frame

Change to Pledge of Allegiance

Opening Argument

ImbsterImbster 93 Pts
edited July 12 in United States
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-First-Amendment-protect-atheists
Clearly Freedom of Religion doesn't cover Freedom to Irreligion(sarcasm). Given that the word 'god' here has its first letter capitalised this would mean in 1954 the whole nation had monotheistic beliefs therefore stepping on polytheistic beliefs and every other belief that's not monotheistic, animism, misotheism, dystheism, Kathenotheism. Or possibly everyone in America had already reached and believed the idea that all gods are the same, all gods just point to this one god then the christians say they all point to OUR God. And even Jediism can make the same claim with The Force.

Luckily we have something recent that now protects non-theists only for the territories of America. This law should've been passed before this kid's life and many others were ruined.
A blessed day to the church of the flying spaghetti monster.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/atheists-legal-protection-us-religious-freedom-bill-signed-barack-obama-a7489641.html

How theists react when we tell them "I have rights too"

I thought Jesus told them to hide in their room to properly connect with him.

So with this new legislation there is no more ranting for the right of the non-theistic to express and not express ,to belief and to disbelief. Though I can open up the possibility that other people are still ignorant of this law despite that it's 2017. I guess there's only one thing left to ask.

Should there be a change to the Pledge of Allegiance?

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Maybe the Congress can add some more like pledging respect for feminists but here's a draft.

Hmm that gave me an idea...
«1

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • Why are there so many atheists on here? Besides the point you can't really change that considering that it has been around for so long, Plus whether you admit it or not our father's were christian and therefore America is founded on Christianity. The term under god is meant to be America is being watched by a higher authority. Not to mention I don't think that changing the classic pledge we've always had is good considering a very large portion of America believe's in Christianity.
    DrCereal
  • VaulkVaulk 271 Pts
    edited October 7
    I'm afraid @Oswald_Mosley has the correct stance here. America was founded upon Christian principles.  The Fundamental Principles which support the U.S. Constitution are the rights to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and even our Founding Fathers acknowledged and affirmed in writing that these are "Bestowed by their Creator"...meaning God given rights.  Our Founding Fathers also went on to acknowledge with reverence the "Supreme Judge of the World".  Mind you the exact terminology is "The", meaning singular and therefor could only have been referring to one God.  Lastly, the great Men that Founded our Country formally acknowledged and affirmed in writing that God would judge their righteousness in declaring independence and that for the support of the Declaration they would rely upon "Divine providence".

    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

    So, applying simple logic here: if the Founding Fathers established in writing that God is above the Government by acknowledging that God given rights are unalienable...and our Founding Fathers formally acknowledged the "Supreme Judge of the World" then by that same logic our Nation truly IS "Under God".
    DawnBringerRivenDrCereal
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • I strongly disagree. I am a proud Atheist, I don't care about "the nation under God" part, yes we all aren't under a God, I see it as something patriotic rather than religious. I am an Atheist and an American patriot, atheists should stop fussing over this statement in the pledge, forget about it and be patriotic. 




    Fascism
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry


  • I strongly disagree. I am a proud Atheist, I don't care about "the nation under God" part, yes we all aren't under a God, I see it as something patriotic rather than religious. I am an Atheist and an American patriot, atheists should stop fussing over this statement in the pledge, forget about it and be patriotic. 





    SilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • WakeWake 120 Pts
    @George_Horse - in your case it should be "One nation under a smartphone propagandized one and all."
  • NopeNope 96 Pts
    Yes most of the US is Christian and yes are founding fathers where Christians but if they are going to have us say it every day in school why should I say under god. I mean we are expected to say it in school. This can contradict atheist beliefs as it expects them to recognized god. Some may sea it as patriotic but it's literal meaning mean you must recognize god. I would have not naturally seen it as patriotic and I am sure I am not alone. I just have trouble seeing it as that. It would be very difficult to change and I am not planing to change. I just want people to know I am agents it.
  • @George_Horse

    How silly to claim your delusion that God does not exist frees you from your duty to serve Him and justice for your failure to honor that duty.
    DrCerealNope
  • VaulkVaulk 271 Pts
    @Nope

    Do you recognize the existence of Human rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
    DrCereal
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • DrCerealDrCereal 68 Pts
    edited November 21
    Vaulk said:
    @Nope

    Do you recognize the existence of Human rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
    "Recognize" implies that they exist objectively. Can you prove that these rights are some how objectively true?
    (I'm not saying that I disagree with them as rights; I'm simply challenging your wording. [Semantics is awful.])

