[SOLVED] The Pledge of Allegiance [Archive]

Nicool003

May12-03, 07:17 PM

Changing it is a bunch of bullcrap. We have had that pledge for so long and it means so much to so many people, including me being that I have said the pledge of alligiance every day since I started kindergarten all the way up until now! And I still have quite some time left in school. over 90% of the worlds populations believe in God or at least have a religion. Why should a small percentage of atheists change it for everyone. Besides since the pledge is mostly centered in schools I seriously think they should let the "kids" and "teenagers" decide. We arent stupid and the pledge means more to us than anyone else. Don't change it now. This kind of connects to the seperation of church and state. This situation is different because it fits in the church and state category. However it has been aroudn for a long time and like stated before it means a lot to us, the "kids" and "teenagers." I say keep the Pledge!!!

damgo

May12-03, 09:33 PM

The pledge is dumb. We start teaching it to kids before they know what the words 'allegiance' or 'indivisible' mean. It's creepy in a cult-like everyone-recite-the-mantra-in-unison sort of way. Anyways, the real pledge didn't have "under God" in it until the 1950s when they changed it. And this court case is not challenging the pledge; it's just challenging schools requiring its reading. Same thing as prayer in schools, pretty much.

And a huuge number of those religious people -- Buddhists, Hindu, Shinto, etc -- do not, in fact, believe in 'God.'

May12-03, 09:41 PM

let's say the line in the pledge was "under buddha". would that offend you? references to god (the christian god) are like a slap in the face to those who believe differently. it's like the government is telling you that you are wrong, that you should adopt their god. it just shows no consideration for those who are different.

let us not forget that the pledge originally didn't include "under god." it was added during the red scare after world war 2, in an attept to scare off the godless commies. so based on that context, it's outdated and unnecessary.

the only reason why the pledge means so much is because you've been saying it just about every day from when you were 5 until you were 18. 5 year olds are very impressionable.

schools where i live started up again with the pledge last year. unfortunately, many do not see the objections some have to the pledge. some teachers create pressure on kids to stand up and recite it.

to me, the pledge represents what's wrong with the country, like bush's imperialist jingoism, a sort of i'm right, you're wrong mentality when dealing with others. even in the classroom, there's an instilled sense of anti-anti-patriotism, i'm almost scared that next time i sit down for the recitation of the pledge, i'll be taken from my bed in the middle of the night and locked up in camp x-ray. and i'm not sure we aren't close to that already.

Dissident Dan

May12-03, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by Nicool003
Changing it is a bunch of bullcrap. We have had that pledge for so long

It was created in the 1892, by Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist. According to http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm,
"His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]"

The "under god" part was added in 1954 after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus.

and it means so much to so many people, including me

That doesn't mean that the school should orchestrate it and ostracize those who don't wish to say it. If you feel that way, you are always free to do it on your own.

being that I have said the pledge of alligiance every day since I started kindergarten all the way up until now! And I still have quite some time left in school.

And that's a big problem--indoctrination. Did you really understand the pledge in kindergarten? Did I? No. We just did it because we were told to, and it eventually became routine brainwashing.

over 90% of the worlds populations believe in God or at least have a religion. Why should a small percentage of atheists change it for everyone.

The best part of this nation and its Constitution is the protection it affords to minorities and dissent. This statement smacks of irony.

*edited to fix "QUOTE" tags*

Zero

May13-03, 12:03 AM

Yes, I agree with Nicool, why should minority rights be protected? It is GOOD that a majority can force3 its beliefs on others, that is teh American Way, right?

Nicool003

May13-03, 12:26 PM

Yes, I agree with Nicool, why should minority rights be protected? It is GOOD that a majority can force3 its beliefs on others, that is teh American Way, right?

THat was stupid. I wasn't saying that. I'm saying Atheists don't have to participate in the pledge because it says under god and are they even a minority? Atheism isnt a religion, a group, a race. What is it? And Why should say 5% or less take over what 95% are willing or glad to do? Is it the American way to force the MAJORITY to have to change beacuse a very small "minority" dislikes a very small part of something much bigger?

And a huuge number of those religious people -- Buddhists, Hindu, Shinto, etc -- do not, in fact, believe in 'God.'

THey believe in a holy person or a prophet and I said those that dont bleieve in god have a religon. Next time read my post more carefully.

The pledge is dumb. We start teaching it to kids before they know what the words 'allegiance' or 'indivisible' mean. It's creepy in a cult-like everyone-recite-the-mantra-in-unison sort of way. Anyways, the real pledge didn't have "under God" in it until the 1950s when they changed it. And this court case is not challenging the pledge; it's just challenging schools requiring its reading. Same thing as prayer in schools, pretty much.

Your comparing the pledge to a cult? that's sick

Zero

May13-03, 01:39 PM

LogicalAtheist

May13-03, 01:55 PM

Nicool, the author of this post spoke to soon, and she also spoke the truth without knowing it. She said:

"Changing it is a bunch of bullcrap."

You're right. It should have been kept as it was at first. Our founding fathers we're all self-declared atheists accept 2 of them. To add this GOD idiocy into it was to Sh*t on our fathers wisdom and to literally perform reverse evolution.

To remove it won't be to advance as a society, but simply to recover from an embarassingly stupid mistake.

After doing so, americas face should still be blushed, it deserves to feel retarded for making such an anti-humanitarian choice.

Needless to say the changing of it broke one of the fundamental rules, number 2. It's in my sig. You'll be amazed over the course of my time here how many times those two rules are broken, and those of you who "think like me" general meaning atheists who are also anti-speudoreasoning, will hopefully take to hear those statements and please feel free to share them.

Regards............

Zero

May13-03, 02:19 PM

Something I wonder...why is it that some people have to force their opinion on others. officially? Is their faith so weak that they have to get government support for it?

LogicalAtheist

May13-03, 02:30 PM

Zero. Think of emotion as a fuel. The stronger emotion the stronger the fuel.

Some people must so contain themselves into a world where their UNTRUE and easily proven believes go against reality, that they cannot live on a planet where truth that hurts their feelings exists.

They must stop at nothing to force the world to agree, because challenging these things they hold so hardset into their brains literally causes them a physical pain.

It's sad, and very very sickening. It sounds like a horror movie but to them it is their every day life.

It's one of the saddest things about humanity.

Rest assured science is exploding. Just think of it's history, and look at religions PEAK time and how it's downfall is occuring. At this rate my rough estimate is that religion will return to a nonsuperimposing nature in perhaps 2,000 to 5,000 years history depending.

Feel good ZERO that humanity is on a positive path. And with every atheist popping their head out in the birth room, we move closer

and closer, and closer. [:D]

Mulder

May13-03, 03:18 PM

I've been reading up a little on America's 'pledge' since I knew nothing about it before. I don't think it should have the words 'under God' in it, obvious reasons really.

What I don't understand is why those words are an addition to the original version, especially since America has surely become more culturly and religiously diverse over the past 100 or so years.

FZ+

May13-03, 03:52 PM

THat was stupid. I wasn't saying that. I'm saying Atheists don't have to participate in the pledge because it says under god and are they even a minority? Atheism isnt a religion, a group, a race. What is it? And Why should say 5% or less take over what 95% are willing or glad to do? Is it the American way to force the MAJORITY to have to change beacuse a very small "minority" dislikes a very small part of something much bigger?
33% of americans are atheists. And I did not realise that the USA just became a theocracy.

The idea of the pledge is allegiance, not just to the nation, but to the fundamental values of this nations. One of these values is respect and freedom of belief and action for all, regardless of their religion, race, sex etc. To have a pledge that implies that atheists are second class citizens, or however excluded, is one of upmost hypocrisy. No matter how small the minority, the constitution demands that their peaceful rights be respected. History has taught us that any segregationism in this way leads to greater loss of freedom, and typically bloodshed. Would it be acceptable to have a pledge that exluded, say, Jews, because they represent less than 1% of the population. No. With any other group, it is no different.

EDIT: I got the values from another post. Not sure if they are correct. But for such a pledge of allegiance, I don't think that the % of people is really so relevant. Being American has nothing to do with your religion.

LogicalAtheist

May13-03, 03:56 PM

FZ - you said it!

MULDER - the allegiance was changed when someone (congress of course and a president who I don't recall) slyly had this done during a time when their was huge world news, a war or something I forgot, so as to have this ruling overshadowed.

President BUSH has done this lately with his faith-based intiative. That's what he likes to call it, but if you investigate it you'll see it can also be called his HATE-BASED INITIATIVE.

He's doing all sorts of sly Sh*t behind peoples backs.

May13-03, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist

MULDER - the allegiance was changed when someone (congress of course and a president who I don't recall) slyly had this done during a time when their was huge world news, a war or something I forgot, so as to have this ruling overshadowed.

i believe this was added by eisenhower and mccarthy, maybe huac had something to do with this too. and as i said earlier, it was added during the beginning of the cold war, back when everyone was terrified of communist infiltration.

FZ+

May13-03, 07:04 PM

Presumeably communists, as spawns of the devil, would melt away in spectacular pyrotechnics the moment they said it.

enigma

May13-03, 07:46 PM

A bunch of incorrect data here...

1) Atheists do NOT make up 33% of the population. They make up 1.5%. Agnostics are another 2%. 'Non-religious' (whatever that means) is up to 18%

2) The founding fathers were not atheists. They were deists for the most part. There is a subtle difference.

***********************

And Nicool, changing it (back) is not "a bunch of bullcrap". The constitution leaves nothing up to chance here: The government is not allowed to make ANY law which says ANYTHING about what goes on outside this realm of existance (i.e. god and religion). If you think this is a bad thing, I suggest you take a look at countries which don't have those rules like Iran and pre-war Afghanistan.

