one nation under god

[Pawn Power]

I have to do a debate in class about the use of “under god” in the pledge of allegiance. I will be arguing against its place in the pledge and will use the first amendment, separation of church and state as for my reasoning.
I was wonderings is anyone could give me any more arguments or reasons for the exclusion of “under god”.
Also what are the opposing arguments going to be and how can I face them?

[BuyOurEverything]

Well you can argue that it wasn't even originally in the pledge and was introduced much later by Christian fundamentalists under Eisenhower to differenciate America from the evil babyeating atheist communists. One thing they will probably argue is that god is a generic term not specific to any one religion. In fact it is specific to only two religions. Counter by asking if they would support saying 'one nation under allah.'

Seperation of church and state is a good thing. In fact most of the founders of the US weren't even Christian, they were Deists. Acknowledging a Christian god gives special status to the portion of the US population that is Christian and implies that anyone not Christian is less American (one could argue that they are, but they probably won't say that.)

[Kurai Tsuki]

Even if the person is religeous, the term God refers to monotheism, which all religions do not practise.

And secondly, religion itself is a choice.

[Pawn Power]

dammit i put on nation instead of one nation
any way thanks for the help so far, anymore reasonings are still wanted

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I personally don't see why the left should be wasting time struggling to get "god" out of the pledge. I agree that "god" and organized religion is a tool which oppresses and subjugates people to the will of the bourgeoisie, but removing this miniscule vestige of bourgeois influence in the governemnt will do nothing towards removing the bourgeoisie from using the governemnt. In capitalism, after all, the governemnt is necessarily a political arm of the capitalist class.

[SittingBull47]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 10:21 PM
Well you can argue that it wasn't even originally in the pledge and was introduced much later by Christian fundamentalists under Eisenhower to differenciate America from the evil babyeating atheist communists. One thing they will probably argue is that god is a generic term not specific to any one religion. In fact it is specific to only two religions. Counter by asking if they would support saying 'one nation under allah.'
man. wish we would have thought of these arguments when we did the same topic for contemporary affairs last year. Those are good, i'm going to raise those points to some hard-line mennonites and what not around here. All they want to do is talk religion.

[Misodoctakleidist]

I agree with RZ; there's no point fighting religion, if people need religion then they'll use it, if not they wont. Religion is only the outward expression of opression, we should fight the latter not the former.

[Invader Zim]

Ask if Quakers should have tp say it, considering that Quakers are not alloud to actually make oaths.

[pedro san pedro]

why are quakers not allowed to make oaths?

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 11:38 PM
I personally don't see why the left should be wasting time struggling to get "god" out of the pledge. I agree that "god" and organized religion is a tool which oppresses and subjugates people to the will of the bourgeoisie, but removing this miniscule vestige of bourgeois influence in the governemnt will do nothing towards removing the bourgeoisie from using the governemnt. In capitalism, after all, the governemnt is necessarily a political arm of the capitalist class.
i agree, their are much more important organizing we can do besides wasting time on this trivial problem, but i still have to do this debate for class :( so i would still appritiate any help
keep the ideas comming, need more arguments ways to back them up
thanks

[redstar2000]

Don't know if you'd want to risk it but...

Why not a total assault on the "pledge of allegiance" as such?

What is intended to be accomplished by getting a bunch of kids into a room and intimidating them into repeating a verbal formula that is utterly without any justification whatsoever?

One nation? That's utterly absurd.

Under God? There's no such thing.

Indivisible? Unless enough people decide to divide it.

Liberty and Justice for All? A total lie!

In fact, what does it all really mean in the context of an inherently oppressive school environment?

They should replace it with this statement:

"I wanna stay out of trouble and will say whatever it takes to do that."

It's shorter...and tells the truth.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[koreanfob]

try being a foreigner during the pledge of allegiance...
i once got in trouble for refusing to say it

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 03:12 AM
Don't know if you'd want to risk it but...

Why not a total assault on the "pledge of allegiance" as such?

My friend who is Muslim's six year old daughter refused to say the pledge of allegiance the six year old gave the teacher and the class a lecture on American imperalism ending with an admonishment of the teacher for not even being able to say her name correctly.
Six, hee hee. We're breeding like rabbits :P

[DaCuBaN]

try being a foreigner during the pledge of allegiance...
i once got in trouble for refusing to say it

My sister (a brit) who refused to say the pledge has foregone the right to custody of her own child as a result. She still looks after the child as she is married to an american, but should the relationship go sour, she's out the country and the kid stays with her father. Is this Just ?

