Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

American Pledge

Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:03:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is "under God" in the American Pledge of Allegiance appropriate?

I think so. This was determined our Pledge by the people of our government. This nation is mostly religious in some way. Is it right to strip such reconition of God from the mass because of the few?
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:13:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:03:08 AM, Pennington wrote:
Is "under God" in the American Pledge of Allegiance appropriate?

No.


I think so. This was determined our Pledge by the people of our government. This nation is mostly religious in some way. Is it right to strip such recognition of God from the mass because of the few?

It was crafted by a socialist to combat what he thought was a low point in Patriotism following the civil war. It was not recognized by the government until 1942 and the words "Under God" were not added until 1954, ironically to combat Communism.

Criticism to the Pledge is not modern and not isolated to atheism. As early as 1943 the Supreme Court rule that mandatory recitation of the pledge violates the First Amendment and initial criticism came from Jehovah's Witnesses who considered it to be a form of idolatry.

While religion is undeniably part of American culture and history, our government was created to be deliberately separate and independent of religious influence (though not always successful).
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:29:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:26:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
" Is it right to strip such reconition of God from the mass because of the few?"

Read the fking constitution...:
I have were does it say you can not reconize God? Not religions now, just God?
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:29:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, "god" was added in 1954. If this country was founded as Christian, why wasn't God added until nearly 200 years later?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:31:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:29:31 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:26:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
" Is it right to strip such reconition of God from the mass because of the few?"

Read the fking constitution...:
I have were does it say you can not reconize God? Not religions now, just God?

God has to do with religion. By your logic, the government could just as easily put 'in atheism we trust.' It doesn't have to do with religion, only God. See? Rule by majority is the only thing you got, and that is illegal.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:33:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:13:08 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:03:08 AM, Pennington wrote:
Is "under God" in the American Pledge of Allegiance appropriate?

No.


I think so. This was determined our Pledge by the people of our government. This nation is mostly religious in some way. Is it right to strip such recognition of God from the mass because of the few?

It was crafted by a socialist to combat what he thought was a low point in Patriotism following the civil war. It was not recognized by the government until 1942 and the words "Under God" were not added until 1954, ironically to combat Communism.

Criticism to the Pledge is not modern and not isolated to atheism. As early as 1943 the Supreme Court rule that mandatory recitation of the pledge violates the First Amendment and initial criticism came from Jehovah's Witnesses who considered it to be a form of idolatry.

While religion is undeniably part of American culture and history, our government was created to be deliberately separate and independent of religious influence (though not always successful).:

Though how does under God recognize religion? And does the inconvience of a few out weigh the inconvenice of the most? This is in the 1st admendment also.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:35:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:29:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Also, "god" was added in 1954. If this country was founded as Christian, why wasn't God added until nearly 200 years later?

Never said is was. I would agree it wasnt.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:39:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:31:16 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:29:31 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:26:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
" Is it right to strip such reconition of God from the mass because of the few?"

Read the fking constitution...:
I have were does it say you can not reconize God? Not religions now, just God?

God has to do with religion. By your logic, the government could just as easily put 'in atheism we trust.' It doesn't have to do with religion, only God. See? Rule by majority is the only thing you got, and that is illegal.:

In this instance the government can not recongnize a religion not God in general, but people can recongnize religion, can express that religion, and by that freedom of speech and recongnition recongnizes God.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:40:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:33:07 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:13:08 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:03:08 AM, Pennington wrote:
Is "under God" in the American Pledge of Allegiance appropriate?

No.


I think so. This was determined our Pledge by the people of our government. This nation is mostly religious in some way. Is it right to strip such recognition of God from the mass because of the few?

It was crafted by a socialist to combat what he thought was a low point in Patriotism following the civil war. It was not recognized by the government until 1942 and the words "Under God" were not added until 1954, ironically to combat Communism.