In the 1950s, "under God" was added by Christian groups with the sole purpose of proving that the US was different from the awful godless commies. It was codified by the congress... made into law. See above.

Adding "under God" marginalizes those who do not buy into it by creating an 'us vs. them' type scenario. It makes those who disagree with the tenet of "under God" the same as those who disagree with the tenets of "liberty" and "justice".

"under God" <-> "indivisible"

pick one.

russ_watters

May13-03, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by enigma
1) Atheists do NOT make up 33% of the population. They make up 1.5%. Agnostics are another 2%. 'Non-religious' (whatever that means) is up to 18% My guess would be theother 18% are people who don't understand the definitions of "athiest" and "agnostic."

My opinion of the "under God" part is that it really isn't an important part of the pledge and I wouldn't care one way or another if its in there (I'm a Christian) except that I have a HUGE problem with the REASON its in there. So I'll not say those two words.

enigma

May13-03, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
My guess would be theother 18% are people who don't understand the definitions of "athiest" and "agnostic."

My thoughts exactly. I'd bet that 1/3 are atheists, 1/3 are agnostic (both say 'non-religeous' to avoid the stigma attached with them), and 1/3 don't give a rat's ***...

RuroumiKenshin

May13-03, 11:48 PM

Was the pledge of allegiance out lawed or something? My teacher still makes us do it, so I was just curious.

Dissident Dan

May13-03, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by enigma
A bunch of incorrect data here...

1) Atheists do NOT make up 33% of the population. They make up 1.5%. Agnostics are another 2%. 'Non-religious' (whatever that means) is up to 18%

2) The founding fathers were not atheists. They were deists for the most part. There is a subtle difference.

I'm glad that you mentioned it. You beat me to it. I found those to be peculiar statements, as well. I know that many of the founding fathers (jefferson, paine, madison, others, and possibly washington) were deists. And 33% just sounds way off.

I suppose that "non-religious" means anyone who doesn't fall into a major category, and probably includes deists and people who haven't really thought about it or aren't sure enough of what they believe to give them any type of label. 3.5% sounds a little low for atheists/agnostics to me.

From http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Backdrop&Context/nonreligion.htm:
"There exist today many philosophical variants of nonreligious belief systems. Naturalism, rationalism, secular humanism, atheism, and methodological skepticism, along with agnosticism, are the most common perspectives. Outlooks that fall under the umbrella description “nonreligious” presented here have in common that they do not contain any supernatural beliefs."

And one thing...I don't know how accurate these surveys are. I know that I've never been asked for a survey.

"under God" <-> "indivisible"

pick one.

Good statement.
******************************************
Nicool003
THey believe in a holy person or a prophet and I said those that dont bleieve in god have a religon. Next time read my post more carefully.

I'm not sure if you can call the Buddha a holy person, and definitely not a prophet (prophets receive revelation from deities). Anyway, that statement is relevant to the pledge. The pledge says "under god", not "under some idol".

According to the 1st and 14th Amendments, the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and "under god" in public schools' ritual of the pledge is an establishment of religion by the government.

enigma

May14-03, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
3.5% sounds a little low for atheists/agnostics to me.

Well, there is that nasty stigma attached with it in many parts of the country. I am in the double digits of people who have insulted assaulted me (e.g. "Hope you enjoy burning in hell"; "You worship the devil?"; "Get thee from me Satan"; etc) when they found out my (lack of) religeous beliefs. And I live near Washington DC... one of the places with the highest percentage of college graduates in the country. I'd really be hating life if I lived in the bible belt, I think. I'm not one to conform to make people happy, nomatter how grating they think my views are.

I'm sure some fudged their answer to avoid the potential to be 'outed'.

Majin, the pledge was not outlawed. The use of "under God" was found unconstitutional when delivered in a government sponsored setting (like a public high school). This was also only for some western states, but (last I heard... has anything new happened recently?) it has been put on hold pending review from a higher court.

enigma

May14-03, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Nicool003
THey believe in a holy person or a prophet and I said those that dont bleieve in god have a religon. Next time read my post more carefully.

I have a religion?

That's interresting.

Is 'bald' a hairstyle?

Zero

May14-03, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters

My opinion of the "under God" part is that it really isn't an important part of the pledge and I wouldn't care one way or another if its in there (I'm a Christian) except that I have a HUGE problem with the REASON its in there. So I'll not say those two words.

You, and probably a pretty large chunk of 'non-evangelicals', seem to have the same view...that 'under God' doesn't belong in government-sponsored speech.

Sting

May15-03, 10:44 AM

Well, there is that nasty stigma attached with it in many parts of the country. I am in the double digits of people who have insulted assaulted me (e.g. "Hope you enjoy burning in hell"; "You worship the devil?"; "Get thee from me Satan"; etc) when they found out my (lack of) religeous beliefs. And I live near Washington DC... one of the places with the highest percentage of college graduates in the country. I'd really be hating life if I lived in the bible belt, I think. I'm not one to conform to make people happy, nomatter how grating they think my views are.

That stinks and in reality it's a real hypocrisy. If these people verbally assaulting you are "Christians" as I assume them to be, then they are displaying hypocrisy. In theory, Christianity is supposed to be a tolerant religion (someone should inform these people).

But I must say that not all Christians are like that. I one time walked into the Baptist Student Union with a Rage Against the Machine t-shirt that had "Fear is Your Only God" (It doesn't reflect my personal beliefs. It's just a cool RATM t-shirt). I was expecting them to give me dirty looks and to ignore me but NOT ONE PERSON treated me any different and even to this day they still treat me in a very courteous and friendly way (just like the day I first met them).

Nicool003

May15-03, 02:46 PM

The Pledge of allegiance should be worded to include ALL Americans, don't you think? Why should you have a pledge that some Americans cannot, in good conscience, participate in? THAT'S the idea that is bullcrap, that American citizenship can only belong to the majority, and everyone else is second-class.

I never said the Minority didn't count. If people thought like that women couldn't vote and civil rights movement wouldn't have changed anything. I'm saying that the pledge has been that way for a very very long time and many of US not you US would not like to see it go. You people don't give a hoot about the pledge anymore your not even in school. That is another point of mine. AND is a 5 year old little girl an atheist? No. Just because you dont have a religion doesnt make you an atheist and some of those kids are too young to even know what a religion is. But older elemtary, middle school, and highschool kids all know. And if you dont want to say the pledge you dont necessarily have to so why should it be ruined for everyone else when you don't even have to say it if you are atheist?

I have a religion?

That's interresting.

Is 'bald' a hairstyle?

In that post I meant the people with a religion believe in a prophet etc... Always the critic arent you? [:)]

enigma

May15-03, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Nicool003
I never said the Minority didn't count. If people thought like that women couldn't vote and civil rights movement wouldn't have changed anything. I'm saying that the pledge has been that way for a very very long time and many of US not you US would not like to see it go.

Slavery was around for a long time and MANY people didn't want to see it go. Women being unable to vote was that way for a long time and MANY people didn't want to see it go.

Whether you want to see it go or not is really irrelevant. It is against the constitution for the government to take sides in religion, and by codifying a statement asserting the existance of a deity into the pledge of allegiance, they are making unconstitutional laws.

You people don't give a hoot about the pledge anymore your not even in school.

I do give a hoot about the wonderful country I live in, thank you very much. I don't need to be in school to care what goes on.

That is another point of mine. AND is a 5 year old little girl an atheist? No. Just because you dont have a religion doesnt make you an atheist and some of those kids are too young to even know what a religion is.

Uhm. Sorry, no. Atheism is the default position. If you don't know about or don't believe in God or gods, you are an atheist. You need to be taught religion.

But older elemtary, middle school, and highschool kids all know. And if you dont want to say the pledge you dont necessarily have to so why should it be ruined for everyone else when you don't even have to say it if you are atheist?

Let me ask you a question.

Would you be pissed if the pledge said: "One Nation, under NO God, indivisible..."?

You wouldn't have to say the "no God" part, of course...

Let me tell you... I'd be just as mad if that were the case as I am now.

In that post I meant the people with a religion believe in a prophet etc... Always the critic arent you? [:)]

And that is an uninformed assertion.

There are plenty of religions which don't have prophets or gods. Example: several Native American religions, several African religions, etc.

And yes, I am always critical. Comes with the territory when you're a skeptic [;)]

Seriously Nicool... what is so bad about: "...one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."? Say it once out loud. Just try it on for size.

Dissident Dan

May15-03, 04:59 PM

Ganshauk

May17-03, 03:05 AM

I may be pedantic here, but what is the difference between forcing a kid to say the Pledge of Alleigance and forcing the kid not to say it?

It seems to me, the only one that the difference between these two actions is not apparent is to the kid.

I say STFU. Leave things as they are until you can point out something really detrimental in an empirecal and qualitative fashion. Until then, I can only assume some wayward attempt at self idolatry or an out-and-out subversion of your home.

Dissident Dan

May17-03, 03:26 AM

Who said anything about forcing a kid not to say it?

Anyway, the difference is the difference a parent's perogative and government-mandated religion.

As for empirical findings, I can look around me and see all the brainwashed people and all the tragedy it causes.

Zero

May17-03, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Ganshauk
I may be pedantic here, but what is the difference between forcing a kid to say the Pledge of Alleigance and forcing the kid not to say it?

It seems to me, the only one that the difference between these two actions is not apparent is to the kid.

I say STFU. Leave things as they are until you can point out something really detrimental in an empirecal and qualitative fashion. Until then, I can only assume some wayward attempt at self idolatry or an out-and-out subversion of your home.

