# School drops the Pledge of Allegiance



## dread (Jun 11, 2008)

PORTLAND, Ore. - The exclusion of the Pledge of Allegiance from a southwest Portland elementary school's ceremony has proved upsetting for a local mom.

Departing fifth-graders at Capitol Hill Elementary usually open their promotion ceremony with the Pledge of Allegiance but not this year.


KATU tried repeatedly to talk with Principal Pam Wilson but got no results. However, in an e-mail response to Reese's questions, she explained the pledge was removed "out of respect for the diversity of religious faiths."


Local mom concerned after school drops the Pledge of Allegiance | KATU.com - Portland, Oregon | News


I didnt know the Pledge of Allegiance was a pledge to ANY religion?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 11, 2008)

maybe we should remove the PROBLEM and start using the original pledge instead of the butchered one..


----------



## editec (Jun 11, 2008)

> I didnt know the Pledge of Allegiance was a pledge to ANY religion?



In it's original form it wasn't. 

The term "under God" , which is what I think some people object to, was added in the 1950's.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 11, 2008)

not to mention.. that it was written BY a socialist.


----------



## MsWikia (Jun 11, 2008)

A lot of schools stop saying the Pledge of Allegiance aloooong time ago. I'm surprised that this school just now stopped.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 11, 2008)

Gosh, makes me so proud to be an Oregonian.

What a bunch of goose-stepping, bigoted, American hating POSes.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 11, 2008)

yea.. it's the bigotted ones that want to open public education, and the frickin pledge, to more than just dogma junkies.


suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.


like I said.. lets go back to the ORIGINAL version.. You know, the one where allegiance to the US does not hinge on some mythical jewish ghost.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 11, 2008)

The schools did (for the most part) already go back to the original version.
If they eliminate it altogether, then they should call themselves private and stop taking federal dollars to operate.


----------



## jillian (Jun 11, 2008)

Shogun said:


> yea.. it's the bigotted ones that want to open public education, and the frickin pledge, to more than just dogma junkies.
> 
> 
> suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.
> ...



Does it bother you more that it's a ghost ... or that it's a jewish ghost? just wondering since you always make mention of that.

And just on the thread topic... the gdless libs here in NYC say the pledge... just sayin'


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 11, 2008)

It bothers him because the Devil sticks him every time he thinks about God.


----------



## jillian (Jun 11, 2008)

I can see how that type of aversive conditioning could be effective.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 11, 2008)

good grief.

if the primary deity pushed around in the states were hindu id be poking fun at hose characters too.  you can reserve your martyr complex for other threads.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 11, 2008)

"One nation..under The Great Spirit......with liberty and justice for all."
"One nation...under the weird Hindu monkey god.....with liberty and justice for all."

Nope, they just don't sound as awesome.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 11, 2008)

and still, not as AWESOME as the original..

Bellamy's original Pledge read, *"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. America"*


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 11, 2008)

I've no problem with that.
I do have a problem with federally funded schools which refuse to teach the pledge of allegience to their students because the superintendent hates America.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 11, 2008)

it's not America that they hate, baba.. it's having prothletise for the sake of your dogma.  Remove the injected bullshit and the pledge would be a non issue.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 11, 2008)

No, it's not. It's America, or they'd just remove the tiny reference.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 11, 2008)

THEY can't just "remove" the tiny reference, baba.  Like I said, YOU and your thumper biddies remove it and the pledge will become a non-issue.  Do you thnk I hate America, baba?  Or, is it more likely that I resent having to pair my loyalty with YOUR religious bullshit.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 11, 2008)

Look, rather than non-believers being a bunch of pussy-footed whiners, why don't they just exclude the frickin words "under-God" when they say the pledge.  It's just as equivalent as not going to church on Sunday.  The majority of people do, you don't.  Nobody's holding a gun to their head and making them say it.  Hell, no body even makes them say the pledge.  My wife had a child in her class that refused to say the pledge, or participate in any parties or holiday events...does that mean we have to stop having parties and holiday parties because one kid doesn't believe in it.  Should we spoil all of the fun for other (the majority) of kids for one?  It pisses me off when people whine about bull shit like this.  Believers (most) don't sit there and bitch at a kid for not saying the pledge or praying at a football game, why can't non-believers do the same.  Say the pledge, and just omit "under-GOd" when you say it, simple as that.  Why does people have to be such tity-babies about this stuff.


