You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pledge of Allegiance now illegal in CA schools!
- Thread starter Capt. Charlie
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
United we stand, divided we fall. From where I sit, it is better for us to stand by our cultural realities and affirm them. While at the same time we should be open to all to come join us. The flag is a symbol of that unity. It declares in the abstract that if you're going to screw with one of us, your going to have to screw with all of us. As for the Deity: Deity was the inspiration of much of what we are, part of the driving force that bound us up into a constitutional republic rather than a true democracy or a confederation of, more than likely, warring states. To deny that, laughs in the face of history. "God" does not necessarily define any particular god. Its meaning is only what is in a person's heart and mind who speaks the words fully or who leaves some of them off. Your choice. By standing together, it means more than what comes out of your mouth. Let your heart dictate that, but at least stand with your fellows.
This argument over the pledge is a specious one and is a smokescreen for division. It's an offshoot of the multi-cultural drivel, PC, the notion that every utterance has merit, the situational ethics of no right or wrong and other foolishness that is driving the balkanization of our land. The short definition of all of this is anarchy.
The pledge is a group of words that binds us together as a large nation. Better we stand and declare it in the macrocosm, or your great-grandchildren will be reciting another pledge in the microcosm to some warlord in the county you live in before going off to pillage the neighboring county for food, horses and women as slaves. That is after they pee on our graves for letting it all slip through our fingers because we constantly pick nits over ridiculous notions put forth by intellectual weenies in our government institutions of sedition and warped logic.
This argument over the pledge is a specious one and is a smokescreen for division. It's an offshoot of the multi-cultural drivel, PC, the notion that every utterance has merit, the situational ethics of no right or wrong and other foolishness that is driving the balkanization of our land. The short definition of all of this is anarchy.
The pledge is a group of words that binds us together as a large nation. Better we stand and declare it in the macrocosm, or your great-grandchildren will be reciting another pledge in the microcosm to some warlord in the county you live in before going off to pillage the neighboring county for food, horses and women as slaves. That is after they pee on our graves for letting it all slip through our fingers because we constantly pick nits over ridiculous notions put forth by intellectual weenies in our government institutions of sedition and warped logic.
Lord_Nikon
New member
grampster said:The pledge is a group of words that binds us together as a large nation.
Unless it becomes a point of contention between people who have no other reason to argue.
I'm an atheist, and according to the Constitution, the government cannot do anything to change that. Thus, our constitutional republic, founded on our Constitution, is weakened everytime I'm forced by our government to pledge allegiance to our nation "under God". However, I could care less if you do make such a pledge. Just don't whine when I refuse.
L_N
So for two words that have no meaning for you, you dump the rest? I don't care if you don't say the words. To me the standing in unity is the pledge. You could chant ommmmmmm. At least we're shoulder to shoulder.
In a scuffle, I have learned that the character of the man at my back is more important to me than the words coming out of his mouth.
So for two words that have no meaning for you, you dump the rest? I don't care if you don't say the words. To me the standing in unity is the pledge. You could chant ommmmmmm. At least we're shoulder to shoulder.
In a scuffle, I have learned that the character of the man at my back is more important to me than the words coming out of his mouth.
Lord_Nikon
New member
No, for two words I dump two words. I pledge allegiance to the United States, not to my country under someone else's god.
Edit: Having reread my previous post, it does look like I was saying scratch the entire thing. Though I believe that no part of the pledge should be compulsory (the words mean nothing if you're just saying them), I was refering to "under God". Sorry.
Edit: Having reread my previous post, it does look like I was saying scratch the entire thing. Though I believe that no part of the pledge should be compulsory (the words mean nothing if you're just saying them), I was refering to "under God". Sorry.