Hmmm...last time I checked, you aren't allowed to have random outbursts in teh middle of class, are you? That's teh difference, I suppose. Frankly, I think any recitation before class is wrong; children are in school to learn, not to be indoctrinated. But, if someone insists on a Pledge of Allegiance, let it be one that is not forcing religion on others, you know?!?

Nicool003

May18-03, 07:54 AM

Hey guys I haven't been able to go on for a few days because my cousins confirmation, My school band went to a competition THEN 6 flags. Then my other cousins first communion was yesterday....And today I'm going to a yankees game.

GO YANKEES!!!

Anyways

Slavery was around for a long time and MANY people didn't want to see it go. Women being unable to vote was that way for a long time and MANY people didn't want to see it go.

and MANY people did want to see it go enigma. There were many abolitionists that tried to have slavery abolished they just weren't as violent as pro slavery people so you heard less of it. Many others wanted it to go because it was wrong many others thought the south was getting to big or making more money. But the latter still wanted slavery abolished just for the wrong reason. Wasn't that a nice history lesson?

enigma

May18-03, 04:09 PM

I'm well aware of pre-civil war and civil rights history.

You were trying to make the fallacious argument that: "It should stay because many people want it to stay."

It doesn't matter what the collective 'we' want when it comes to making unconstitutional laws. Those laws break the rules, and constitutional ammendments to make those laws legal would weaken the constitution.

Again I'll ask:

What is so bad about: "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."?

Nicool003

May20-03, 07:40 AM

"It should stay because many people want it to stay."

No, no that is wrong. I was saying that we should be allowed to decide and like i have said many times THEY DONT HAVE TO SAY THE PLEDGE IF THEY DONT WANT TO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!

It is an optional thing so they shouldnt ruin it for US when they dont even HAVE TO DO IT. Talking to you people in the political forum is like talking to a brick wall.

Zero

May20-03, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Nicool003

It is an optional thing so they shouldnt ruin it for US when they dont even HAVE TO DO IT. Talking to you people in the political forum is like talking to a brick wall.

So, wait...I'm confused. You say thatthe Pledge is ruined if you don't get to insert a reference to your God in it? That isn't logical at all.

And, of course, let's be realistic: how will someone be treated if they refuse to stand for the Pledge? What if everyone hears someone omit 'Under God', or fill in their own Deity? Will they be treated just the same? What happens to a kid who inserts 'Under ALLAH'?

kyleb

May20-03, 12:22 PM

or, in reference to street layout above the white house, "under the prince of darkness" (http://www.worldsgreatestband.com/Pictures/pentagram.jpg)? [:D]

May20-03, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Zero

And, of course, let's be realistic: how will someone be treated if they refuse to stand for the Pledge? What if everyone hears someone omit 'Under God', or fill in their own Deity? Will they be treated just the same? What happens to a kid who inserts 'Under ALLAH'?

there really is a pressure to say it in schools, i.e. teachers will almost order kids to stand.

one of my teachers i believe is buddhist, and i think she still says "under god." maybe she's just so used to it that it doesn't mean anything.

BoulderHead

May20-03, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by kyleb
or, in reference to street layout above the white house, "under the prince of darkness" (http://www.worldsgreatestband.com/Pictures/pentagram.jpg)? [:D] ...were such jokesters! [:D]

Zero

May20-03, 02:36 PM

I can't support illegal speech with eth 'out' of "You don't have to say it". That's simply not enough. And, strangely, the reactions of most adults who support 'under God' show exactly why it should be removed.

Nicool003

May20-03, 05:15 PM

So, wait...I'm confused. You say thatthe Pledge is ruined if you don't get to insert a reference to your God in it? That isn't logical at all.

Naw don't put words in my mouth. I was right-talking to you people is like talking to a brick wall...

I am ssaying it isnt the same when it has BEEN that way all our lives and when MANY OF US WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY

Zero

May20-03, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Nicool003
Naw don't put words in my mouth. I was right-talking to you people is like talking to a brick wall...

I am ssaying it isnt the same when it has BEEN that way all our lives and when MANY OF US WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY

So,why do you want to keep it that way, even though it is illegal, immoral, and insulting to some of your fellow students? Because change is bad, no matter what?

Dissident Dan

May21-03, 01:03 AM

Zero

May21-03, 02:18 AM

I wonder, though...is it comforting to feel that the government supports your mythology over others? Is that why people don't mind trampling the rights of others when it comes to religion?

Nicool003

May21-03, 07:56 PM

So,why do you want to keep it that way, even though it is illegal, immoral, and insulting to some of your fellow students? Because change is bad, no matter what?

VERY FEW fellow students. Also there are very few atheists in my grade probably my school too. And also there havent been any problems at my school or complaining in my school district even. So why even think of changing it for the whole USA when there was one complaint. That's stupid.

enigma

May21-03, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Nicool003
VERY FEW fellow students. Also there are very few atheists in my grade probably my school too. And also there havent been any problems at my school or complaining in my school district even. So why even think of changing it for the whole USA when there was one complaint. That's stupid.

Oh, if it only tramples on the rights of VERY FEW, then it's OK, I guess... my bad.

Do me a favor. ASK the atheists what they think about it.

Care to place a bet what they will say?

Why don't you hop on over to www.iidb.org and ask the atheists and freethinkers there what THEY think about the pledge...

EDIT: I'm going to drop out of this discussion, because it's only making me mad.

It is NOT -and never will be- OK to write unconstitutional laws and trample over the rights of atheists, even if we are an extreme minority.

EDIT 2: Fixed link

Dissident Dan

May21-03, 11:06 PM

I think that he meant to link to www.iidb.net

And the Constitution's provisions were not meant to only protect large segments of the population.

And it is also part of religious indoctrination, which is just wrong.

Zero

May22-03, 11:16 AM

kyle_soule

May22-03, 11:25 AM

In our school we don't have to participate in the pledge if we do not wish, but in the morning there is a time for those who wish to say it.

I don't think it should be forced, forced patriotism isn't patriotism, it won't do the country any good, but I don't think it should be changed to suit people, just as it shouldn't have been changed in in 1954 to suit their needs. Two wrongs don't make a right, so I think we should leave it, personally.

This thread does illustrate an increasing trend to make the convictions of minorities appear as the majority, and you will notice court rulings are making laws of minorities opinions. I say the downfall of democracy is catering to the minorities.

Zero

May22-03, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by kyle_soule
In our school we don't have to participate in the pledge if we do not wish, but in the morning there is a time for those who wish to say it.

I don't think it should be forced, forced patriotism isn't patriotism, it won't do the country any good, but I don't think it should be changed to suit people, just as it shouldn't have been changed in in 1954 to suit their needs. Two wrongs don't make a right, so I think we should leave it, personally.

This thread does illustrate an increasing trend to make the convictions of minorities appear as the majority, and you will notice court rulings are making laws of minorities opinions. I say the downfall of democracy is catering to the minorities.

HUH?

When something is illegal, it is illegal! How is that concept so difficult to understand? Plus, the point is to be inclusive, isn't it? This is why the Constitution sets the government in a role of official neutrality. That way, we shouldn't even have to discuss this sort of thing.

Zero

May22-03, 11:39 AM

Here's an interesting(though still slightly wrong-headed) perspective on the issue:Click me!! (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15964)

Nicool003

May22-03, 02:31 PM

Oh, if it only tramples on the rights of VERY FEW, then it's OK, I guess... my bad.

Do me a favor. ASK the atheists what they think about it.

Care to place a bet what they will say?

Why don't you hop on over to www.iidb.com and ask the atheists and freethinkers there what THEY think about the pledge...

EDIT: I'm going to drop out of this discussion, because it's only making me mad.

It is NOT -and never will be- OK to write unconstitutional laws and trample over the rights of atheists, even if we are an extreme minority.

That is pitiful. They dont have to even DO IT LIKE I HAVE SAID ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION OR IGNORING EVERY WORD I SAY. It isnt trampleing on their rights because they have the right not to do it they choose not to so they can be annoying and complain about it. The point is, people that most people want to do it and those that dont do not have to so they should stop trying to ruin something that has become a tradition and is important to many people (me being one of them)

Also, the atheist parent of a 5 year old child is the one that pressed these charges. For GOD'S sake she is 5! and I do feel bad for the children of strong atheist people because those children dont even have a CHOICE like it is their RIGHT to have one. If a kid decides he wants to habve a religion do you think their atheist parents would say "sure go ahead"? Not likely!

Zero

May22-03, 02:35 PM

Dissident Dan

May22-03, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by kyle_soule
In our school we don't have to participate in the pledge if we do not wish, but in the morning there is a time for those who wish to say it.

And those who do not risk scapegoating, and the indoctrination of the nation's youth is in full effect...

I don't think it should be forced, forced patriotism isn't patriotism, it won't do the country any good, but I don't think it should be changed to suit people, just as it shouldn't have been changed in in 1954 to suit their needs. Two wrongs don't make a right, so I think we should leave it, personally.

Who said it's a wrong? Fixing a wrong is a right. The "two wrongs don't make a right" is generally used when referring to retaliation and similar measures. For example, if someone kills your son, it doesn't make it right or fix anything to kill his son. You have completely misused the phrase.

This thread does illustrate an increasing trend to make the convictions of minorities appear as the majority, and you will notice court rulings are making laws of minorities opinions. I say the downfall of democracy is catering to the minorities.