Criticism to the Pledge is not modern and not isolated to atheism. As early as 1943 the Supreme Court rule that mandatory recitation of the pledge violates the First Amendment and initial criticism came from Jehovah's Witnesses who considered it to be a form of idolatry.

While religion is undeniably part of American culture and history, our government was created to be deliberately separate and independent of religious influence (though not always successful).:

Though how does under God recognize religion? And does the inconvience of a few out weigh the inconvenice of the most? This is in the 1st admendment also.

'Under God,' implies the existence of a personal God, which is religion.

Once again, rule by majority is illegal. The entire country could be Christian, wouldn't make a difference to legality.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:41:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:39:01 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:31:16 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:29:31 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:26:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
" Is it right to strip such reconition of God from the mass because of the few?"

Read the fking constitution...:
I have were does it say you can not reconize God? Not religions now, just God?

God has to do with religion. By your logic, the government could just as easily put 'in atheism we trust.' It doesn't have to do with religion, only God. See? Rule by majority is the only thing you got, and that is illegal.:

In this instance the government can not recongnize a religion not God in general, but people can recongnize religion, can express that religion, and by that freedom of speech and recongnition recongnizes God.

That's fine if people do so, but not the government.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:47:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:39:01 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:31:16 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:29:31 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:26:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
" Is it right to strip such reconition of God from the mass because of the few?"

Read the fking constitution...:
I have were does it say you can not reconize God? Not religions now, just God?

God has to do with religion. By your logic, the government could just as easily put 'in atheism we trust.' It doesn't have to do with religion, only God. See? Rule by majority is the only thing you got, and that is illegal.:

In this instance the government can not recongnize a religion not God in general, but people can recongnize religion, can express that religion, and by that freedom of speech and recongnition recongnizes God.

Why can the government recognize a God in general? If it mentions God, it IS establishing a religion. Any religion that includes a God is endorsed.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:56:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:41:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:39:01 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:31:16 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:29:31 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:26:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
" Is it right to strip such reconition of God from the mass because of the few?"

Read the fking constitution...:
I have were does it say you can not reconize God? Not religions now, just God?

God has to do with religion. By your logic, the government could just as easily put 'in atheism we trust.' It doesn't have to do with religion, only God. See? Rule by majority is the only thing you got, and that is illegal.:

In this instance the government can not recongnize a religion not God in general, but people can recongnize religion, can express that religion, and by that freedom of speech and recongnition recongnizes God.

That's fine if people do so, but not the government.:
The word God is not religious. To be religious you must practice and observe something that goes beyond the word God. People can consider themselves God which is a form of atheistic view or they can consider God as anything. My point is the word God in the pledge is conveince of the most than the few without recongnizing religion or any belief in God. A nation full of beliefs in God should set that aside for a few that dont? So we should be a atheistic veiwed nation when most are not atheistic? That is a major inconveience to the whole which is also against the constitution.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:58:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:47:07 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:39:01 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:31:16 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:29:31 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:26:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
" Is it right to strip such reconition of God from the mass because of the few?"

Read the fking constitution...:
I have were does it say you can not reconize God? Not religions now, just God?

God has to do with religion. By your logic, the government could just as easily put 'in atheism we trust.' It doesn't have to do with religion, only God. See? Rule by majority is the only thing you got, and that is illegal.:

In this instance the government can not recongnize a religion not God in general, but people can recongnize religion, can express that religion, and by that freedom of speech and recongnition recongnizes God.

Why can the government recognize a God in general? If it mentions God, it IS establishing a religion. Any religion that includes a God is endorsed.:
God has many meanings other than religious.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:02:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:56:03 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:41:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:39:01 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:31:16 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:29:31 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:26:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
" Is it right to strip such reconition of God from the mass because of the few?"

Read the fking constitution...:
I have were does it say you can not reconize God? Not religions now, just God?

God has to do with religion. By your logic, the government could just as easily put 'in atheism we trust.' It doesn't have to do with religion, only God. See? Rule by majority is the only thing you got, and that is illegal.:

In this instance the government can not recongnize a religion not God in general, but people can recongnize religion, can express that religion, and by that freedom of speech and recongnition recongnizes God.