On topic though, I'm sure there are countless arguments against the pledge of alliegence


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

I mean just look at it!

I mean if you want to be serious, simply say


I pledge allegiance to the Republic of the USA, with Liberty and Justice for All

Pretty much covers everything, right? makes the whole process that little bit simpler too, provided you swallow the Liberty and Justice for all part. I'll save you the parodies ;)

On the 'under god' you are most likely to receive the same old crap. Conservatives will bombard you with traditional nonsense about not changing something that has become an institution, to which you can easily counter that this would hamper development. You may also get attacked on your own religious beliefs: REMAIN AGNOSTIC! regardless what you believe, the fence is the place to be to win a debate fairly in my view.

Personally, I would consider an attack based on agnosticism. How can we strive for a nation that wishes Liberty and Justice when we have something as erroneous as 'god' involved in the equation? The existence of god cannot be proven, but we have firm ideas of what the other concepts in the pledge are - surely this brings the entire pledge into disrepute?

Hope something in this babble was of some assistance ;) :rolleyes:

[fuerzasocialista]

I label myself as a socialist but I am religious. However, religion has not clashed with my political views. Its good not to be a part of the big 3.

[cubist]

you could quite easily just deny gods existance and therefore deny the pledge in whole,

[fuerzasocialista]

Too many things in my life have happened for me to deny God's existence. But like I said, there is no clash.

[cubist]

i wasn't talking to you, i was talking about giving the teacher hell

[Touchstone]

I pledge alligence to the nothing that our nation has become,
And to the revolution, for it has started,
One nation, under dog,
Inaudiable,
With Slavery and Opression for all.

More fitting for this nation. This is the pledge I say whenever we have to say the other pledge in school. I have gotten In School Suspension for it.

[The Feral Underclass]

How about this argument, and I think it's a great one..

God doesn't exist!

[cubist]

TAT, genius,

and if your teacher asks you evidence,

just show her/him the evidence of gods existance i will post it below

[The Feral Underclass]

How about this argument, and I think it's a great one..

God doesn't exist!

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 03:12 AM
Don't know if you'd want to risk it but...

Why not a total assault on the "pledge of allegiance" as such?

thats what i wanted to do but the debat is just on the inclusion of "under god" but even so i might through in some reasons against the whole pledge


i wasn't talking to you, i was talking about giving the teacher hell

my debat is with a nother team of students, its kind of like a formal debate

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21 2004, 05:39 PM
How about this argument, and I think it's a great one..

God doesn't exist!
that will be one of myu arguments, but i need more because the debate has to last a certain period of time

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by pedro san [email protected] 19 2004, 01:32 PM
why are quakers not allowed to make oaths?
Dont know, its something to do with only making promises to god... if moskitto still posted he could tell you, because he is a quaker.

God doesn't exist!

No you cant say that, in this kind of argument. You can only say that you dont believe, you cant make an outright statement as if its a bold fact., you have to take other peoples stupid opinions seriously.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 12:35 AM
No you cant say that, in this kind of argument. You can only say that you dont believe, you cant make an outright statement as if its a bold fact., you have to take other peoples stupid opinions seriously.
But it is perfectly acceptable for this pledge of alligence to "make an outright statement as if its a bold fact" that god does exist.

Liberal bullshit! If it is ok for them to tell everyone god does exist without showing us any evidenec. It is perfectly acceptable for us to say god doesnt exist! And in fact the evidence is clear.

It is materially impossible for god to exist!

[fernando]

As Wednesday 13 from Murderdolls (but at the time Frankenstein Drag Queens) would say:

"ONE NATION UNDER FUCK! WITH LIBERTY FUCKING JUSTICE FOR ALL!"

[DaCuBaN]

Liberal bullshit! If it is ok for them to tell everyone god does exist without showing us any evidenec. It is perfectly acceptable for us to say god doesnt exist! And in fact the evidence is clear

Not that I disagree, but you could do with citing evidence - after all this thread was started to assist someone in a debate, so any evidence you can produce will only benefit them.