What are you talking about? Court rulings tend to be based on the Constitution. Who is trying to say that the majority is not-christian or in other ways trying to misrepresent a majority?
------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nicool003_soule
That is pitiful. They dont have to even DO IT LIKE I HAVE SAID ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION OR IGNORING EVERY WORD I SAY. It isnt trampleing on their rights because they have the right not to do it they choose not to so they can be annoying and complain about it. The point is, people that most people want to do it and those that dont do not have to so they should stop trying to ruin something that has become a tradition and is important to many people (me being one of them)

To many people in the now-deceased Aztec civilization, human sacrifice was an important tradition. So that is no excuse.
It is trampling rights because it is divisive and is part of quashing religious freedom. It is not an outright ban on religious freedom, but it does infringe. Also, there is the issue of indoctrination that I have pointed out numerous times.

Also, the atheist parent of a 5 year old child is the one that pressed these charges. For GOD'S sake she is 5! and I do feel bad for the children of strong atheist people because those children dont even have a CHOICE like it is their RIGHT to have one. If a kid decides he wants to habve a religion do you think their atheist parents would say "sure go ahead"? Not likely!

I would say that it is more common, percentage-wise, than a religious person allowing that. When you force children to go to church and recite religious pledges in school, then those children are severely lacking in choice. Nice try to turn it around.

FZ+

May22-03, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Nicool003
That is pitiful. They dont have to even DO IT LIKE I HAVE SAID ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION OR IGNORING EVERY WORD I SAY. It isnt trampleing on their rights because they have the right not to do it they choose not to so they can be annoying and complain about it. The point is, people that most people want to do it and those that dont do not have to so they should stop trying to ruin something that has become a tradition and is important to many people (me being one of them)

Also, the atheist parent of a 5 year old child is the one that pressed these charges. For GOD'S sake she is 5! and I do feel bad for the children of strong atheist people because those children dont even have a CHOICE like it is their RIGHT to have one. If a kid decides he wants to habve a religion do you think their atheist parents would say "sure go ahead"? Not likely!

Let's sum this up. You say we should continue to deny consititutional rights and full american status to (at least) 1% of the minority because:
1. It was always like this. (It isn't, and this isn't a proper reason)
2. You somehow "know" the other 99% of the population think without even taking a referendum.
3. Atheists are too small a minority.(so you are banking on the irrational mob belief of the rest of the population)

Let's put this in perspective. 1% sounds small, doesn't it? PF has current about 860 members. Let's suppose Greg just arbitarily removed the right to make new posts from 9 of them. That's about 1%. Who cares? Those people don't post often anyways? What if you are one of the 8 people? Well, why should anyone care about you? Minority opinions don't matter, remember...

How many people are these 1%? At least 2.8 Million.
How much taxes do they pay? At least 18 Billion Dollars.
How much do they contribute to national GDP? At least 99 Billion Dollars.
So these people, these millions of people, they are paying billions of dollars into our little theocracy here and in return they are not even considered real citizens? Hell, could we please all go to our nearest government office and have our money back? What do they think we are? Suckers for punishment?

This thread does illustrate an increasing trend to make the convictions of minorities appear as the majority, and you will notice court rulings are making laws of minorities opinions. I say the downfall of democracy is catering to the minorities.
You don't seem to read history. The Downfall of Democracy was always letting the core values of society be overwritten by the whim of the mob. It was always forsaking long term fortunes to pander to momentary feelings. It was always turning the minority into scapegoats, to lose responsibility for your fellow man. It happened in Nazi Germany. It might happen in here.

Americans are a world minority, are they not?

kyle_soule

May22-03, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Originally posted by Nicool003_soule
That is pitiful. They dont have to even DO IT LIKE I HAVE SAID ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION OR IGNORING EVERY WORD I SAY. It isnt trampleing on their rights because they have the right not to do it they choose not to so they can be annoying and complain about it. The point is, people that most people want to do it and those that dont do not have to so they should stop trying to ruin something that has become a tradition and is important to many people (me being one of them)

To many people in the now-deceased Aztec civilization, human sacrifice was an important tradition. So that is no excuse.
It is trampling rights because it is divisive and is part of quashing religious freedom. It is not an outright ban on religious freedom, but it does infringe. Also, there is the issue of indoctrination that I have pointed out numerous times.

Hey bud, you could get the names right, it isn't Nicool003_soule[;)]

Let me take another position: I SAY CHANGE THE PLEDGE BACK TO ORIGINAL. After giving this thought, unrelated to what you all have said, as you are all insulting and unhelpful due to the slew of insults cast to anybody that has a different point of view, and realized this in fact should be taken back to the original. I decided this not because of the mention of God, that is just a pathetic attempt at an argument, but because, as someone said, it is outdated and doesn't apply anymore. It doesn't seem THAT hard to ignore and not say "under God" during the pledge.

What are you talking about? Court rulings tend to be based on the Constitution. Who is trying to say that the majority is not-christian or in other ways trying to misrepresent a majority?

I didn't mention anything of religion. I don't believe "under God" is even religious. When someone exclames "OH MY GOD" are they really making a reference to their God, calling out to them? Same concept. Don't mistake me, I realize "under God" was intended to be a religious reference before, but I don't believe that holds true anymore.

HUH?

When something is illegal, it is illegal!

Thanks, Zero?

Plus, the point is to be inclusive, isn't it? This is why the Constitution sets the government in a role of official neutrality. That way, we shouldn't even have to discuss this sort of thing.

So, you think any mention of anything that could possibly be religious should be removed? Wouldn't that also remove this country? Was it not founded on the idea of freedom and that also includes freedom of religion without threat? What if the majority wanted "under God" in the pledge? Isn't it the role of the government to listen to the majority and act accordingly? I'm not saying they do, but if they did, the courts would still find it illegal due to a minority raising the issue, and then take it out of the pledge. This is all I was saying...simple enough.

FZ+

May22-03, 07:38 PM

What if the majority wanted "under God" in the pledge?
Then the majority have chosen that the nation is no longer in reality "one country", but a nation of special cases. The pledge is hence apparently self-contradictory.

kyle_soule

May22-03, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
Then the majority have chosen that the nation is no longer in reality "one country", but a nation of special cases. The pledge is hence apparently self-contradictory.

You are right! Wow...I didn't think of it that way, I apoligize to everyone for arguing when I was so wrong[:)]

FZ+

May22-03, 07:55 PM

Wow.... You mean I actually won an argument!? Thank you, thank you! [t)]

kyleb

May23-03, 12:20 AM

odd how so many people forget the "minority rights" clause on our concept of majority rule.

Zero

May23-03, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by kyle_soule

So, you think any mention of anything that could possibly be religious should be removed? Wouldn't that also remove this country? Was it not founded on the idea of freedom and that also includes freedom of religion without threat?

Individuals have rights, the government doesn't. You have the right to your own private expressions of faith. The government has no right to express religious views, even one as simple as saying a higher power exists.

enigma

May23-03, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Nicool003
That is pitiful. They dont have to even DO IT LIKE I HAVE SAID ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION OR IGNORING EVERY WORD I SAY.

One more post. I'm a glutton for punishment, I guess.

I am paying attention. I'm not ignoring. Your argument doesn't hold water in the real world.

Why?

Here's why:

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/3568704.htm

Here's why:

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=10196

Here's why:

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=3047

Here's why:

http://www.geocities.com/forkidsake/walker.html

Need me to go on?

It isnt trampleing on their rights because they have the right not to do it

Not doing it opens yourself up to ridicule, discipline, and abuse. Think it doesn't happen? It does. I'm speaking from personal experience here.

Also, the atheist parent of a 5 year old child is the one that pressed these charges. For GOD'S sake she is 5!

First off, she was 8. Second off, it doesn't matter how old she was.

IT IS ILLEGAL

and I do feel bad for the children of strong atheist people because those children dont even have a CHOICE like it is their RIGHT to have one. If a kid decides he wants to habve a religion do you think their atheist parents would say "sure go ahead"? Not likely! [/B]

Most of them, yes, actually. Speaking for myself, I know I wouldn't forbid my child to learn about religion. Most atheists have gone through quite a bit of personal growth to come to their conclusions. I don't see how they could think that their children don't deserve the right to go through that same growth. Religion a personal choice, and not my choice to make. It isn't the government's either.

Nicool, I still like you, but you're looking at this issue through rose colored glasses. Standing out opens you up to ridicule. I feel sorry for Newdow's kid too... just for different reasons. I feel sorry for her because she's nine now and has already received death threats from True ChristiansTM

LogicalAtheist

May23-03, 01:54 PM

We're all just witnessing the sickness of current society.

Atheism is NOT a minority in any sense.

When one asks a poll "are you an atheist" the result is low.

But when one asks "are you religious" or "do you believe in a god" you get extremely high results.

Those people who say no to are you religious are indeed atheists.

An a-theist is a NOT THEIST.

The numbvers are very high, and much higher in european countries.

Nicool is a person who has emotionality as a mind. I don't see any realistic thought coming from Nicool.

Our country was founded by a group of men who were nearly ALL atheist. There were only 4 or less religious founding fathers.

It was founded on atheist views of a government. and slowly it slips into the slums again.

Don't worry atheists, the resolution of an event is always the truth. And thus the world slowly becomes realistic, and thus atheist.

Everyday the atheist population grows. Breed atheists breed!

Zero

May23-03, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist

Nicool is a person who has emotionality as a mind. I don't see any realistic thought coming from Nicool.

Cut the personal comments, chum...

enigma

May23-03, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
[B]
Our country was founded by a group of men who were nearly ALL atheist. There were only 4 or less religious founding fathers.

They were deists, not atheists.

Athiesm is a lack of a god-belief, not lack of a religion.