    This seems like a red herring. His answer to your question is irrelevant to this discussion.
  • Wow, these fools are even ignorant of basic word meanings.
    DrCereal
  • NopeNope 96 Pts
    ViceRegent So are you. You appear to you slave and thief in the wrong way.
  • VaulkVaulk 271 Pts
    @DrCereal

    Recognize: Acknowledge the existence, validity, or legality of.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/recognize

    You can pick any of the multiple meanings of "Recognize" from that list, in this context however there is no such implication that these rights exist objectively.  Since concepts exist within the mind, all concepts are subjective if we're going down the semantics trail however, again I didn't imply that they objectively exist.  I merely asked if @Nope recognized the existence of these rights.

    Secondly, his answer is not irrelevant to the original post he made concerning his reason for taking issue with reciting "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.  I'm not arguing with the OP on this one but my point that I intended on making had @Nope answered my question was to point out the illogical nature of taking issue with the verbal acknowledgement of God...all the while consenting to an entire ideology of Human rights being God given according to the Declaration of Independence.  Of course no one is required to live in a society that maintains Human rights as being above and beyond Human control, I'm certain there are other places in the world where the rights of the people have been acknowledged as being bestowed by something as fallible and fickle as a Human being.

    In the U.S., our fundamental Human Rights are established in the DOI, which is the supporting framework for the entire constitution.  So in essence, living under U.S. law isn't merely likened to, it is EXACTLY subjecting yourself to Christian principles and an entire Nation established by our Founding Fathers upon the acknowledgement of God, the "Supreme Judge of the World" and "Divine Providence".  

    For the record, I'm perfectly fine with Atheists and their practices...or lack thereof.  It just seems like somewhat of a contradiction of worldview to announce your refusal to acknowledge God for a violation of your Atheistic principles while consenting and formally acknowledging that the entire fundamental principle of our Freedom and sovereignty is God.  If you were to subscribe to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness that is.
    DrCereal
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • DrCerealDrCereal 68 Pts
    edited November 21
    I. "Recognize: Acknowledge the existence, validity, or legality of ... if @Nope recognized the existence of these rights."

    Yeah, I suppose so. Sorry, I appeared to have been slightly confused by your meaning.

    II. "Secondly, his answer is not irrelevant to the original post ... something as fallible and fickle as a Human being."

    Why does accepting human rights immediatly mean the acceptance of the assertion that they were give to us by god? That's a non sequitur.

    III. "In the U.S., our fundamental Human Rights are established in the DOI ... upon the acknowledgement of God, the "Supreme Judge of the World" and "Divine Providence". "

    Human Rights are established by the constitution not the Declaration of Independence. Last time I checked, there are no references to god in the constitution. You're argument is very unstable.

    IV. "For the record, I'm perfectly fine with Atheists and their practices...or lack thereof ... If you were to subscribe to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness that is."

    (See II. and III.)

    George_Horse
  • NopeNope 96 Pts
    Vaulk First I am to young to chose where I live so I have to stay in the US. Second choosing to follow the same rights as that of christian in a christian made system does not mean I believe they were given by god. It is not illogical at all. Following many of the same principles in no way. If thies principles benefit me and society and go with what I natural fell is fair in no way means I should recognize god. Just cause I believe thies rights are good and to my benefit and christian sees them as given by god in no way means I should recognize god. I have trouble seeing your point. The principle of freedom are not god. That does not make sens. Maby I am missing something in your argument. Why we fallow thies principles may be different for me and Christians but I can not recognize the reason Christians believe in the rights.
  • VaulkVaulk 271 Pts
    @DrCereal

    Why does accepting human rights immediatly mean the acceptance of the assertion that they were give to us by god? That's a non sequitur.
    II. If our Human Rights are established as valid in the Declaration of Independence and you acknowledge that, then you must also acknowledge that they are bestowed upon us by our Creator, subsequently acknowledging God.