Besides... I don't think there is much evidence that god doesn't exist... certainly no more than that he does. I'm telling you, agnosticism is the way. ;)

[moncadista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 06:38 PM
I personally don't see why the left should be wasting time struggling to get "god" out of the pledge. I agree that "god" and organized religion is a tool which oppresses and subjugates people to the will of the bourgeoisie, but removing this miniscule vestige of bourgeois influence in the governemnt will do nothing towards removing the bourgeoisie from using the governemnt. In capitalism, after all, the governemnt is necessarily a political arm of the capitalist class.
i agree that religon is a tool that opresses and subjugates the people into the hands of the bourgeoisie. so isnt that reason enough to remove god from the affairs of the people? and if the ruling class wants to fight our atempts to abolish god, then we take up arms against them.

P.S. then to settle the whole debate, we see whether god comes and smites the proletarians for defying the ruling class and the "holy kingdom of eternal happiness." if he doesn't, we know he doesnt exist. if he does, we know he exists, and hes on the side of the ruling class. :)

[DaCuBaN]

I personally don't see why the left should be wasting time struggling to get "god" out of the pledge

Because reforming and revolting are not, contrary to to most Communist scriptures, mutually exclusive. Why shouldn't we bend the system we are stuck under to suit us? is our utopian dream not inevitable ?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 22 2004, 10:12 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 22 2004, 10:12 AM)
[email protected] 22 2004, 12:35 AM
No you cant say that, in this kind of argument. You can only say that you dont believe, you cant make an outright statement as if its a bold fact., you have to take other peoples stupid opinions seriously.
But it is perfectly acceptable for this pledge of alligence to "make an outright statement as if its a bold fact" that god does exist.

Liberal bullshit! If it is ok for them to tell everyone god does exist without showing us any evidenec. It is perfectly acceptable for us to say god doesnt exist! And in fact the evidence is clear.

It is materially impossible for god to exist! [/b]
Just because they are obstinate, obtuse, dogmatic, narrowminded and generally just stupid, does that mean you have to be?

[Guest1]

Actually, if you're having a formal debate take it from a former debater.

Hit them hard on lack of evidence, then suckerpunch them on the tradition of "rule by reason".

It's a debate, so they'll probably talk about god as if he existed, at which point you challenge them to prove it. As for rule by reason, the republic was founded upon a wave of revolutions that attempted to take government from the hands of preachers and despots, who based their rule on dogma and fear respectively and give it to the "democratic governments" that were established. These were meant to base their rule on reason, that is why we have elections, that is why we have the separation of church and state.

They'll also probably hit you up with a "prove why we should change it", at which point you turn the tables and tell them to prove why they shouldn't, returning to reason. Tell them the government is subject to the people, and based on this "great american tradition abandoned long ago", the government must justify its actions to its people. Not the other way around.

That's exactly when you hit them with the challenge to the entire pledge, at which point you start into a tirade about how the government are the ones who need to be interrogated and made to prove their loyalty to the American people, not the other way around.

Then you suggest a counter pledge, for all the politicians.

I pledge allegiance to the people of the United States of America and to the diversity for which they stand, humanity and the earth, never to be sold for wealth, power or fame, and never to be swayed by might, prejudice, ignorance or greed.

Make that your end note, and always look like you're the calm, reasonable one. Make them look like the ones who are lunatics. Play yourself as the real patriot, cause you are.

[DaCuBaN]

but do not seek to enflame the other debater(s) directly. They (unless highly competent) will begin to dig their own grave if you follow CYM's advice and remain calm

Avoid outright refutal of a point, and avoid agression. If you must disagree with your opponent (and you will), ensure that you appear to do so 'respectably'


I pledge allegiance to the people of the United States of America and to the diversity for which they stand, humanity and the earth, never to be sold for wealth, power or fame, and never to be swayed by might, prejudice, ignorance or greed

I agree that would make an excellent closing remark: perhaps we could elaborate more on this?

CYM's version could be viewed as a little pedantic - it's avoided everything in the issue. It might well be advisable to retain mention of the flag - a mild concession - and concentrate on your desire (ahem) to extend the pledge - asserting that you merely wish to see the bias in favour of God (Judeo-christian religion) removed rather than retraction of religion from the equation. Again, it's a small concession.

Remember your most powerful tool is the ability to fight as the devil's advocate

I can only asssume these are your fellow classmates, and as such will be at least relatively aware of you political standpoints. Surprise them with your versatility.