It was founded on atheist views of a government. and slowly it slips into the slums again.

The country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment, which isn't atheistic any more than it is theistic. It is completely neutral with regards to the hereafter.

And I'll second Zero's comment. Personal attacks are totally unneccessary.

LogicalAtheist

May23-03, 02:14 PM

No, it's like I said. They were atheists.

They claimed so in their own written testimonies.

I'm not making personal attacks. If one feels emotionally hurt by truth, I would only say learn to feel emotional about the truth, and you'll never feel hurt.

I didn't say anything about what the country was founded on. I said who it was founded by.

Originally posted by enigma
They were deists, not atheists.

Athiesm is a lack of a god-belief, not lack of a religion.

The country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment, which isn't atheistic any more than it is theistic. It is completely neutral with regards to the hereafter.

And I'll second Zero's comment. Personal attacks are totally unneccessary.

enigma

May23-03, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
[B]No, it's like I said. They were atheists.

They claimed so in their own written testimonies.

Really? Which ones?

I'd be very interrested to read those testimonies...

Zero

May23-03, 02:20 PM

It doesn't matter who had what religion. The only thing that matters is that officially, this country is neutral towards religion.

kyle_soule

May23-03, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Individuals have rights, the government doesn't. You have the right to your own private expressions of faith. The government has no right to express religious views, even one as simple as saying a higher power exists.

This is where I get confused.

President Bush has the right to express religious views, correct? The Government as a whole of individuals has the right to express religious views. But "the Government" has no rights, correct?

LogicalAtheist

May23-03, 02:34 PM

It's like when a station says "the views expressed here are not necessarily the views of the station".

Any person can express their views (meaning under the law). But the organization cannot endorse a particular view over another, again this is under the law.

Bush is a methodist (damn him to hell). But the government isn't thus methodist because he is.

Did you guys know that, those "pamphlets" that were dropped to the people in Iraq we're actually bible quotes and such, written by the leader of the methodist church in USA.

And that bush worked with this leader to specifically design them.

People often don't realize how the present is like the past. Just as other dictators forced systems onto people, bush and this methodist leader attempted to force the methodist church onto the Iraqi people.

Also, the leader of the church took a great deal of his followers over to Iraq once the war was over and all was cleared, to try to conver them. And bush gave millions to build methodist churchs there.

Sick is it not?

Those who think we have a president and not a dictator, learn the past, and make the decisions that were then made to late, NOW, and not when it is again too late!

Either both bush and saddam or presidents, or they are both dictators.

They both were voted on, and more people %-wise wanted saddam than wanted bush.

It's Dictator Bush to you.

Zero

May23-03, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by kyle_soule
This is where I get confused.

President Bush has the right to express religious views, correct? The Government as a whole of individuals has the right to express religious views. But "the Government" has no rights, correct?

Here's where it gets tricky. Bush is allowed to go to church whenever he likes, believe whatever he wants. However, in his official function as President, he does NOT have to right to claim that his personal views on religion represent the government, or this country.

schwarzchildradius

May23-03, 11:08 PM

separation of religion and government is a fundamental principle of democracy, and for good reason. Organized religion can be very damaging to government, just ask Machivelli.

Zero

May24-03, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
separation of religion and government is a fundamental principle of democracy, and for good reason. Organized religion can be very damaging to government, just ask Machivelli.

On the other hand, I believe there are certain people who would use the good intentions of people like Nicool, in order to try to undermine democracy.

Dissident Dan

May24-03, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by kyle_soule
I didn't mention anything of religion. I don't believe "under God" is even religious. When someone exclames "OH MY GOD" are they really making a reference to their God, calling out to them? Same concept. Don't mistake me, I realize "under God" was intended to be a religious reference before, but I don't believe that holds true anymore.

I'm glad that you realize that it was added in in a religioius manner. I think (but I'm not sure) that it was Eisenhower who said something like "Now, every child will [something something] the Almighty."

But I find your saying that it is not religious a horrible argument. "Oh, my god" is an exclamation that just comes out. "under god" is not an exclamation. It has premeditation and meaning. If it is not religious, then please tell me what else it could possibly mean, and please convince me that most people take it that way.

Zero

May24-03, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
I'm glad that you realize that it was added in in a religioius manner. I think (but I'm not sure) that it was Eisenhower who said something like "Now, every child will [something something] the Almighty."

But I find your saying that it is not religious a horrible argument. "Oh, my god" is an exclamation that just comes out. "under god" is not an exclamation. It has premeditation and meaning. If it is not religious, then please tell me what else it could possibly mean, and please convince me that most people take it that way.

If it doesn't mean anything religious, then why is there so much fervor to keep it around? No one has ever included 'by heck' in a patriotic pledge before, to my knowledge!

Dissident Dan

May24-03, 01:35 AM

Good point.

Zero

May24-03, 01:42 AM

So, either it is government-sponsored religious endorsement, which is illegal...or it is the semantic equivalent of 'darn tootin'!', in which case no one should care if it is removed!

kat

May24-03, 06:57 AM

So...how do those who support removing "God" from the pledge of allegiance..in schools, in particular, as well as other places..how do you propose enforcing this? After having said "under God" for centuries..I don't find myself saying it otherwise because someone else dictates I should do so.

Zero

May24-03, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by kat
So...how do those who support removing "God" from the pledge of allegiance..in schools, in particular, as well as other places..how do you propose enforcing this? After having said "under God" for centuries..I don't find myself saying it otherwise because someone else dictates I should do so.

Kat, if you have been saying the Pledgfe with 'under God' in it for centuries(since it has only existed in that form for 50 years, and you don't look a single day over 150), you've got bigger problems, don't you?

And how does your personal inconvenience affect what the law says?

kat

May24-03, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Kat, if you have been saying the Pledgfe with 'under God' in it for centuries(since it has only existed in that form for 50 years, and you don't look a single day over 150), you've got bigger problems, don't you?

And how does your personal inconvenience affect what the law says?

Lol, sorry...now that I've had a cup o' coffee...make that decades! =)

My personal invonvenience is an aside, I doubt that MY anything has a great impact on national policy. However, how a law is implemented has a great impact, and I'm curious how you (and others) see this law enforced? Or is this just a feel good movement?

Zero

May24-03, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by kat
Lol, sorry...now that I've had a cup o' coffee...make that decades! =)

My personal invonvenience is an aside, I doubt that MY anything has a great impact on national policy. However, how a law is implemented has a great impact, and I'm curious how you (and others) see this law enforced? Or is this just a feel good movement?

I say you implement it the way that you would anything else like this. You put out press releases, you hire a PR team, and then...you start throwing teachers out on their butts when they break the law.

Dissident Dan

May24-03, 01:00 PM

Well, I wouldn't say to throw them out on their butts, unless they're belligerent repeat offenders. Otherwise, make the corrective measures something involving a fine and/or probation or suspension.

Zero

May24-03, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Well, I wouldn't say to throw them out on their butts, unless they're belligerent repeat offenders. Otherwise, make the corrective measures something involving a fine and/or probation or suspension.

Well, ok..some leniency at first...like a 6 month probabtion or something.

FZ+

May24-03, 05:57 PM

Er... I don't think you need to punish. Simply change it from all texts. If someone add the words "under God" when they say it themselves, then big deal. Just have whoever leads it or something miss it out. If they don't they are not saying it officially. The whole pledge is mostly symbolic anyways. I don't think they had much trouble when they added it in the first place, so I dare say there won't be too many rebel pledgers hiding out...

Dissident Dan

May24-03, 07:00 PM

With all the stink that people are making about the Newdow thing, many people will probably feel outraged if "under god" is taken out and resort illegalities.

Zero

May24-03, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
With all the stink that people are making about the Newdow thing, many people will probably feel outraged if "under god" is taken out and resort illegalities.

Oh yeah...isn't it wonderful when 'patriots' act like slime for the sake of 'morals'?

LogicalAtheist

May24-03, 10:11 PM

The supreme court ruled that it needed to be removed.

What is the current status of this, anyone know?

kat

May24-03, 10:12 PM

What's the "Newdow" thing?

Fine them? Probation? belligerent repeat offenders?
Lol, have you ever dealt with the teachers union?

so..5 year old Johnny and Suzy continue to say "under God" because mommy and daddy do..and it makes your atheist child uncomfortable..then what?

LogicalAtheist

May24-03, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by kat
What's the "Newdow" thing?

Fine them? Probation? belligerent repeat offenders?
Lol, have you ever dealt with the teachers union?

so..5 year old Johnny and Suzy continue to say "under God" because mommy and daddy do..and it makes your atheist child uncomfortable..then what?

Excuse me?
Let me explain something.
America is founded on documents which define this countries parameters.

When a statement (law, consititution) is broken, it defies the rules of our country.

When a person breaks these rules, there are punishments.

Having the phrase "under god" in our governments statement breaks rules set aside earlier.

Earlier rules preside over newer ones.

It needs to be fixed, otherwise our government is breaking the paramaters of our country.

It's not a should or shouldn't or right or wrong.

Surely I wish I could set the government on fire for what they do. Sure I know that it'd serve humanity better if they died.

But it's illogical to fight the under god debate because of what you say should happen, or what you say is right or wrong. That's BS and has no place in reality.

The proper argument is that it breaks the law.

If the government changes the law saw it doesn't break the law so be it. Then it's fine by me on those standards.

Right or wrong is for pansies. Those in power will defy those not in power, it's the nature of power.

kat

May24-03, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Excuse me?
Let me explain something.
America is founded on documents which define this countries parameters.

When a statement (law, consititution) is broken, it defies the rules of our country.