...we, as christians do not wish to offend God by denying him....who are the atheists afraid of denying? ...no body...so why are they upset ?....and lets settle a philosophical pint..if you're going to deny the existence of god, then do not pretend to believe in good nor evil nor morality or immorality or darkness or light...in fact we can show kindness or rob, kill, rape, enslave or anything we wish because we are subjected to no laws and may act on any impulse or desire because we are accountable to nobody or nothing...no conscience nor responsibilty..simply whatever our nature drives us...
..I am amazed at the foolishness of unbelievers...those who choose to believe in God lose nothing but may gain everything after death....those who deny God gain nothing but may lose everything after death..sounds like a fool's gamble to me...if we have no existance after death, then everything we do here is means nothing becuse we cease to exist at death and can have no regrets nor satisfaction for our life and our choices.. we lose all when we croak....it is all for nothing.....
Very well put Aspen. I completely agree with you. What I don’t understand is that if people are so "offended" by "under God" then just don’t say it. As for the California ruling, that does not surprise me at all. Try as they may to erase it from history, the left can not change the fact that this country was founded upon Christian principals. If they are so horribly offended by God and displays of Christianity I figure they can just ignore it or maybe seek some therapy.
I'm not aware of any leftist campaign to build a time machine in an effort to change that fact.Try as they may to erase it from history, the left can not change the fact that this country was founded upon Christian principals.
The matter at hand is whether a religious phrase, one that was added to the Pledge in 1954 to differentiate us from the godless commies, should be retained.
Aspen you seem to forget the fact that every society, and I mean EVERY society in the history of the world has had some sort of religion or belief in a higher power. It is convienient to forget about all the other religions, especially those that label us as infidels fated to an afterlife of torture if you believe in another religion. There is so much contradiction...... you would be screwed either way........ because how can we know if Christianity is the true religion or if there really is one at all. You believe merely out of fear, thinking there is nothing to lose by believing, and yet there is a lot to lose. According to Islam and a bunch of other hokey poke religions from who-knows-where your beliefs are cause for eternal damnation. Just because you are born in a certain culture's religion doesn't mean that is the right one..... the argument that you have nothing to lose is not grounded in reality..... You have to remember that there are literally thousands of other religions, plenty of which say you are going to be damned if you don't believe. Now you are taking a gamble on one, only on the random fact that it is the religion in the region you were raised/born/whatever. Christianity is just another blip on the religion chart. I mean really, maybe it is just human nature to believe in some sort of higher power in order to explain the unexplainable. Maybe there is a "God part of the brain" that requires us to believe in something..... how else could every human society in the history of time develop some sort of religion.... But since I am incredibly off topic I will just have to say, who the heck knows. As you may have guessed I consider myself to be agnostic.
So do you know which religion is the right one? To tell the truth.... in all the exitement....I kind of lost track......
Do ya feel lucky punk? Well, do ya?
Choose one... and 395 others say you are damned. So I guess I don't really see the point to your argument.... Although I would say that believing in one definitely increases your chances. You can't win the lottery unless you buy a ticket..... so I hear.......
So do you know which religion is the right one? To tell the truth.... in all the exitement....I kind of lost track......
Do ya feel lucky punk? Well, do ya?
Choose one... and 395 others say you are damned. So I guess I don't really see the point to your argument.... Although I would say that believing in one definitely increases your chances. You can't win the lottery unless you buy a ticket..... so I hear.......
Jammer Six
New member
United we stand, divided we fall. From where I sit, it is better for us to stand by our cultural realities and affirm them.
That's exactly what we're doing.
We invite you to join us.
United we stand, divided we fall. From where I sit, it is better for us to stand by our cultural realities and affirm them.
Who is "we". Who is "us". This is w-a-a-y too smug, as if religious folks are in charge.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
And it started out so well. Now we have people calling non-believers foolish for not buying Pascal's Wager...
Pascal's Wager is a lame wager. It basically states that "the beleiever has nothing to lose and everything to gain by believing, while the nonbeliever has everything to lose and nothing to gain by not believing."
