The Supreme Court may not be able to dodge this one:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/08/11/school.pledge.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest - http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/08/11/school.pledge.ap/ind ex.html?section=cnn_latest

Get it out of the classroom. Take that time so the teachers can do somthing actually important, like teach.

I dunno, I dont say the pledge anymore anyway. I find it kinda pointless and idiotic to repeat this jingoisim every day to prove I am American.

I fail to see the purpose.

Hey, nice marmot!

Darur wrote: agentwhale007. wrote: Get it out of the classroom. Take that time so the teachers can do somthing actually important, like teach. I dunno, I dont say the pledge anymore anyway. I find it kinda pointless and idiotic to repeat this jingoisim every day to prove I am American. I fail to see the purpose.   Yeah, cause all of 30 seconds is a big, unproductive waste of time. You know what, sure, lets get rid of the pledge.  Why dont we burn the decloration of independence too?  It was "endowed by their creater . . ." golly gee, thats a refference to a god.  But lets not stop there, oh no! Lets go tear down the national cathedral, lets go rip up every public refference to a religion. Equality for all!

Right. Becuase a meaningless 30 second jingle is the same as all the things you mentioned.

Except not at all.

Hey, nice marmot!

The words "under god" were not always in teh pledge of allegience. They were added in later. I think it is completely unneccessary to have them as a part, as it does contradict the right to free religion. Although I just sit out quietly, or do not recite that phrase during the pledge, and try to to draw attention to myself.

Darur there is no good reason to get worked up just becuase one person doesn't say the pledge of alligiance. The U.S isn't going to dash the constitution becuase of a reference to god but we are going to have to deal with crybabies that want the whole pledge struck from schools becuase of the phrase. However keep in mind that you don't have to say the pledge to mean it.

No but you see, first it's the Pledge that goes, then bigger and bigger things. Why should we let such a small majority of (babies) run our country?

And whoever says the Pledge is a waste, yeah, pledging to the flag, which millions have died for, most likely including members of your family, is such a waste If you can't respect the country you live in, and take 20 seconds to do it you can just pack up and leave.

Flatter God with the pledge or he'll torture you in hell.

fractus.scud wrote: No but you see, first it's the Pledge that goes, then bigger and bigger things. Why should we let such a small majority of (babies) run our country?   And whoever says the Pledge is a waste, yeah, pledging to the flag, which millions have died for, most likely including members of your family, is such a waste If you can't respect the country you live in, and take 20 seconds to do it you can just pack up and leave.

Nope. I dont say the pledge, and I dont respect the flag. It is cloth. Burn it for all I care.

Oh yeah, and I can stay in this country too. I dont have to "Pack up and leave." God bless America.

Hey, nice marmot!

agentwhale007. wrote: fractus.scud wrote: No but you see, first it's the Pledge that goes, then bigger and bigger things. Why should we let such a small majority of (babies) run our country?   And whoever says the Pledge is a waste, yeah, pledging to the flag, which millions have died for, most likely including members of your family, is such a waste If you can't respect the country you live in, and take 20 seconds to do it you can just pack up and leave. Nope. I dont say the pledge, and I dont respect the flag. It is cloth. Burn it for all I care. Oh yeah, and I can stay in this country too. I dont have to "Pack up and leave." God bless America.

How old are you?

fractus.scud wrote: agentwhale007. wrote: fractus.scud wrote: No but you see, first it's the Pledge that goes, then bigger and bigger things. Why should we let such a small majority of (babies) run our country?   And whoever says the Pledge is a waste, yeah, pledging to the flag, which millions have died for, most likely including members of your family, is such a waste If you can't respect the country you live in, and take 20 seconds to do it you can just pack up and leave. Nope. I dont say the pledge, and I dont respect the flag. It is cloth. Burn it for all I care. Oh yeah, and I can stay in this country too. I dont have to "Pack up and leave." God bless America. How old are you?

Seventeen. It matters?

Hey, nice marmot!

fractus.scud wrote: No but you see, first it's the Pledge that goes, then bigger and bigger things. Why should we let such a small majority of (babies) run our country?   And whoever says the Pledge is a waste, yeah, pledging to the flag, which millions have died for, most likely including members of your family, is such a waste If you can't respect the country you live in, and take 20 seconds to do it you can just pack up and leave.