When a person breaks these rules, there are punishments.

Having the phrase "under god" in our governments statement breaks rules set aside earlier.

Earlier rules preside over newer ones.

It needs to be fixed, otherwise our government is breaking the paramaters of our country.

It's not a should or shouldn't or right or wrong.

Surely I wish I could set the government on fire for what they do. Sure I know that it'd serve humanity better if they died.

But it's illogical to fight the under god debate because of what you say should happen, or what you say is right or wrong. That's BS and has no place in reality.

The proper argument is that it breaks the law.

If the government changes the law saw it doesn't break the law so be it. Then it's fine by me on those standards.

Right or wrong is for pansies. Those in power will defy those not in power, it's the nature of power.

lol, excuse me?
Irrelevent of what this country may be "found on" it is most certainly dependant upon case law. It's always good to do your due diligence and look at ramifications, irrelevent of good-bad, right-wrong. Also, legality is usually based upon good-bad, right-wrong, negative-positive, beneficial or detrimental to society bleah bleah etc.
so, save me the speach already and answer my question:
5 year old Johnny and Suzy continue to say "under God" because mommy and daddy do..and it makes your atheist child uncomfortable..then what?

LogicalAtheist

May24-03, 10:35 PM

You warranted the speech because of your attitude and lack of well speaking.

Furthermore, if you read your question, it makes no sense in the english language. Restate it so it's a REAL question.

Zero

May24-03, 10:39 PM

Zero

May24-03, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
You warranted the speech because of your attitude and lack of well speaking.

Furthermore, if you read your question, it makes no sense in the english language. Restate it so it's a REAL question.

LA, you're done for the night...hit the bleachers, ok!

I don't agree with Kat, but it is still a good question, one that needs to be answered.

LogicalAtheist

May24-03, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Zero
LA, you're done for the night...hit the bleachers, ok!

I don't agree with Kat, but it is still a good question, one that needs to be answered.

I absolutely don't understand her question one bit.
Furthermore, it's my duty as a teacher to disallow people to spread falsities to others.

Zero

May24-03, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I absolutely don't understand her question one bit.
Furthermore, it's my duty as a teacher to disallow people to spread falsities to others.

You absolutely need to re-read the question...and it isn't a teacher's duty to do any more than teach! This is one good reason for the removal of religious speech from government workers, so no one has to interpret what their job is.

LogicalAtheist

May24-03, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Zero
You absolutely need to re-read the question...and it isn't a teacher's duty to do any more than teach! This is one good reason for the removal of religious speech from government workers, so no one has to interpret what their job is.

Ha? I read it 3 times. It makes no sense.

Don't tell me to re-read it.

Zero

May24-03, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Ha? I read it 3 times. It makes no sense.

Don't tell me to re-read it.

Should I tell you to re-learn reading then? YOU ARE DONE HERE!

Go be belligerant somewhere else, ok? In other words, if you have nothing else to contribute here, stop posting here. Any further off-topic posts will be deleted.

LogicalAtheist

May24-03, 11:08 PM

*edited for being off-topic*

LogicalAtheist

May24-03, 11:15 PM

*edited for being off-topic*

LogicalAtheist

May24-03, 11:18 PM

I read it, it makes no sense. It's not a proper sentence...

"5 year old Johnny and Suzy continue to say "under God" because mommy and daddy do..and it makes your atheist child uncomfortable..then what? "

whose atheist child?
what do you mean then what?
then what for who?
Whose kids are these?

Answer these and I'll attempt to speak on your rewritten question.

Zero

May24-03, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I read it, it makes no sense. It's not a proper sentence...

"5 year old Johnny and Suzy continue to say "under God" because mommy and daddy do..and it makes your atheist child uncomfortable..then what? "

whose atheist child?
what do you mean then what?
then what for who?
Whose kids are these?

Answer these and I'll attempt to speak on your rewritten question.

This isn't an English class, but I guess I can re-write it for you in proper sentences.

"5 year old Johnny and Suzy continue to say "under God", because their parents do. It makes an atheist child uncomfortable. What should the parents of the atheist child do? What should teh teacher and teh school do?"

Does that meet your approval?

LogicalAtheist

May24-03, 11:25 PM

You aren't the one who asked the question. You aren't the one who I want to hear it from. I'll wait till Kat explains as I can see a few versions this question could take.

Dissident Dan

May24-03, 11:37 PM

Zero

May24-03, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Well, then nothing. If their doing not is a kind manner, then they have the right to do that. It's not government-sponsored. Now, if they're doing it to taunt others, then that's something that should be reprimanded. Of course, it would be up to the teacher's discretion. I'm just giving my opinion on how I would handle it.

Yeah...well, say for instance that they say it together at the flag before school...not sponsored speech, they can do it. IF they have a Pledge reading in the classroom, and they shout out 'UNDER GOD', they can be disciplined for being disruptive.

LogicalAtheist

May24-03, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by kat
so..5 year old Johnny and Suzy continue to say "under God" because mommy and daddy do..and it makes your atheist child uncomfortable..then what?

So, two kids say "under god" cuzz their parents taught them to.

1. Where are they saying this? When and where...

2. The assertion that an atheist child would be uncomfortable. If you're religious Kat, then perhaps you biasly added this.

Normally, it's religious children who are uncomfortable with any other children who do not share their exact religion. In my experience with atheist children (ages 6 to 14) they're very confident, and don't have a problem with religious people whatsoever.

But, if we were to assume an atheist child was uncomfortable, the answer is they should be conforted.

It's against the law for a public school teacher to assert a religion for the school.

But you failed to declare where and when this was being done. That's why I can't answer you, way to vague.

damgo

May24-03, 11:57 PM

Whatever... who cares? It's completely a symbolic thing; just change it officially. Most people will switch over sooner or later, and if the 4th grade teacher at Robert E. Lee Elementary School in Hicksville, Mississippi wants to keep saying 'under God,' let him. [;)]

LogicalAtheist

May25-03, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by damgo
Whatever... who cares? It's completely a symbolic thing; just change it officially. Most people will switch over sooner or later, and if the 4th grade teacher at Robert E. Lee Elementary School in Hicksville, Mississippi wants to keep saying 'under God,' let him. [;)]

Let him break the law?

What if he wants to touch the children? That's factually only breaking the law. Only opinions say it's "right or wrong"?

Where do we stop from punishing people from breaking the law?

Zero

May25-03, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Let him break the law?

What if he wants to touch the children? That's factually only breaking the law. Only opinions say it's "right or wrong"?

Where do we stop from punishing people from breaking the law?
Logically, I can see your point. In the real world, however, a compromise will have to be reached. It will be a good few years before the situtaion normalizes itself.

LogicalAtheist

May25-03, 12:21 AM

Not that I have a problem with breaking the law, I do it all the time. But little laws...

Also, I don't take the stance of removing under god cuzz it's 'wrong", just cuzz it's illegal.

So if our country changed the law so it was legal, then I have no factual basis, none really good anyways, that it "should" be removed.

ALso, I assert the claim (which is actually a premise for a much greater claim) that religion is anti-humanitarian, and thus spreading it is anti-humanitarian, thus making the spreader anti-humanitarian.

But I recognize the power of, power. And I understand that I'm not going to use emotions to fight claims.

I FEEL it's wrong, and hate people who do it, but I choose not to use those because they're not objective.

I asked earlier, does anyone know the supreme court status on this? they ruled to remove under god after the case, but then I heard some BS about all senators saying it was insane etc...

I say as an atheist "god bless supreme court judges"!!!!

they rock our world!

damgo

May25-03, 12:25 AM

damgo

May25-03, 12:30 AM

The Supreme Court has not yet heard the case.

The 9th Circuit threw out the words; the Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to grant cert -- to hear the case. They should do that within the next couple weeks.

LogicalAtheist

May25-03, 12:40 AM

Let us hope for humanity, being an influencial country, that they are thrown out.

Damgo - when does "it" matter?

While a teacher molesting a child disrupts a few lives, the imposition of religion onto an entire nations generation damages humanity (so says I) in an unfixable manner!

Mattius_

May25-03, 12:46 AM

i dont know if anyone has mentioned this yet, nor do i care to scroll through each and every post to see, but the 'under god' part was added during the cold war because communists by creed do not believe in a higher being... and if im correct, that is the reason why its being banned in the first place... so we can now conclude that communists are taking over the united states...

BoulderHead

May25-03, 12:48 AM

I think many people were actually only fighting Atheism all those years...

Zero

May25-03, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by Mattius_
i dont know if anyone has mentioned this yet, nor do i care to scroll through each and every post to see, but the 'under god' part was added during the cold war because communists by creed do not believe in a higher being... and if im correct, that is the reason why its being banned in the first place... so we can now conclude that communists are taking over the united states...

That's a novel interpretation, if nothing else.

Zero

May25-03, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I think many people were actually only fighting Atheism all those years...

This could be a good seperate thread: Is the general hatred of communism based mainly on a hatred of atheism?

Mattius_

May25-03, 01:20 AM

sarcasm zero[:)]

Zero

May25-03, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Mattius_
sarcasm zero[:)]

Well, it isn't like I can hear your tone of voice, now can I? Plus, I've read stranger posts than that my two years here.

LogicalAtheist

May25-03, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by Zero
This could be a good seperate thread: Is the general hatred of communism based mainly on a hatred of atheism?

Since you use "general" I'll comment.

I would say today the general hatred of communism in America is because of one thing; conditioning.

I would bet that in a random poll representing american citizens of the newer generations, age 30 and below, you'd find that barely any could define communism.

Thus since they wouldn't know what it was, if you asked them if it was "bad" they'd probably say yes, and you could conclude it's because conditioning.

In fact I would further bet if you polled people on "what was the religions of communist leaders" or "what was the religion of ___" filled in with the name of a communist leader, nearly none would guess correctly.

Zero

May25-03, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Since you use "general" I'll comment.

I would say today the general hatred of communism in America is because of one thing; conditioning.

I would bet that in a random poll representing american citizens of the newer generations, age 30 and below, you'd find that barely any could define communism.

Thus since they wouldn't know what it was, if you asked them if it was "bad" they'd probably say yes, and you could conclude it's because conditioning.

In fact I would further bet if you polled people on "what was the religions of communist leaders" or "what was the religion of ___" filled in with the name of a communist leader, nearly none would guess correctly.

Sure..and it would be cool to discuss this in a separate thread.

LogicalAtheist

May25-03, 02:47 AM

Well it's what the thread is about. I merely looked at what's been said since I posted. I don't read the whole thing over agian, just the new stuff.

So move it! Or start a new one and pop a link here for us to follow.

Zero

May25-03, 02:51 AM

Getting back on topic...

LogicalAtheist

May25-03, 02:55 AM

Yes back on topic. My response (again) to the original post.

Of course "under god" should be removed, it's illegal!!!!

schwarzchildradius

May25-03, 04:58 AM

No, it shouldn't! It's traditional! Just so long as kids get to substitute the name of their particular trendy god into it during the pledge, there's nothing wrong with it. Hey those commies are scary.

LogicalAtheist

May25-03, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
No, it shouldn't! It's traditional! Just so long as kids get to substitute the name of their particular trendy god into it during the pledge, there's nothing wrong with it. Hey those commies are scary.

SO let's see here.

1. It's against the law for government do endorse religion.
2. "under god" endorses religion
3. You believe that the government should be allowed to break the law?

It's tradition? No it's not, it's barely been there but a couple of decades, and was properly absent MUCH LONGER.

Just so long as kids get to substitute? You missed the point here. It's illegal. SO should the government also be allowed to randomly decimate people, so long as the person gets to choose their particular trendy way to be murdered?

BoulderHead

May25-03, 09:55 AM

Mention was made in this thread about the consequences of removing those words from the pledge and how it might be, how should I say it, traumatic? But has anyone discussed what 'society' went through in the first place when those words were originally inserted into the pledge, or considered that indeed life settled back to normal afterwards? I think calmer heads would prevail, fanatics would be dealt with, and eventually people would settle down.

Now, what about this God business when swearing in a secular court of law???

Mattius_

May25-03, 11:28 AM

Well athiest, im sorry to burst your bubble but this is a realistic society and humans will always crush the other human minority whether it is against the rules or not... i do recall you posting in another post that you break laws regularly(nothing big)... so you are stabbing at our government from every possible direction(in this case with "law") and yet you yourself break the law on a regular basis? it seems to me you are more intent on bringing our current government down than sticking with your ideals...

let not yourself be washed away into blind disagreement... and im not sitting on my throne condemning you either because i have caught myself frequently doing the same thing... just trying to teach objectivism here, i think we could all use a lesson.

FZ+

May25-03, 01:36 PM

Well athiest, im sorry to burst your bubble but this is a realistic society and humans will always crush the other human minority whether it is against the rules or not...
So we should embrace this? Ok!
All americans, down your weapons now! The chinese are the majority, and instead of waiting for them to crush you, let's just surrender to their will. All heil Hu Jintao! All heil Hu Jintao!

Disagree? Your feeble laws will not stop us from crushing you! Mwhahahaha!

i do recall you posting in another post that you break laws regularly(nothing big)...
Where? I think you will find the law breaking is all within a very directed and self-contain plan. [;)]

so you are stabbing at our government from every possible direction(in this case with "law") and yet you yourself break the law on a regular basis?
Oh, so the government is always right is it now? Mind if I just point out that this stabbing now is in terms of removing a senseless law, as presumeable the law breaking.
it seems to me you are more intent on bringing our current government down than sticking with your ideals...
I dunno, but sometimes that could be the same thing, perhaps? And did we say bring down the government? No, we say update it.

let not yourself be washed away into blind disagreement...
Yours or ours?[;)]

LogicalAtheist

May25-03, 01:55 PM

I agree with FZ. Mattius's post is filled with problems. I think FZ got them all.

SO, yeesh, all I have to say is that Mattius you aren't the majority. Secondly, remember the population of atheism is rapidly climbing.

But more importantly, the population of non-religion people is huge. It's over 33% now.

I'm just gonna pretend he never posted it, and not point out all the serious issues with his psyche. Good day!

Zero

May25-03, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I agree with FZ. Mattius's post is filled with problems. I think FZ got them all.

SO, yeesh, all I have to say is that Mattius you aren't the majority. Secondly, remember the population of atheism is rapidly climbing.

But more importantly, the population of non-religion people is huge. It's over 33% now.

I'm just gonna pretend he never posted it, and not point out all the serious issues with his psyche. Good day!

Where did you get that 33% from? Is that America, or worldwide?

LogicalAtheist

May25-03, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Where did you get that 33% from? Is that America, or worldwide?

Just the united states citizens.

kat

May25-03, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Just the united states citizens.

What's your source for the % you quote? If there's a link, would you mind sharing?

LogicalAtheist

May25-03, 02:32 PM

Let me see what I can find...

damgo

May25-03, 05:13 PM

see http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm for some info

LogicalAtheist

May25-03, 05:23 PM

1. I can provide sites with much more scientific results. And specific results of the younger generations also, which gives insight into upcoming change.

However, this statement makes me happy enough not to ***** too much:

"14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase -- almost a doubling -- from only 8% in 1990. There are more Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together."

Sounds good to me. Doubled since 1990, and that's from 2001. Let's hope this time it doubles inhalf the time.

"The only way to have heaven on earth is for earth to be atheist."

--L.A.

kat

May25-03, 11:34 PM

Damgo-Thanks for the link, I love that site..I'm always finding the info I'm looking for there. It also linked to the ARIS study that I had accessed in a lengthy discussion in the religious forum at the old PF site.

LA- Just for the record (and I'm sure you realize this) Non-religious is not the same as not following an organized religion. I know many religious people who are very vocal about not following an organized religion..that doesn't make them any less...erm fanatical.

At any rate, I don't see a 33% non-religious reference on either Damgo's link or the ARIS study, it seems really high to me. I'll leave it at that since this subject is waaaay off topic and if I continue, zero will be threatening to spank me. ;)

schwarzchildradius

May26-03, 03:50 AM

All americans, down your weapons now! The chinese are the majority, and instead of waiting for them to crush you, let's just surrender to their will. All heil Hu Jintao! All heil Hu Jintao!
you think he's joking? China just launched the sino version of GPS, man, that's the system we use to guide our JDAMS and Hellfire etc.

Dissident Dan

May26-03, 10:49 AM

There was a 33% from that Religious Tolerance website, but it wasn't for atheists:

About 50% consider themselves religious (down from 54% in 1999-DEC)

About 33% consider themselves "spiritual but not religious" (up from 30%)

About 10% regard themselves as neither spiritual or religious.

Anyway, "under god" has no place in the pledge (not that I like the idea of pledging in the first place...let alone at the age of 5), regardless of the religious demographics of the nation.

Nicool003

May26-03, 10:52 AM

I would object to it but it seems in the few days I was gone from PF quite a bit happened. Anyways according to LA people Dont have rights and entitlements so I guess I dont have the right to object huh?

Zero

May26-03, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Dissident Dan

Anyway, "under god" has no place in the pledge (not that I like the idea of pledging in the first place...let alone at the age of 5), regardless of the religious demographics of the nation.

Exactly. I don't care if there has never been an atheist within a thousand miles of your particular school. Looking at demographics on this is like keeping a racist school mascot on the grounds that no one of that ethnicity goes to school there, and if they did they could just avert their eyes.

schwarzchildradius

May27-03, 07:34 AM

religion is way to personal to legislate. Obviously it was just a propaganda device against the communists, but has viceral meaning for fundamentalists today. Removing it with the judicial system would tick a lot of people off, and probably create a few Republicans. Hey, this is a democracy, why can't we vote for this?

Zero

May27-03, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
religion is way to personal to legislate. Obviously it was just a propaganda device against the communists, but has viceral meaning for fundamentalists today. Removing it with the judicial system would tick a lot of people off, and probably create a few Republicans. Hey, this is a democracy, why can't we vote for this?

So, now we are going to vote to take away my religious freedom...sweet!

schwarzchildradius

May28-03, 05:02 AM

why not leave it up to the people? In fact, legislate by county, so that on average those who don't want to say "under god" won't have to. Where are the politicians on that? State's rights? No way.

Zero

May28-03, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
why not leave it up to the people? In fact, legislate by county, so that on average those who don't want to say "under god" won't have to. Where are the politicians on that? State's rights? No way.

You would allow local voting on basic American rights? If you started that, each county would end up with an official religion!

russ_watters

May28-03, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
why not leave it up to the people? In fact, legislate by county, so that on average those who don't want to say "under god" won't have to. Where are the politicians on that? State's rights? No way. Protecting individual rights is a FEDERAL matter and as such it will be decided in federal court.

schwarzchildradius

May29-03, 01:30 AM

Obviously that solution sucks.

Zero

May29-03, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Obviously that solution sucks.

LMAO!!

schwarzchildradius

May29-03, 06:15 AM

You would allow local voting on basic American rights? If you started that, each county would end up with an official religion!
not if the vote was specifically whether or not to include 'under god' in the pledge, all else the same.

Zero

May29-03, 09:14 AM

Can someone explain why forcing religion down other people's throat is so important? And why people need their religion validated by illegal government speech?

May29-03, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
not if the vote was specifically whether or not to include 'under god' in the pledge, all else the same.

i already know how the people would vote, of course they'd keep it the same. again showing that the minority doesn't matter.

imagine 6 people on a raft in the middle of the ocean, and they run out of food. their only option for survival is to eat one person. everyone except for "frank" votes for frank. frank's vote doesn't matter, and he's forced to live with the minority's decision even if he knows it's wrong.

same here, the minority would get stuck with this even though it goes against all their beliefs.

the simple solution is to take "under god" out. it keeps non-christians happy, and in no way does it conflict with the beliefs of christians. and really, it serves no function today.

i don't see why some people are so obsessed with keeping it in. i'd like to hear from someone, why exactly they HAVE to keep "under god" in the pledge.

kat

May29-03, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by jb

i don't see why some people are so obsessed with keeping it in. i'd like to hear from someone, why exactly they HAVE to keep "under god" in the pledge.

I think people are more obsessed with keeping their right to say it with God in it if they so choose, or at least that would be my concern. As children's rights to exclude the word 'God' is what began this debate, obviously childrens right of speach, and religous freedoms are a concern. This is why I approached the question of enforcement within the public school. If a child wants to say "God" in the pledge of allegience do you suggest she/he be stopped? punished? what?

There's another interesting and perhaps parallel situation evolving with a student claiming their rights are being infringed by being denied the right to use the word "God" Student sues to re-insert 'God' in song (http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/may03/143871.asp) The lawsuit, now assigned to the court's Green Bay division, contends that the school district violated Honer's constitutional rights to equal protection, free speech and free expression of religion. It seeks an injunction that the district "cease its discriminatory and unconstitutional policy or practice of censoring students from expressing their religious beliefs in their speeches, songs or performances at graduation exercises."

To me, most important is where is the median? How do you both protect free speach, religious freedom, and freedom from religion? I also think it would be really nice if this battle weren't waged through our children.

russ_watters

May30-03, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
not if the vote was specifically whether or not to include 'under god' in the pledge, all else the same. That is a direct violation of the 1st amendment.

Zero

May30-03, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by kat

To me, most important is where is the median? How do you both protect free speach, religious freedom, and freedom from religion? I also think it would be really nice if this battle weren't waged through our children. The 'median' is government maintaining religious neutrality, while people are allowed to have whatever private beliefs they like.

kat

May30-03, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by Zero
The 'median' is government maintaining religious neutrality, while people are allowed to have whatever private beliefs they like.

Maybe you should explain what "private beliefs" look like to you, just to be on the same page, if ya know what I mean?[;)]

Zero

May30-03, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by kat
Maybe you should explain what "private beliefs" look like to you, just to be on the same page, if ya know what I mean?[;)]

Everywhere in America, there are churches...you may have noticed them? In these churches, people can privately, with their own time and money, worship whatever, and nearly however, they wish to. They can wear religious symbols in public, there is no government official telling you different. When children are in school, there is nothing telling them that they cannot meet on their time, like lunchtime or before school, to join together in worship.

The only thing that is banned is the government telling you to worship, or how to worship. When the government, or its representatives, is acting in an official manner, religion is off limits, pro and con.

BoulderHead

May30-03, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Kat;
I think people are more obsessed with keeping their right to say it with God in it if they so choose, or at least that would be my concern.
Kat,
Does this mean that you would have resisted the insertion of those words into the pledge back in the day it was done?
Think of the shock those poor atheist children may have felt following the insertion of those words into the pledge!

Just as atheists can refrain from saying the words in the current pledge, the religious could also quickly mutter them without missing a beat during the pledge if the words are removed. Now, they might end up needing to mutter those words silently depending on how ‘hard ass’ enforcement was…

kat

May30-03, 05:19 PM

Boulder, I really can't answer that question, I'm not sure how I would have felt or thought about it. My connection with the pledge is on a more emotinal basis, it's one of those "rituals" that I relate to certain experiences in my life. Waiting on the tarmac for my father to return from vietnam probably being the biggest, sometimes the pledge brings tears to my eyes..not because of what it means neccesarily but what it relates to in my memories. So, keeping that in mind...I won't change the way I say it, but I don't feel that others need to tow "my line" either.
On the other hand, to be honest, the concept of pledging to a flag disturbs me, God or no. The whole entrance of the pledge into public schooling, it's intent and the intent behind the 3 changes made are just to...I can't think of the word I'm looking for but I'll settle for "propaganda" for me to be able to say that without the emotional connections I hold..I would be for any pledge at all. In the religous aspect, I don't think the state should enforce children to use religious speak of any sort, nor do I think they should prevent any child from using religuous speak if they so choose because being an open society means sometimes..you have to put up with what other people are saying or doing..even if you disagree.

Zero

May30-03, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by kat
In the religous aspect, I don't think the state should enforce children to use religious speak of any sort, nor do I think they should prevent any child from using religuous speak if they so choose because being an open society means sometimes..you have to put up with what other people are saying or doing..even if you disagree.

Well, I'm not going for it...tell those kids to shut up and not be disruptive in the class.

kat

May30-03, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Well, I'm not going for it...tell those kids to shut up and not be disruptive in the class.

If you use the word "shut up" in my kids class you and I will be meeting in the principal or super's office. [a)]

Dissident Dan

May30-03, 10:49 PM

I agree with kat on this one. I don't think that the state should have the words officially in there, and I definitely don't think that anyone should be punished for saying it of his/her own volition. Both acts are violations of the first amendment. It's not like reciting the pledge "correctly" or even at all is a mandate, anyway.

I think that I've said on PF before that I don't like the idea of pledges in the first place. I know that I've already mentioned my distaste for indoctrination earlier in this thread.

schwarzchildradius

Jun2-03, 07:39 AM

i already know how the people would vote, of course they'd keep it the same. again showing that the minority doesn't matter.
That's why it would be up to the COUNTY to decide. Not every hole and hovel in the country is entirely Fundamentalist, ya know. The Cities would likely be agnostic. The problem is that the Minority likes to eliminate social mobility among other things from the Majority.
That is a direct violation of the 1st amendment
Russ_waters, you're saying that a VOTE on this issue is a violation of the 1st amendment of the constitution. The alternative? Handed down by the incarnation of God. Jesus Commands you to say "Under God" during the pledge, eh?
Do you read the 1st amendment as an endorsement of a particular monotheistic religion? I suggest you read it again.

_________
"Accept the result of a free election" Mikhail Gorbechev, 1989. The Fall of the Soviet Union to S O L I D A R I T Y

Zero

Jun2-03, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
That's why it would be up to the COUNTY to decide. Not every hole and hovel in the country is entirely Fundamentalist, ya know. The Cities would likely be agnostic. The problem is that the Minority likes to eliminate social mobility among other things from the Majority.

Russ_waters, you're saying that a VOTE on this issue is a violation of the 1st amendment of the constitution. The alternative? Handed down by the incarnation of God. Jesus Commands you to say "Under God" during the pledge, eh?
Do you read the 1st amendment as an endorsement of a particular monotheistic religion? I suggest you read it again.

_________
"Accept the result of a free election" Mikhail Gorbechev, 1989. The Fall of the Soviet Union to S O L I D A R I T Y

I'm saying that a vote is a violation of the 1st Amendment. It is a vote to take away people's rights.

Oh, and your dislike of 'minorities' is showing...

russ_watters

Jun2-03, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Russ_waters, you're saying that a VOTE on this issue is a violation of the 1st amendment of the constitution. The alternative? Handed down by the incarnation of God. Jesus Commands you to say "Under God" during the pledge, eh? Do you read the 1st amendment as an endorsement of a particular monotheistic religion? I suggest you read it again. No, shwarz. Since such a law would violate the 1st amendment, as Zero indicated, the alternative to passing an unconstitutional law is clearly a vote to amend the Constitution. Schwarz, I suggest YOU read the 1st amendment again. And while you're at it, read Article V - justification and procedures for amending the constitution.

schwarzchildradius

Jun3-03, 10:57 AM

All right, didn't mean to cause angst, but I'm pointing out the absurdity of the situation: The Fed requires kids to say "under God" every day, a fact clearly in violation of the 1st amendment, as a promotion of monotheistic religion. Clearly those who worship several gods or no god are forced by the government to profess faith in One god, or else remain silent.
I really dont believe it could be unconstitutional to EXCLUDE religion from public school, as the 1st amendment clearly provides for a SEPARATE church and state, et al.

schwarzchildradius

Jun3-03, 11:37 AM

happen to have an unabridged dictionary handy:
"Article 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Zero:
Dislike of minorities? I don't dislike minorities at all.

Zero

Jun3-03, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
happen to have an unabridged dictionary handy:
"Article 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Zero:
Dislike of minorities? I don't dislike minorities at all.

Nice edit.

schwarzchildradius

Jun5-03, 10:53 AM

Seriously, I really don't dislike minorities at all. No. Actually, I'm sticking up for a small religious minority by arguing against 'under god.' The thing is, a teacher is representing the government when teaching. It seems like a harmless thing that nobody thinks about while saying, and people should be able to say it if they want to, but not be forced or pressured into saying it if they dont believe in god. What if...
we were forced to change "under god" to "controlled by the benevolent justice of Allah"
there would be something wrong with this? Yup.

My 3rd grade teacher would sometimes go on and on about how Jesus suffered on the cross, and it was very disturbing. That was in public school. We just cant have teachers wasting time trying to convert students to their particular version of theology.