There are many problems with that wager, and I really don't feel like typing myself into a stupor once again to provide someone with information they could have gleaned from Googling "Pascal's Wager" in about ten seconds, but here's a run-down why that particular argument is worthless as a basis for faith:
-It suffers from the "false dilemma" logical fallacy, because it assumes that there either is a specific God (the Christian one), or no god at all. It does not take into account the possibility that the Muslims, Buddhists, or any of the other world religions are in fact the "right" religion, which makes the wager more risky than intended. If the Muslims are right, you can follow Pascal's Wager and still end up in hell, only the Islamic version of it. If your logic were applicable, one would have to believe in all the world's religions just to be on the safe side.
-It doesn't take into account the costs of religion, assuming that you have nothing to lose by believing. Most people who believe in God devote significant time to prayer and church activities. Such people presumably also contribute money, perhaps a tithe (10% of their income). Without that belief, most of them would not do such things. In addition, many such people go through life with inhibitions on both thought and behavior. (Consider, for example, inhibitions regarding sexual practices, marriage & divorce, birth control, abortion, reading material, and association with other people.) In many cases, those inhibitions are quite extreme and may have great effects on one's life and the lives of others. In some communities, women are oppressed on the basis of theistic belief. Also, some theists have persecuted and even killed others (as in inquisitions, religious wars, attacks on homosexuals, abortionists, etc.) because of their belief that that is what God wants them to do. Furthermore, some people (e.g., clergymen) devote their entire lives to God. For these various reasons, even if God does not exist, it would indeed matter a great deal whether or not one believes in God, at least for most such believers.
-It assumes that you can choose to believe. Belief is a result of intellectual reflection, and it's a process that cannot be willed. I cannot choose to believe in anything, because beliefs are the result of a mental process, not the beginning of one.
For all those reasons, and more, Pascal's Wager is bunk, and only suitable to emotionally intimidate people who haven't learned to use reason properly.
I don't need a promise of reward or threat of punishment after death to find enjoyment in life. To me, life is precious precisely because it is limited. My life has meaning because I choose to give it meaning, by living it to the fullest and sharing it with my wife and son. If you need a metaphysical carrot dangled in front of you in order to find purpose in life, then that's your choice, but Pascal's Wager is a poor basis for a convincing pro-religion argument.
When I die, I will achieve a certain immortality in the form of the memories and ideals I give my children, and that's good enough for me. I don't have to resort to self-deception about a magic happy afterlife.
Before you engage in a debate, it would be prudent to arm yourself with some understanding regarding the matter at hand. Nobody here is "offended by God or displays of Christianity". What you believe is your business, and nobody has any issue at all with you displaying your faith on your own time and your own dime. The discussion here centers around the Constitutionality of making children in public schools recite religious statements of any kind, in this case to profess the existence of a god they may or may not believe in.
Would you be offended if you had kids, and your public school made them recite "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet" every morning? Why or why not? If the idea offends you, could you see yourself ignoring the issue, or seeking therapy?
That said, and even though I am going against my own dictum by replying to the mentioning of Pascal's inane and vapid wager, I am not happy at all that we cannot have a discussion on any Constitutional issues regarding religious freedom without having it turn into a theological debate inside of fifteen posts. Doesn't it say something about the subject that it can't be discussed evenly and without conflict?
Pascal's Wager is a lame wager. It basically states that "the beleiever has nothing to lose and everything to gain by believing, while the nonbeliever has everything to lose and nothing to gain by not believing."
There are many problems with that wager, and I really don't feel like typing myself into a stupor once again to provide someone with information they could have gleaned from Googling "Pascal's Wager" in about ten seconds, but here's a run-down why that particular argument is worthless as a basis for faith:
-It suffers from the "false dilemma" logical fallacy, because it assumes that there either is a specific God (the Christian one), or no god at all. It does not take into account the possibility that the Muslims, Buddhists, or any of the other world religions are in fact the "right" religion, which makes the wager more risky than intended. If the Muslims are right, you can follow Pascal's Wager and still end up in hell, only the Islamic version of it. If your logic were applicable, one would have to believe in all the world's religions just to be on the safe side.