    Human Rights are established by the constitution not the Declaration of Independence. Last time I checked, there are no references to god in the constitution. You're argument is very unstable.
    Our Human Rights are all based upon the principles within the Declaration of Independence as cited below.  The Declaration of Independence set forth the ideas and principles behind a just and fair government.  The Constitution outlines how that Government will function.
    https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Office of Citizenship/Citizenship Resource Center Site/Publications/PDFs/M-654.pdf

           “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” — Alexander Hamilton, 1775
           “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.” — George Washington, 1796
           “The Declaration of Independence...[is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man.” — Thomas Jefferson, 1819

    Additionally, the Declaration of Independence was created prior to any attempt at a Constitution and was described by the President of the Continental Congress - John Hancock as “the foundation of a future government.”

    Furthermore, see below.

    Cotting v. Godard, in 1901, the Supreme Court makes the case that the Constitution is but the “body and the letter” of the “thought and spirit” of the Declaration’s founding principles:

    The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: ‘We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government.
    https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/republic-found-the-relationship-between-the-declaration-and-constitution

    I maintain that accepting Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness will subsequently acknowledge the "Creator", the "Supreme Judge of the World" and "Divine Providence".  Now normally there could be a valid argument that the claim behind the Founding Fathers' assertion that these Rights are God given could be false.  One might normally be able to argue that they just made that part up, but with zero evidence to support that and the #1 superpower on the entire Earth built upon that former ideology...there's not much of an argument there.  Like it or not, if you acknowledge those principles then you by default acknowledge where they come from.  

    Keep in mind you can refuse to believe that X exists while condoning it all-the-while...it just doesn't appear to be very logical.  "I don't believe in God or a higher power but I'll gladly live in a Country with a government built solidly upon the premise and principles that he does exist and also guarantees us Human Rights".
    DrCereal
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • How about we leave "under God"  in the pledge and let non-believers not verbalize those two words.  Believers can say "under God" and non-believers can skip from "one nation" to "indivisible".
    DrCerealGeorge_Horse
  • VaulkVaulk 271 Pts
    edited November 21
    @Nope

    I respect your right to believe or disbelieve whatever you want bubba.  But to your point, it's not that Christians believe they're God given rights...the Declaration of independence (The fundamental principle of our entire Government and Nation) formally recognizes that these rights are God given.  

    So a similar example would be: Taking offense when someone says "Let us pray" while you're sitting in a Church".  Our country is founded upon the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  It's not a Christian idea, it literally IS built upon it and formally recognized in the Declaration of Independence.  Refusal to say the words "Under God" won't change that.
    DrCereal
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • NopeNope 96 Pts
    Vaulk Government and religion should be separate. It matters not if that is what it says. To have it in the pledge of allegiance is combining to things that should not be. 
  • @CYDdharta

    No, for we do not wish to encourage the mental illness of the pagan.
    VaulkCYDdhartaDrCereal
  • @Nope

    In other words, this dude wants his way regardless of what the law is.  Did I not pagans are mentally ill?
    Vaulk
  • NopeNope 96 Pts
    edited November 22
    ViceRegent In the untied states church and state are supposed to be separate. That is one of the largest parts of that democracy.
  • Not according to the Law, but facts mean nothing to the mentally ill.
  • NopeNope 96 Pts
    ViceRegent Look it up online if you don't believe me. It is one of the guiding principles of US democracy.
  • @CYDdharta

    No, for we do not wish to encourage the mental illness of the pagan.
    Pagans?  Are they trying to change the words to "one nation under the gods and goddesses"? Are you referring to the biker club?
  • Ignorance is not bliss.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch