Is "under God" in the American Pledge of Allegiance appropriate?
Yes
Side Score: 6
|
 |
No
Side Score: 12
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
God was a very popular figure in early American history, as most of the population, and indeed many of the founders, were Christian. Much of U.S. history reflects that. I believe it's late introduction is irrelevant. The founders often used religiously toned phrases and idioms in their speeches and letters, and It wouldn't have been out of character for most of the founders to have said it that way themselves. Even Jefferson (who was not particularly religious) made reference to god occasionally, and the vast majority of the population at the time certainly wouldn't have seen a problem with it. Side: yes
1
point
What is the relevancy of the founder's mannerisms? Also the "founders" is an ambiguous term which can include a varying number of people, the more popular ones who usually make the list tend to also be the ones which are the least religious, or which distrust organize religion the most. You can hardly say they were christian, unless your referring to the less popular, less influential ones. What is the relevancy of what the majority of the population at the time would think of it? Side: No
It is my belief that this not only "appropriate" but necessary. We, as a nation, owe everything we have to God and his grace. If you're an atheist and are spitting blood as you read this, bear in mind that my opinion is just as valid as yours; and worth just as much as well. You'll also note that I don't call you "wrong", "misguided", or "stupid" for believing as you do. I expect the same courtesy. Side: yes
1
point
|
2
points
1
point
It was added into it during a time of irrational fear. God is a inherently religious concept, and by having it added into the pledge an endorsement of a particular type of religion was granted.Which constitutes a violation of the separation of church and state. Other types of religions the government could endorse would have "under the Gods" or "In Harmony with the Tao", etc instead. Side: No
0
points
and by having it added into the pledge an endorsement of a particular type of religion was granted.Which constitutes a violation of the separation of church and state. If making reference to God (or endorsing God) in a public fashion by a government official was against the first amendment, why was it so common? By the very people who signed the document into being no less? Other types of religions the government could endorse would have "under the Gods" or "In Harmony with the Tao", etc instead. Yes it could have. And that would be perfectly legal because an endorsement does not equal an establishment. No religion is forced on anyone simply because the government references it in a positive or endorsing manner. Side: yes
2
points
and by having it added into the pledge an endorsement of a particular type of religion was granted.Which constitutes a violation of the separation of church and state. If making reference to God (or endorsing God) in a public fashion by a government official was against the first amendment, why was it so common? By the very people who signed the document into being no less? Doesn't matter if "people" make references. It's fine, but when you have the "government" itself endorsing God, I think it does violate the separation. O Side: No
2
points
No, It wasn't there in the beginning, only added during the red scare of the cold war. Considering on the dollar bill it says a new secular order, and the constitution calls for a separation of church and state, it doesn't matter what percentage of the population believes in the same imaginary friend it doesn't change what is written in the constitution and what the foundations of this country are. Side: No
0
points
No, It wasn't there in the beginning, only added during the red scare of the cold war. Irrelevant. There were countless references and endorsements of God by the founders themselves. There's no reason they would object to it's insertion at a latter date. and the constitution calls for a separation of church and state Actually, that particular phrase is nowhere to be found in the constitution. What the constitution does say is that the government cannot create a religion run by the government, nor force people to hold any particular religious views. All it says is that people must have the freedom to believe (or not believe) whatever they choose. It does NOT say that there must be no mention or reference to God whatsoever. Side: yes
No, because it's not a factual statement. "The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible." I love that rule, but I am just too tired to meet the requirement. Side: No
|