-It doesn't take into account the costs of religion, assuming that you have nothing to lose by believing. Most people who believe in God devote significant time to prayer and church activities. Such people presumably also contribute money, perhaps a tithe (10% of their income). Without that belief, most of them would not do such things. In addition, many such people go through life with inhibitions on both thought and behavior. (Consider, for example, inhibitions regarding sexual practices, marriage & divorce, birth control, abortion, reading material, and association with other people.) In many cases, those inhibitions are quite extreme and may have great effects on one's life and the lives of others. In some communities, women are oppressed on the basis of theistic belief. Also, some theists have persecuted and even killed others (as in inquisitions, religious wars, attacks on homosexuals, abortionists, etc.) because of their belief that that is what God wants them to do. Furthermore, some people (e.g., clergymen) devote their entire lives to God. For these various reasons, even if God does not exist, it would indeed matter a great deal whether or not one believes in God, at least for most such believers.
-It assumes that you can choose to believe. Belief is a result of intellectual reflection, and it's a process that cannot be willed. I cannot choose to believe in anything, because beliefs are the result of a mental process, not the beginning of one.
For all those reasons, and more, Pascal's Wager is bunk, and only suitable to emotionally intimidate people who haven't learned to use reason properly.
..if we have no existance after death, then everything we do here is means nothing becuse we cease to exist at death and can have no regrets nor satisfaction for our life and our choices.. we lose all when we croak....it is all for nothing.....
I don't need a promise of reward or threat of punishment after death to find enjoyment in life. To me, life is precious precisely because it is limited. My life has meaning because I choose to give it meaning, by living it to the fullest and sharing it with my wife and son. If you need a metaphysical carrot dangled in front of you in order to find purpose in life, then that's your choice, but Pascal's Wager is a poor basis for a convincing pro-religion argument.
When I die, I will achieve a certain immortality in the form of the memories and ideals I give my children, and that's good enough for me. I don't have to resort to self-deception about a magic happy afterlife.
If they are so horribly offended by God and displays of Christianity I figure they can just ignore it or maybe seek some therapy.
Before you engage in a debate, it would be prudent to arm yourself with some understanding regarding the matter at hand. Nobody here is "offended by God or displays of Christianity". What you believe is your business, and nobody has any issue at all with you displaying your faith on your own time and your own dime. The discussion here centers around the Constitutionality of making children in public schools recite religious statements of any kind, in this case to profess the existence of a god they may or may not believe in.
Would you be offended if you had kids, and your public school made them recite "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet" every morning? Why or why not? If the idea offends you, could you see yourself ignoring the issue, or seeking therapy?
That said, and even though I am going against my own dictum by replying to the mentioning of Pascal's inane and vapid wager, I am not happy at all that we cannot have a discussion on any Constitutional issues regarding religious freedom without having it turn into a theological debate inside of fifteen posts. Doesn't it say something about the subject that it can't be discussed evenly and without conflict?
So for two words that have no meaning for you, you dump the rest? I don't care if you don't say the words. To me the standing in unity is the pledge. You could chant ommmmmmm. At least we're shoulder to shoulder.
You gotta realize though, that if one can simply ignore those two words than any set of words in the pledge can be ignored, including the last phrase. Might as well make it acceptable for all so there's no contention, in my opinion.
I see your point that it all seems to be a bunch of hippy PC crap but I highly doubt that us arguing about the pledge is really going to divide the country. Since we know there are people that don't like the god part (which is indeed an affront to people who don't believe in any god and to people who believe in multiple gods), let's just take the mention of religion out of it and settle the issue.