I'm not saying it's a waste I'm saying that you guys are overreacting a bunch of angry whiners are not going to nix our constitution it's would be an outrage if they even tried. What I said was that you pledge in your heart, by doing things not saying them.

fractus.scud wrote: Yes. This helps prove my point that the youth of this country are becomeing less and less respectful, thus our country turns into crap.

I dont respect people who do not earn it.

Becoming less like mindless sheep and thinking on our own?

How old are you, since that seems to be coming up quite a bit.

Hey, nice marmot!

17

Carazy, ain't it?

fractus.scud wrote: 17 Carazy, ain't it?

It is. Its almost like age has nothing to do with it.

Hey, nice marmot!

fractus.scud wrote: ... you can just pack up and leave.

I have to sidetrack from this scintillating debate just to point out how annoying this statement is. 

Typically used in the context of "you are saying/doing something un-American (i.e. something I disagree with), so you can just pack up and leave", it is bizarrely self-contradictory, and arguably the most un-American statement on the planet itself.

Or, in short, really really annoying.

fractus.scud wrote: Yes. This helps prove my point that the youth of this country are becomeing less and less respectful, thus our country turns into crap.

I don't think the youth gets to complain how the youth is becoming less and less anything.

Besides, Socrates made that same complaint a couple of thousand years ago, yet we seem to be doing all right.

Becuase people are lazy and just wish to complain and remove the whole process.

Darur wrote: Razgriz Ghost wrote: Darur there is no good reason to get worked up just becuase one person doesn't say the pledge of alligiance. The U.S isn't going to dash the constitution becuase of a reference to god but we are going to have to deal with crybabies that want the whole pledge struck from schools becuase of the phrase. However keep in mind that you don't have to say the pledge to mean it. Razgriz, learn to read.  I have no problems with people who choose to politely sit out of the pledge.  I do however have a huge problem when people start banning it.  I hope to a certain extent the law mentioned is shot down becuase making it mandatory is hypocritical.

    True Darur but like I said just because they banned it doesn't me that you can't still mean it. Say it every day when you wake up or say it before class starts. Just becuase there isn't a  school ritual invovled doesn't mean you can't say the pledge.

Dragunov wrote: You are all forgetting one major point. No child gives a damn about the pledge. It is just words, there is no meaning behind them once you've been reciting it for ten years. Kids don't care.

Great point. Anyway, why say the pledge at all? Its just a hassle in class, and anyway, like you said, hardly anyone cares about it, plus if you do care about it, you'd say it on your own, and tell me honestly, how many people get up, whip out there pocket sized USA flag, and say the pledge?

Not out loud but I say it every day in my head. Of course I say a lot of other things as well.

DBibeau855 wrote: ... Its 15 seconds out of your day. Its about respect for the things you have. Respect for those that have gone before you. GET OVER YOURSELF.

But isn't one of those things we have a government that is supposed to stay out of our religious choices?  Isn't that what those that went before me fought for?  If I figure that it is "only" 15 seconds out of the day, am I not being a traitor to the ideals of Madison and Jefferson?  Am I not being unpatriotic if I FAIL to protest this totalitarian government action?  Because what is this if not thought control?  Simply going along because it isn't a big deal would be counter to the revolutionary spirit that started this country.

Having a teacher in a public school declare in class that this is a "nation under god" is EXACTLY the same as telling a student that he can't wear his "I  Jesus" shirt.  You are entitled to whatever belief you want - which means that the government can't have a belief.

To Shorty - no, simply being offended should not be the basis for lawsuits.  Clearly.  But this is beyond offensiveness.  This is about thought control.  As suggested, if we changed the pledge to include "over Satan" or "under Allah" as the official version, there would be riots in the streets with people saying that the government was trying to indoctrinate their children with evil religious beliefs.  Not simply because they were offended, but because those people wouldn't want the government deciding on their behalf what god is about.

The fact that this particular religious belief happens to align with the majority view makes it MORE important, not less, that it be removed from government speech.  As always, it is the unpopular thought that needs protection, not the popular opinion.  This type of thing is EXACTLY why we have the first amendment.