[Guest1]

I think you wanna keep a little bit more than that, there's no need for concessions, simply cool and subtle grabs instead.

I think you want to keep to the point of separation of church and state, though how far you can take that may differ from how far I would, considering I debated in Canada.

I agree with the devil's advocate point, but I would say if you just wanna have fun, don't be too much of a devil's advocate. I know I used to relish a good debate where I could be myself for once. They are rare indeed.

I like the idea of taking the moral highground and saying to the people of the united states instead of the flag, pushing them to defend their position of pledging to an inanimate object rather than the American people.

That's where the devil's advocate comes in, steal their thunder and paint yourself as the patriot in going further than them in defending the American people. More than that, I think is unnecessary. You really are the patriot, so it shouldn't be too hard to do this. As for the closing remark, go wild with it, it was only meant as a guide.

All of that was just suggestions.

I would say a mix of both my and DaCuBaN's suggestions should keep you well covered.

Like I said, I debated in Canada, so the political climate, and the divide in debates was different. In Canada, we could advocate mass arrests of Church leaders with the opposition advocating adoption of a state religion, and it could end up going either way. Obviously, I have refrained from suggesting an ideological divide that gaping, but I may still have been influenced by Canadian standards :P

So it's up to you to see what would work for your situation.

One more question, who's judging you? Classmates? Teachers? Parents?

[cubist]

dacuban,

may i point out that evidence of gods existance is nothing zero zilch, so why does the need to be evidence for his inexistance

[DaCuBaN]

evidence of gods existance is nothing zero zilch, so why does the[re] need to be evidence for his inexistance

I may have overemphasised my point here.

I agree he should argue from the perspective that god probably doesn't exist, but as there is no evidence either way the debater must be prepared to concede that it is possible that god does indeed exist

What I mean is that you cannot win an argument on god with 'godsuckers' and as such you should attempt to nullify the argument on gods existence rather than refute it - concentrate on the bias inherint in the pledge towards judeo-christianty and how this in fact contradicts the 'liberty' promised within the pledge and is wholly unjust.

Why argue against the existence of god when you can simply undermine and hence discard the entire argument?

[Guest1]

Why argue against the existence of god when you can simply undermine and hence discard the entire argument?
Exactly. This thread is really making me miss being a debater :P Now I wanna go back and woop some ass dammit!

[DaCuBaN]

I wanna go back and woop some ass dammit!

:lol: I know what you mean, makes me kind of nostalgic towards my days of formal education...

Any ideas I've forwarded are quite specific to my environment for obvious reasons (the UK) and as such some of the points we put across may not be of that much assistance to the debater

When is this debate happening? Has it passed? How did it go?

Let us know ;)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Enigma+May 22 2004, 10:47 PM--> (Enigma @ May 22 2004, 10:47 PM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 22 2004, 10:12 AM

[email protected] 22 2004, 12:35 AM
No you cant say that, in this kind of argument. You can only say that you dont believe, you cant make an outright statement as if its a bold fact., you have to take other peoples stupid opinions seriously.
But it is perfectly acceptable for this pledge of alligence to "make an outright statement as if its a bold fact" that god does exist.

Liberal bullshit! If it is ok for them to tell everyone god does exist without showing us any evidenec. It is perfectly acceptable for us to say god doesnt exist! And in fact the evidence is clear.

It is materially impossible for god to exist!
Just because they are obstinate, obtuse, dogmatic, narrowminded and generally just stupid, does that mean you have to be? [/b]
I am not ashamed at having an opinion. It is my opinion and I can state it to be fact when ever I wish because that is what I believe to be right. Just as the christians can state their opinion to me that I am wrong. It's called Freedom of Speech!

There is nothing dogmatic about stating your own opinion!

[Pawn Power]

thanks for all the help everybody, this should be enough material to cover everything
i just found out though that we will do a coin flip before the debate to decide who is for which side, if i get for "under god" i am srewed :P

[Pawn Power]

i had the debate today. It went well, in the argument section of the debate i did awsome but i stumbled a little in the closing statments.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 07:38 PM
i had the debate today. It went well, in the argument section of the debate i did awsome but i stumbled a little in the closing statments.
So which side did you end up on and did our advice help?

[Pawn Power]

i got to argue for the elimination of "under god" so i got lucky.
Yea, and eveyones advice helped and i used your advice and comments so Thanks! :D