It wouldn't really be denying the country's past...the original pledge didn't have that part in there in the first place. Besides, faith in god did a lot of bad things during the first couple hundred years as well as good things.
if you're going to deny the existence of god, then do not pretend to believe in good nor evil nor morality or immorality or darkness or light
ok now that's just silly
Because I don't believe in a higher power I can't comprehend the concepts of good, evil, morality, and immorality (the darkness and light...hehe, c'mon)? Good and evil are concepts created by man. Our own collective psychology is what made those concepts real. The same goes morality and immorality. If things we regard as evil and immoral, such as murder and rape (and to many, abortions and homosexuality), then why do all of those occur in nature?
I don't have to believe in a god to believe in what is considered universally right and wrong.
Ben Swenson
New member
That doesn't even make sense.You gotta realize though, that if one can simply ignore those two words than any set of words in the pledge can be ignored, including the last phrase. Might as well make it acceptable for all so there's no contention, in my opinion.
If someone doesn't want to say "with liberty and justice for all," they won't say it - regardless of whether or not they skipped "under God" earlier on. And if someone does have objections to the "liberty and justice for all" bit, are you going to remove that to make the pledge acceptable for everyone?
But you're absolutely correct with your first statement. Anyone can ignore any part of the pledge. No matter what it says.
I still say, if the pledge if compulsory, there should be no pledge. If it is not required, I don't care whether it says "I pledge allegiance to the dark forces of the evil spirits of America, and to the hatred for which they stand, one genocide, babies and puppies burning in fire, HA HA HA!" or simply "Freedom is good." People who want to say it will say it and people who don't want to say it won't. As it should be.
For the most part I think the argument against allowing the pledge to be recited in school is rediculous. Growing up there were many pseudo-religious, pagan traditions I refused to take part in at school from kindergarten to high-school. I didn't try to get the teachers to throw out any Valentine's day celebrations or cancel the Christmas party or take down the Halloween decorations or trash the Easter plans just because I didn't want to participate. If you don't want to say the pledge, then don't. I know kids who didn't. No big deal.
If indeed the school is requiring their students to say the pledge, that's another issue altogether (like forcing someone with religious objections to participate in a secularized pagan holiday celebration in class). As a kid I attended three different school systems in three different states and none required the pledge. If you didn't want to say it, you were to keep quiet while the rest of the class said it. That was all that was required, and it doesn't bother me a bit.
If you don't like the words they're saying in the pledge, spend some time with your kids and teach them why they shouldn't say them. Do a little parenting, scary as that may be. It isn't the end of the world for them to feel a little left out or to learn to be individuals. Learning that it's not a good thing to slavishly follow any authority will be a benefit when they grow up. Trust me. The only reason I can see to take this issue to the courts is if and only if the kids are being punished for noncompliance and dealing personally with the administration doesn't fix things. Otherwise, this is an excellent time to teach your kids a valuable lesson that they will not forget. Don't waste this chance by adopting the attitude that the State should raise them in an absolutely neutral fashion so you don't have to worry about it.
If you don't like the words they're saying in the pledge, spend some time with your kids and teach them why they shouldn't say them. Do a little parenting, scary as that may be.
I agree.
My comment, by the way, referred to the fact that if a child reciting the pledge is told "don't worry about the 'under god' part, it doesn't mean anything" then the child can grow up not truly understanding the significance of a pledge. Now if he told he doesn't have to say that part, that's another story. He should, however, be taught that the pledge is only valid if he believes everything that he's saying, regardless of what parts are taken out or put in.
Either way, I've rarely been told it was compulsory; couple teachers have wanted to write me up for not standing up and reciting the pledge but both my parents were very adamant about having me learn their values as opposed to the values those teachers wanted to instill.
This argument over the pledge is a specious one and is a smokescreen for division. It's an offshoot of the multi-cultural drivel, PC, the notion that every utterance has merit, the situational ethics of no right or wrong and other foolishness that is driving the balkanization of our land. The short definition of all of this is anarchy.