As first amendment issues goes, is this a major one?  Clearly not, IMO.  But that doesn't mean that it isn't important.  And, as it turns out, we have a government body whose sole duty it is to decide whether this type of thing is constitutional, so it no undue burden on the system to ask them to do just that.

I hope the court doesn't punt this time (assuming it gets appealed) and actually addresses the issue.  I thought the court did a good job with the 10 commandments (much more important, IMO), and I have faith that they will get this sorted out - even without Sandra Day.

borntopaint wrote: If something that insignificant offends you than get out.

And there it is again.

Do people not see how idiotic this is?

Clark Kent wrote: borntopaint wrote: If something that insignificant offends you than get out.  And there it is again. Do people not see how idiotic this is?

Do you not see how many people agree with this logic? (even if it is exagerrated)

It's like me going over to England, and saying I don't like tea and tea time offends me so now they can't have it anymore. What would the Brits say? "Screw you get the heck out or shut up". Well that's how the majority of people feel about this guy whining about two words that only he (and that idiot in CA) has a problem with.

holysmartone wrote: ^Thats true, you do have the right to disagree wiht anything you want. Whats rediculus is when 300 million people have to change their ways becuase a handful of people have a problem with something.

My point exactally. Whever posted after me and said we all have rights here, yeah I know, considering I live here too. But one person dosen't have the right to change somthing pretty much the whole country is against changing to make himself happy. We can't force people like that to leave, but if they disagree with about everything we do why do they live here in the first place. If he dosen't like God and can't take the fact that God is all over US currency, Pledge etc. he can move to some Godless Europe country where nothing will annoy him.

fractus.scud wrote: We can't force people like that to leave, but if they disagree with about everything we do why do they live here in the first place. If he dosen't like God and can't take the fact that God is all over US currency, Pledge etc. he can move to some Godless Europe country where nothing will annoy him.

Fair enough - leaving certainly is an option for most Americans, and many people do change countries based on a variety of factors, and religion is certainly often a factor, would think.

BUT:

1.  Dislike for a particular feature of a country (like the pledge) does not equate to a dislike for the country as a whole, or a preference for a country over another country.  It is easy to feel, as I do, that the pledge in its current form is an un-American abomination, and still feel, as I do, that the US is by far my preferred place to live.  I don't disagree with "everything" - I just don't want religious indoctrination in our schools.

2.  All Americans disagree about something.  Should those who believe that Roe v. Wade is wrong "just leave" and go to Iran, where abortions are illegal?

3.  As a democracy, isn't it our civic duty to voice our opinions and try to change the public views on things we care about?  Isn't that what makes it a democracy instead of a totalitarian state?  Criticizing the status quo is what makes us Americans and not North Koreans.

To question an American's patriotism, or to encourage him to leave the country, simply because he is criticizing the country, is, IMO, just about the most anti-democratic sentiment I can think of.

  The problem is that everyone wants the U.S. to be exactly how they feel most comfortable.  Some people are more reasonable than others, but we just have a great lack of common sense/common courtisy in the US today. 

  I do think that people should seek what they want elsewhere rather than trying to piss off everyone in America.  Change can be good, but there are some people that do nothing but complain about how things are.  Complaining does no good, and they act all offended over the smallest things.

  I'm not one of those people that say "If you don't like it, GET OUT!".  I'm more of a "If All you are going to do is complain about how everything is so messed up and how you hate the U.S.' you should leave to make yourself happy."  Canada is a great place to be if you don't like how things are in the U.S.

hashi2008 wrote: I do think that people should seek what they want elsewhere rather than trying to piss off everyone in America.  Change can be good, but there are some people that do nothing but complain about how things are.  Complaining does no good, and they act all offended over the smallest things.

Yeah, I agree.  All those pro-lifers should just leave now.  All they do is try to piss off everyone else in America, and they act all offended over something as small as abortion.

They should just leave and go to Canada.

Clark Kent wrote: hashi2008 wrote: I do think that people should seek what they want elsewhere rather than trying to piss off everyone in America.  Change can be good, but there are some people that do nothing but complain about how things are.  Complaining does no good, and they act all offended over the smallest things. Yeah, I agree.  All those pro-lifers should just leave now.  All they do is try to piss off everyone else in America, and they act all offended over something as small as abortion. They should just leave and go to Canada.