That's fine if people do so, but not the government.:
The word God is not religious. To be religious you must practice and observe something that goes beyond the word God. People can consider themselves God which is a form of atheistic view or they can consider God as anything. My point is the word God in the pledge is conveince of the most than the few without recongnizing religion or any belief in God. A nation full of beliefs in God should set that aside for a few that dont? So we should be a atheistic veiwed nation when most are not atheistic? That is a major inconveience to the whole which is also against the constitution.

"To be religious you must practice and observe something that goes beyond the word God. "

False. Many people believe in God but don't follow the Bible and consider themselves religious.

"A nation full of beliefs in God should set that aside for a few that dont? So we should be a atheistic veiwed nation when most are not atheistic? That is a major inconveience to the whole which is also against the constitution."

I did not claim that the government should be atheist (quite the opposite). I claimed that the government should make no statement EITHER way. I couldn't care less if it's inconvenient to the majority. You essentially want to trample over the constitution because it's convenient for you, which defeats the purpose of the constitution.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:02:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's inappropriate, but I don't care. It doesn't really support religion. If it makes some religious people happy, that's fine with me.

I'm curious as to why religious people think it's important. there are a couple of possibilities:

a) It's done to annoy atheists. That was the 1954 reason.
b) Religious faith requires frequent reinforcement through public prayers, slogans, and proclamations. Otherwise it fades away.
c) ?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:03:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:58:04 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:47:07 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:39:01 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:31:16 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:29:31 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:26:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
" Is it right to strip such reconition of God from the mass because of the few?"

Read the fking constitution...:
I have were does it say you can not reconize God? Not religions now, just God?

God has to do with religion. By your logic, the government could just as easily put 'in atheism we trust.' It doesn't have to do with religion, only God. See? Rule by majority is the only thing you got, and that is illegal.:

In this instance the government can not recongnize a religion not God in general, but people can recongnize religion, can express that religion, and by that freedom of speech and recongnition recongnizes God.

Why can the government recognize a God in general? If it mentions God, it IS establishing a religion. Any religion that includes a God is endorsed.:
God has many meanings other than religious.

God is a religious notion.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:03:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:33:07 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:13:08 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:03:08 AM, Pennington wrote:
Is "under God" in the American Pledge of Allegiance appropriate?

No.


I think so. This was determined our Pledge by the people of our government. This nation is mostly religious in some way. Is it right to strip such recognition of God from the mass because of the few?

It was crafted by a socialist to combat what he thought was a low point in Patriotism following the civil war. It was not recognized by the government until 1942 and the words "Under God" were not added until 1954, ironically to combat Communism.

Criticism to the Pledge is not modern and not isolated to atheism. As early as 1943 the Supreme Court rule that mandatory recitation of the pledge violates the First Amendment and initial criticism came from Jehovah's Witnesses who considered it to be a form of idolatry.

While religion is undeniably part of American culture and history, our government was created to be deliberately separate and independent of religious influence (though not always successful).:

Though how does under God recognize religion?

You tell me. You're the one saying that removing is stripping said recognition. If the existence of God isn't the recognition of religion, then removing it isn't stripping the recognition of religion and your point is rendered invalid.

And does the inconvience of a few out weigh the inconvenice of the most?

Removing the pledge wouldn't inconvenience anyone. Nothing would prevent you from continuing to say it however you want to say it.

This is in the 1st admendment also.

No it isn't.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:04:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 12:02:30 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
It's inappropriate, but I don't care. It doesn't really support religion. If it makes some religious people happy, that's fine with me.

I'm curious as to why religious people think it's important. there are a couple of possibilities:

a) It's done to annoy atheists. That was the 1954 reason.
b) Religious faith requires frequent reinforcement through public prayers, slogans, and proclamations. Otherwise it fades away.
c) ?

The main problem I have with it is the fact that it's very symbolic, and leads people to think this nation can further intertwine religion into the state. It's sort of a talking point, like "Our pledge includes God, so...."
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:05:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 12:02:30 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
It's inappropriate, but I don't care. It doesn't really support religion. If it makes some religious people happy, that's fine with me.:
That is a true American, free and considerate thought.

I'm curious as to why religious people think it's important. there are a couple of possibilities:

a) It's done to annoy atheists. That was the 1954 reason.:
I doubt it was. I think it was more to leave a mark of how our society viewed God or not God. But it was to move away from the atheistic mark.
b) Religious faith requires frequent reinforcement through public prayers, slogans, and proclamations. Otherwise it fades away.:
To alot but not to the true belivers.
c) ?
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:07:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 12:02:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:56:03 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:41:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:39:01 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:31:16 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:29:31 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:26:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
" Is it right to strip such reconition of God from the mass because of the few?"

Read the fking constitution...:
I have were does it say you can not reconize God? Not religions now, just God?

God has to do with religion. By your logic, the government could just as easily put 'in atheism we trust.' It doesn't have to do with religion, only God. See? Rule by majority is the only thing you got, and that is illegal.:

In this instance the government can not recongnize a religion not God in general, but people can recongnize religion, can express that religion, and by that freedom of speech and recongnition recongnizes God.

That's fine if people do so, but not the government.:
The word God is not religious. To be religious you must practice and observe something that goes beyond the word God. People can consider themselves God which is a form of atheistic view or they can consider God as anything. My point is the word God in the pledge is conveince of the most than the few without recongnizing religion or any belief in God. A nation full of beliefs in God should set that aside for a few that dont? So we should be a atheistic veiwed nation when most are not atheistic? That is a major inconveience to the whole which is also against the constitution.

"To be religious you must practice and observe something that goes beyond the word God. "

False. Many people believe in God but don't follow the Bible and consider themselves religious. :
What they consider and what is reality is two different things.

"A nation full of beliefs in God should set that aside for a few that dont? So we should be a atheistic veiwed nation when most are not atheistic? That is a major inconveience to the whole which is also against the constitution."

I did not claim that the government should be atheist (quite the opposite). I claimed that the government should make no statement EITHER way. I couldn't care less if it's inconvenient to the majority. You essentially want to trample over the constitution because it's convenient for you, which defeats the purpose of the constitution.
:
While you want to do the samething.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:09:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 12:05:47 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 12:02:30 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
It's inappropriate, but I don't care. It doesn't really support religion. If it makes some religious people happy, that's fine with me.:
That is a true American, free and considerate thought.

I'm curious as to why religious people think it's important. there are a couple of possibilities:

a) It's done to annoy atheists. That was the 1954 reason.:
I doubt it was. I think it was more to leave a mark of how our society viewed God or not God. But it was to move away from the atheistic mark.
b) Religious faith requires frequent reinforcement through public prayers, slogans, and proclamations. Otherwise it fades away.:
To alot but not to the true belivers.
c) ?

He said it was inappropriate, but he doesn't care. HE doesn't care. That doesn't necessarily mean he thinks it's justified. Intrinsically, it's not a big issue to be either, but it's really the tip of the iceberg, and I think it's much more effective to just ban ALL mentions of religion.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:09:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 12:07:44 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 12:02:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:56:03 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:41:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:39:01 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:31:16 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:29:31 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:26:35 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
" Is it right to strip such reconition of God from the mass because of the few?"

Read the fking constitution...:
I have were does it say you can not reconize God? Not religions now, just God?

God has to do with religion. By your logic, the government could just as easily put 'in atheism we trust.' It doesn't have to do with religion, only God. See? Rule by majority is the only thing you got, and that is illegal.:

In this instance the government can not recongnize a religion not God in general, but people can recongnize religion, can express that religion, and by that freedom of speech and recongnition recongnizes God.

That's fine if people do so, but not the government.:
The word God is not religious. To be religious you must practice and observe something that goes beyond the word God. People can consider themselves God which is a form of atheistic view or they can consider God as anything. My point is the word God in the pledge is conveince of the most than the few without recongnizing religion or any belief in God. A nation full of beliefs in God should set that aside for a few that dont? So we should be a atheistic veiwed nation when most are not atheistic? That is a major inconveience to the whole which is also against the constitution.

"To be religious you must practice and observe something that goes beyond the word God. "

False. Many people believe in God but don't follow the Bible and consider themselves religious. :
What they consider and what is reality is two different things.

"A nation full of beliefs in God should set that aside for a few that dont? So we should be a atheistic veiwed nation when most are not atheistic? That is a major inconveience to the whole which is also against the constitution."

I did not claim that the government should be atheist (quite the opposite). I claimed that the government should make no statement EITHER way. I couldn't care less if it's inconvenient to the majority. You essentially want to trample over the constitution because it's convenient for you, which defeats the purpose of the constitution.
:
While you want to do the samething.

Uphold =/= trample ;)
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 1:00:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You can be under God without making others recite those words. Thankfully I don't have to recite it.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
locke58
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 9:15:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I believe it to be appropriate. Our country was founded on religion,"That they are endowed by their Creator". This creator can be the Christian God, Allah, or any other God.
"I won't let you beat me unfairly, I'll beat you unfairly first."
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 9:22:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 9:15:55 PM, locke58 wrote:
I believe it to be appropriate. Our country was founded on religion,"That they are endowed by their Creator". This creator can be the Christian God, Allah, or any other God.

That document didn't found our nation. The Constitution did, and it makes no reference to any god.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 11:09:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 12:04:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 12:02:30 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
It's inappropriate, but I don't care. It doesn't really support religion. If it makes some religious people happy, that's fine with me.

I'm curious as to why religious people think it's important. there are a couple of possibilities:

a) It's done to annoy atheists. That was the 1954 reason.
b) Religious faith requires frequent reinforcement through public prayers, slogans, and proclamations. Otherwise it fades away.
c) ?

The main problem I have with it is the fact that it's very symbolic, and leads people to think this nation can further intertwine religion into the state. It's sort of a talking point, like "Our pledge includes God, so...."

http://www.reddit.com... < perfect example of what I mean.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 10:51:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:03:08 AM, Pennington wrote:
Is "under God" in the American Pledge of Allegiance appropriate?

No.

I think so. This was determined our Pledge by the people of our government. This nation is mostly religious in some way. Is it right to strip such reconition of God from the mass because of the few?

I'm an American. I ought to be able to say the pledge like anybody else, but I can't because the Christians stole it. You wouldn't like for us to put in "Godless" instead of "under God" if we had enough votes, so you should understand why we don't like it that you put in "under God." The pledge is supposed to unite us, not divide us.

Even if you believe in baptism by submersion, you should know that it would be wrong to put that into the pledge. Likewise, even if you believe in god, you should know that it is wrong to put that topic into a pledge of allegiance to the United States. It simply isn't the topic at hand, and the pledge shouldn't be only for Christians.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 10:56:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 10:51:17 AM, wiploc wrote:

I'm an American. I ought to be able to say the pledge like anybody else, but I can't because the Christians stole it.:
It wasn't stole, it was given.
You wouldn't like for us to put in "Godless" instead of "under God" if we had enough votes, so you should understand why we don't like it that you put in "under God.":
I didn't put under God. I would have put God identifying the Christian God. I oppose the hand over heart and pledging to anything other than God. :
Even if you believe in baptism by submersion, you should know that it would be wrong to put that into the pledge.:
The pledge itself is wrong.
Likewise, even if you believe in god, you should know that it is wrong to put that topic into a pledge of allegiance to the United States. It simply isn't the topic at hand, and the pledge shouldn't be only for Christians.:
I agree.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...