Staredit Network

Completely irrelavent. I will not answer.

All you had to do was go to dictionary.com and type in God for just one example of many.



Jewish is jsut the descriptive word for people/place that follows the Jew religion. Jewish is a religion DIRECTLY, you cannot see it any other way. If you were to say Jewish can be in the pledge but not god then thats TOTAL BULL.

Okay, now tell me how any of those examples of alternate definitions of "god" would fit in the pledge of allegiance.

The pledge uses a capital God, not a lowercase, meaning your definition does not apply.

You don't have to answer it. There are only limited choices, so I'll counter all of them.

The options are either:
-You want people to say the pledge including "god"
-You don't want people to say the pledge including "god"
-You want to change the pledge
-You don't care

We can safely cross out "You don't care" because you're arguing about it. Thus, this must at least be of some importance. We are left with three choices.


Is essentially:


So if you would like to change it, then an idea (or a hint) would have already been proposed. I see no such thing since the only thing you seem to be doing is go against what I say.

I can safely assume you want to maintain the status quo then. Thus, we are able to eliminate the other option:


The only answer left would be:


Before arguing this case, I would like to note that if you are any of the other ones (or maybe I'm forgetting another possibility that can't be eliminated from reasons above) then most of the arguements you have used against me can and will be dropped.

My conclusion comes from what I've been arguing against; if it is wrong, then you will be able to correct me and I will have to argue a different point. I believe anyone who reads this should easily agree to at least this point of the post. The tone in your reply only reinforces my conclusion.

So, we shall argue against that:


Unconstitutional's definition:


Our Constitution has a set of amendments that give further equality to people. The first ten are called the "Bill of Rights'. Our focus will be on the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

It's quite clear that the Establishment Clause forbid the interaction between Church and State.

The definition of "God":


There is clearly a relationship between Church, Religion and God. Anyone who is going to deny this really should read the definition of each word again. Anyone who is going to use some dumb definition like

Is obviously only doing this to get out of the trouble they've landed in. I don't argue against the person; I argue against the status quo to allow people who are watching this debate see who is truthful and who is not. I don't need to convince you to win the debate.

I have shown how the three are related and how the State must remain separate from the Church. In theory, this should be enough to show why the word "God" should be removed from the pledge entirely.

However, I would also point out something things that would result in good from doing so.

Advantages:
-By removing the word "God", we are removing something unconstitional and further shows the fairness of the State.
-People are given more equality by showing that the Government does not favor one side over another.
-Nonbelievers, polytheists, and maybe even other religious people will not be offended anymore, thereby, giving more equality and respect.


This is irrelevant to the case. We all have the option to say the word "God". However, the pledge is not simply an option. It's peer pressure in school (and potentially trouble in some areas) and unconstitutional everywhere else because of how it's used.

The people in Government may say things in favor of a God but that is their own belief, it has nothing to do with something that is mandatory. www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/47/20/4720.doc
View as HTML: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=hwG&.../47/20/4720.doc


I believe that covers every topic you want to get into with that opinion.

Completely irrelevant. I will not take your statement as truth. It has absolutely no reasons as to why it is irrelevant and therefore I find your action to not answer CheeZe to be trying to avoid his arguments.

No, it's not me that has to prove this one.

You and he have to prove why it is relavent. I'm sure everyone here is getting tired of your "you prove everything!!" attitude. Especially in this case, where you guys should be doing the proving.


Oh, and by the way: I don't give a damn about the pledge. I do give a damn about people blowing things out of proportion.

In addition, it wouldn't even matter what my opinions on saying the pledge are; it's irrelavent as to whether it should be changed!

edit: You caught me before I edited. I'll wait until you read this.

I'm not him. Simply because you "countered" his arguements doesn't mean you can ignore mine. Read post 80.

Proportion is an opinion. Constitutional is law.

Once again, read post 80. From what you've said, it's all too clear you didn't even bother to read it (or did and didn't get it).

No, it's not "all too clear", because I read it before replying to GodDidIt's comment!