  I would call you a certain word that starts with a "B", but I am Christian; plus I would prolly get guested and go through a bunch of crap just because you like to be a smart ass.

I am not trying to be a smartass.  I am trying to show the fundamental flaw in your statement.

You say that "I'm not one of those people that say 'If you don't like it, GET OUT!'" but then you do exactly that. 

People are here because they like it here.  People that protest like it here so much that they are wililng to sacrifice their time to make it even better.  If anything, protesters are the most patriotic of all Americans (and that includes the pro-life protesters).  The rest of us are just lumps.

reclusivetorrid wrote: Now I find myself agreeing with you.

See, I told you...

:)

Clark Kent wrote: I am not trying to be a smartass.  I am trying to show the fundamental flaw in your statement. You say that "I'm not one of those people that say 'If you don't like it, GET OUT!'" but then you do exactly that.  People are here because they like it here.  People that protest like it here so much that they are wililng to sacrifice their time to make it even better.  If anything, protesters are the most patriotic of all Americans (and that includes the pro-life protesters).  The rest of us are just lumps.

  No.  That's not what I said at all.  You just pick and chose what you want to take out of a post. 

 The people you always complain about are talking about 1-2 minor things.  I don't even think that the people who prostest should leave.  I Clearly stated that it was the people who do NOTHING but complain that should leave.  I even made it bigger, put it in red, and also had it in bold print for you.  Sure, protesting is a form of complaining, but at least they are trying to do something about what they believe in.

  One example is a person that I saw that complained about EVERYTHING.  He even said that the U.S. was a disgrace because of the fact that it was taken from the natives.  He said he didn't want to be part of such a nation, yet he still lives where he gets so many extra rights and priveleges than he would elsewhere.

  I honestly think that some people live here just for the perks.

hashi2008 wrote:   I Clearly stated that it was the people who do NOTHING but complain that should leave.  ...   One example is a person that I saw that complained about EVERYTHING.  He even said that the U.S. was a disgrace because of the fact that it was taken from the natives.  He said he didn't want to be part of such a nation, yet he still lives where he gets so many extra rights and priveleges than he would elsewhere.   I honestly think that some people live here just for the perks.

Again, not trying to be a smartass, but this guy clearly likes the rights, privileges and perks of living in the US.  And, presumably, those things make up for all the things he doesn't like about the US.  Otherwise he would have left by now. 

We all complain all the time.  We complain about taxes, we complain about Iraq, the Democrats, the Republicans, the price of gas, the quality of TV - complain, complain, complain.  That's practically all we do.  Heck, you are complaining about your fellow Americans right now.

What you are doing is noticing some individuals that happen to be complaining about things that (a) you think are insignificant, and/or (b) you disagree with.  I will bet you anything that if you asked your omni-complainer, he could tell you a bunch of things that he likes about the country.  Maybe he likes Broadway shows, or likes Yosemite National Park, or he likes the long straight freeway across Kansas.  He doesn't dislike "everything" - it just seems that way to you.

I stand by my original post.

Good points, junky...    give me a minute.

:)

First off, I should make it clear that I acknowledge that the Pledge/God issue is tricky.  I see very valid arguments on both sides of this, and I don't see easy answers to all the issues, which is why I hope that the court will address it.  I have great respect for the court, and have hope that those guys will be able to find a "correct" solution.

adrenalinejunky wrote: Clark Kent wrote:  ... we have a government that is supposed to stay out of our religious choices the words do not mean that one would have to believe that... they do not force people to convert...

What I mean is that the government can't express a religious preference.  "One nation under god" is a religious preference, and therefore should not be expressed by the government.  I am not worried about conversion - I am worried about religious favoritism.  Note that the plaintiff in this case is actually a christian.

Junky wrote: I wrote: Isn't that what those that went before me fought for? If I figure that it is "only" 15 seconds out of the day, am I not being a traitor to the ideals of Madison and Jefferson? there are refferences to God in documents by the founding fathers... such as "endowed by thier creator". so i'd say no.

The ideals to which I was referring were the general democratic ideals.  I acknowledge that the "God vs. Founders" issue is sticky as well.

Junky wrote: I wrote: Am I not being unpatriotic if I FAIL to protest this totalitarian government action? Because what is this if not thought control? your joking right?

Not really joking, although I may have laid the hyperbole on a little think there.  My point is that, in a very small way, any apparent endorsement by the government of a religious view is essentially a theocratic act by that government.  This is at the core of why I am bothered by the pledge at all.

Junky wrote: I wrote: Having a teacher in a public school declare in class that this is a "nation under god" is EXACTLY the same as telling a student that he can't wear his "I Jesus" shirt. You are entitled to whatever belief you want - which means that the government can't have a belief. does it? why?

This is a tricky one.  Many countries have freedom of religion and a state religion at the same time.  But freedom <> freedom.  If you are free to believe what you want, but you have to attend Islam classes, just how free are you really?

It is a thin line, but I still believe that there IS a line.

Junky wrote: "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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." you seem to be reading an awefull lot that simply isn't there to me.

You'll have to elaborate a little on what exactly you are getting at here...    But in any event, you can't read the amendment in isolation - you also have to consider 200+ years of interpretation.

Junky wrote: also... i believe we live in a republic - the idea is the MAJORITY of people elect officials who make laws - when it comes to a serious case of infringement of rights it is no more or less important whether they are majority or minority - they are protected. period.

I agree - my point was that popular perspectives generally don't require much protection, whereas unpopular perspectives are frequently in need of quite a bit of protection.  Both are entitled to protection, but the need differs.

Junky wrote: but your right not to hear the phrase "under God" is not one that is protected in that amendment, if don't believe me go read it.

I don't have a right not to hear "under God".  I do have, IMO, a right to a government that does not espouse one religious belief over another.

ShortyBP wrote: Thought control? So what you're saying is... by stating any reference to God, the government is forcing people to believe?   By those two simple words, Under God, we are "indoctrinating" our children? Wow. I think someone needs to take off their tin foil hat.

lol...

I'll scale back the hyperbole a bit and try again.

I do not believe there is a conspiracy to indoctrinate the youth of America.  I believe that the Knights of Columbus were trying to do good when they pushed for "under God" to be included in the Pledge.

What I DO believe is that reciting that phrase in public schools is (again, in a small way) the equivalent of a proclamation by the Federal government that (a) god exists, and (b) there is some relationship between said god and the US.  Whether that proclamation is intentional or not, there it is.

And while I don't believe that this particular proclamation is particularly effective or harmful (I don't believe that millions of Americans came to believe that the US is a "nation under God" because of the Pledge), I do believe that this proclamation is also not entirely ineffective.  If it were, nobody would care.  So yes, in a microscopic fashion, this is thought control.  It is the Federal government declaring, as a matter of fact, that this is a nation under God.  Whether you want to call that "thought control" or not is unimportant - the underlying principle is that our government is not supposed to issue edicts about religious affairs.

adrenalinejunky wrote: ...we have freedom of speach to say what we want - but not freedom to force others to conform to our beliefs, that is where i see the flaw in your arguement. the simple words "under God" force nothing, you can disagree with them...

Agree - they force nothing.  It isn't the words that are troublesome, and I don't feel forced to agree with them.  What is troublesome is the idea that our government has taken an official stance on the existence of god, and the relationship between god and the United States.

Linus wrote: Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Boring old slogan.  But actually, yes - I do have freedom FROM religion in my government.

Listen, in court, when a witness testyfies, they put their hand on a bible and say "SO help me God", and you can't get out of that, contempt of the court.

No they don't.  That is only true now in muni courts in Southern Arkansas.  Witnesses do not swear on Bibles anymore.

They spend money that has God on it...

Yes, and that is also arguably unconstitutional.

Fat Stalin wrote: But if they take out 'Under God', isn't the government saying there is no God?

Arguably, yes.  And that is one of the problems.

My view is that omission is less firm than inclusion.  While leaving it out might imply that this is no god, saying "under God" is pretty darn clear.

Between the two, omission is least committal, which is why I think that is the better choice.  Lesser of two evils, as it were.

Switching out "one nation under God" with "one nation without a god", on the other hand, would be just as bad.