Ditto:
Ben Swenson said:
Excellent point. In my book, this court ruling is nothing more than an affirmation that, in the view of those in CA at least, schools can take the place of parents. That belief is far worse than any harm that might come to a child from hearing or saying some words about a nation being "under God".
Parents can and should decide what their kids will participate in, in school. A parent doesn’t like the age at which sex education is taught in school? Excuse them from it. A parent doesn’t like that evolution is taught in school? Teach your child the alternative, or ideally, a form of intelligent design and evolution are taught and opt your child out of the origin of earth version you disagree with. Every parent should take an active role in their child’s education, and when an issue comes up that they disagree with, deal with it in the most appropriate fashion.
Don't waste this chance by adopting the attitude that the State should raise them in an absolutely neutral fashion so you don't have to worry about it
Excellent point. In my book, this court ruling is nothing more than an affirmation that, in the view of those in CA at least, schools can take the place of parents. That belief is far worse than any harm that might come to a child from hearing or saying some words about a nation being "under God".
Parents can and should decide what their kids will participate in, in school. A parent doesn’t like the age at which sex education is taught in school? Excuse them from it. A parent doesn’t like that evolution is taught in school? Teach your child the alternative, or ideally, a form of intelligent design and evolution are taught and opt your child out of the origin of earth version you disagree with. Every parent should take an active role in their child’s education, and when an issue comes up that they disagree with, deal with it in the most appropriate fashion.
A little Food for thought:
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, First Chief Justice John J. Names synonamous with the spirit of our country. Founding fathers of the USA. Citing 27 Biblical violations they wrote the Declaration of Independence with Liberty and Justice for all. But something happened since Jefferson called the Bible the Cornerstone for American Liberty. Patrick Henry said "Give me Liberty or Give me death" Patrick Henry also said "This Country was founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We're eliminating God from the equation of American life, thus eliminating the reason this nation first began. Of the 55 men who formed the constitution 52 were Active Members of their church. Founding fathers like Noah Webster (wrote the first dictionary) could Literally quote the Bible Chapter and Verse. James Madison said " We've staked our future in our ability to follow the 10 Commandments with all our heart". These men believed you couldn't even call yourself an American if you subvert the word of God. In his farewell address Washington said " You can't have national morality apart from Religious principal" and it's true. Right now we have over 150,000 kids carrying guns to these war zones we call public schools. In the 40's and 50's student problems were chewing gum and talking in class. in the 90's rape and murder seem to be the trend. Abe Lincoln said "The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of Government in the next". So when you eliminate the word of God from the classroom and politics you eliminate the nation that word protects. Wonder what these guys would be thinking today.............??????
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, First Chief Justice John J. Names synonamous with the spirit of our country. Founding fathers of the USA. Citing 27 Biblical violations they wrote the Declaration of Independence with Liberty and Justice for all. But something happened since Jefferson called the Bible the Cornerstone for American Liberty. Patrick Henry said "Give me Liberty or Give me death" Patrick Henry also said "This Country was founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We're eliminating God from the equation of American life, thus eliminating the reason this nation first began. Of the 55 men who formed the constitution 52 were Active Members of their church. Founding fathers like Noah Webster (wrote the first dictionary) could Literally quote the Bible Chapter and Verse. James Madison said " We've staked our future in our ability to follow the 10 Commandments with all our heart". These men believed you couldn't even call yourself an American if you subvert the word of God. In his farewell address Washington said " You can't have national morality apart from Religious principal" and it's true. Right now we have over 150,000 kids carrying guns to these war zones we call public schools. In the 40's and 50's student problems were chewing gum and talking in class. in the 90's rape and murder seem to be the trend. Abe Lincoln said "The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of Government in the next". So when you eliminate the word of God from the classroom and politics you eliminate the nation that word protects. Wonder what these guys would be thinking today.............??????
- Status
- Not open for further replies.