Your post falsely assumed two things: that I care about whether God is mentioned in the pledge (which I don't), and that the First Amendment talks about the "seperation of church and state" (it doesn't, it simply says that Congress can't pass any laws supporting or rejecting any particular religion). Besides the fact that the pledge is not federal law, "God" is way too broad and vague to constitute supporting a particular religion. Again, this doesn't matter.

Your entire post is thus baseless, and you can leave now.


p.s.: What is with you!? Peer pressure isn't federal law either! Go back to DemocraticUnderground.com.

Everything you just said is addressed in post 80. You can reread it.

I will quote each specific section if needed if you continue to claim the same stuff again. Me doing so will only prove your lack of understanding of my posts; very bad for you if there was a judge. But we have viewers so it's good.

You can't say, "that was adressed in post 80" after I responded to it.

Isn't that the code-word for "you stumped me, so read what you just proved wrong"?

All right, I'll quote each section.



Mentioned:


Since you don't care, your entire case prior to this is dropped. You will now have to reinforce your arguements based on the claim that you don't care if "god" is in the pledge.

Seems pretty difficult since this is what this entire arguement is about.





Mentioned:







Mentioned:






Mentioned:



Thus, it's obvious you didn't read or you didn't get it.

Dechiper what it truly means as you will.

No, I proved all of those things wrong! You are either desperate or just trolling (probably the latter).

First of all, you immediately dismissed that I don't care (and of course, to troll, completely ignored that when you quoted it again). All of the rest of your analysis in that post is dead wrong, so don't repeat it (I proved it wrong, anyways ).

Neither peer pressure nor the pledge is federal law, so the argument should have ended there with me being right and you being -- as usual -- wrong.

edit: In fact, I'm so much bettr than you at debating, that I should stop here, so as to not give you any practice.

Could you be so kind as to how you proved it wrong? It helps when you have everything in one nice neat post.

Kirby: Look at post 84.

CheeZe: You know I'm right, I know I'm right. Since you're a troll, you have to have the last word, so I'll give it to you here. My time is more important than you. Again, it doesn't matter, because you know you're dead wrong, and that I'm out of your league.

Can someone please give me the definition of a troll?

I don't wish to be so rude, but you didn't answer my question. You just said you proved it wrong, but not HOW you proved it worng. Could you be so kind as to put HOW you proved his points wrong into a post? Or, if you so badly don't want to give Cheeze debating practice, you could just pm em to me

Edit: Looks up the word troll.

HAHHA CHEEZE YOU'RE GONNA LOVE THE DEFINITION OF AN INTERNET TROLL!



----------

But seriously.. all jokes aside... I do wish to know how you proved them wrong. It DOES help when they're all in one post

Geez haven't you been paying attention to the previous locked topics where you got "owned"?

http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopi...ndpost&p=341675



So CheeZe "trolled" in that topic and is now "trolling" in this one. Omgz CheeZe stop it.

"Traits of a forum troll:"


Arguments are nothing more than engaging conversation; both are in the end worthless, but fun and entertaining.

Everyone wants their point to be fully understood, so they reply to clear up problems.
Maybe because they didn't realize how "key" the "key parts" are?

Logic demands sufficient backing, as do college report papers. Also, you need people to define what they say because people may have different meanings to important words, which leads to communication breakdown!
---------

So tell me... why is having the traits of a "forum troll" being pushed as negative?

We are talking about Forum Trolls now -_^?

Isn't the topic about The Pledge of Alligance?

Yea, damn I should have thought of that one, if there was a law saying all people have to go to temple/church/mosque then you guys would have an arguement. But the pledge isn't a law so dang, I over looked that.......

Let's assume it's not a law. Schools still encourage it (this is given); the first amendment specifically states that government funded organizations cannot promote a religion in anyway.

I've already shown how god connects to religion. Seriously, why do you guys not read any of my replies and continue talking about the samething despite the fact that I've already refuted it?

Because that's what they do? You should know that by now

This topic has become too much of a flame war for it to remain open.

I may change my mind if people can show that they will debate reasonably and without flaming (especially leelee/Absolute/Ego).

>>> Topic Locked