saying you and donkeydude is the same.
theyoungdem | 04/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
I've been screwed by childish gamesmanship already, which is why I wanted to be Paul Revere and warn others to look out for it immediately for themselves. Looks like it didn't take long for others to start seeing the signs themselves. Jericho is hopefully crashing down....
USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
PB, that cracked me up. BTW, I'm actually looking forward to losing against theandrewwest... it'll make me feel like I have less to lose in these debates (re: leader board). youngdem, you are truly a terrible debater. I don't mean that personally, as you actually seem like a cool person, but don't tell me I'm "blatantly wrong" and "ignorant" when your crappy response above is the best you can do. I've seen you do some good debates against other people; why can't you at least write coherently against me? Is this some form of torture?
DonkeyDude | 04/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
No, I'm not only new in debating but I'm new in politics. I have much to learn, really.
theyoungdem | 04/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
I swear, no disrespect towards Theyoungdem, but if Donkey Dude loses this, this site will have lost much of whatever credibility it has for me. Donkey Dude, I think it's just the inflammatory rhetoric that's put you at the disadvantage. I'm not sure if you were suggesting our debate was rigged, but I assure you, I don't have the influence here for that.
theandrewwest | 04/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
AW, no, I think you schooled me on that debate. In fact, I'll resign it now out of respect (and to make sure you don't get screwed). Matter of fact, that debate taught me a lot about debating on this site, and I've since done way better. So thank you. Youngdem, I respect that you're new to some of this. Responses like the one you just gave make me feel like a d*ck. Sorry. But maybe when you're up against someone obviously much more knowledgeable, don't call them "ignorant." Not because it's not nice, but because it highlights your own weakness. BTW, your second argument here was better, although it's clear you Copy & Pasted it. I did too (although I cited), so I can't complain.
DonkeyDude | 04/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
Oops, apparently the forfeit button disappears once the arguments are over.
DonkeyDude | 04/23/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th PresidentThe Brazen Pirates of Somalia
This year, close to 90 ships have been seized in and around the Gulf of Aden, more than triple the number of 2007
(Jason R. Zalasky / US Navy / EPA )
I missed the chance to take this debate TWICE? Bummer timing.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 04/23/08
Report Offensive Comment