----------



## jillian (Jun 11, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Look, rather than non-believers being a bunch of pussy-footed whiners, why don't they just exclude the frickin words "under-God" when they say them.  Nobody's holding a gun to their head and making them say it.  Hell, no body even makes them say the pledge.  My wife had a child in her class that refused to say the pledge, or participate in any parties or holiday events...does that mean we have to stop having parties and holiday parties because one kid doesn't believe in it.  Should we spoil all of the fun for other (the majority) of kids for one?  It pisses me off when people whine about bull shit like this.  Believers (most) don't sit there and bitch at a kid for not saying the pledge or praying at a football game, why can't non-believers do the same.  Say the pledge, and just omit "under-GOd" when you say it, simple as that.  Why does people have to be such tity-babies about this stuff.



I don't think it's that non-believers are whiners. I think in every group,there are people who need to vocalize. I think some things aren't worth bothering about. Given the nefarious beginnings of the "under G-d" section of the pledge, I say the parts around it, myself. No biggie... and it has nothing to do with belief, since I'm a believer. Just my own little private protest against the McCarthy Era.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 11, 2008)

jillian said:


> I don't think it's that non-believers are whiners. I think in every group,there are people who need to vocalize. I think some things aren't worth bothering about. Given the nefarious beginnings of the "under G-d" section of the pledge, I say the parts around it, myself. No biggie... and it has nothing to do with belief, since I'm a believer. Just my own little private protest against the McCarthy Era.



Well that's exactly what I mean.  You've put it in better words than me.  (I hate when you do that).  Some people just have such a chip-on their shoulder that shouldn't even exist.  So the country has a pledge that says "under God", just omit it when you say and all is well.  That doesn't mean you have to ruin everyone elses traditions and beliefs to get it done.  Texas actually added "Under God" to it's pledge this last year... It's kind of a crappy pledge (not the under God part), but it just doesn't flow right.  I still catch myself saying it without.  I just get tired of people going out of their way to make an issue out of something that isn't an issue.  LIke the 10 Commandments on a courthouse lawn.  Is it really that big of a frickin deal?  Does the 10 Commandment statue stick it's foot out and trip every agnostic or atheis that walks a by?  Does it condemn them to Hell?<---doesn't matter they don't believe anyway.  I'm just saying that nobody forces them to do anything they don't want to do.  If they don't want to acknowledge "under God" in the pledge, then don't say it.  If you're at a football game and the crowd is praying, just be respectful, sit silent and let them pray without making a scene. Nobody will give them a hard-time for not praying.  People just need to get over themselves and learn to tolerate and respect what other people believe.


----------



## jillian (Jun 11, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Well that's exactly what I mean.  You've put it in better words than me.  (I hate when you do that).  Some people just have such a chip-on their shoulder that shouldn't even exist.  So the country has a pledge that says "under God", just omit it when you say and all is well.  That doesn't mean you have to ruin everyone elses traditions and beliefs to get it done.  Texas actually added "Under God" to it's pledge this last year... It's kind of a crappy pledge (not the under God part), but it just doesn't flow right.  I still catch myself saying it without.  I just get tired of people going out of their way to make an issue out of something that isn't an issue.  LIke the 10 Commandments on a courthouse lawn.  Is it really that big of a frickin deal?  Does the 10 Commandment statue stick it's foot out and trip every agnostic or atheis that walks a by?  Does it condemn them to Hell?<---doesn't matter they don't believe anyway.  I'm just saying that nobody forces them to do anything they don't want to do.  If they don't want to acknowledge "under God" in the pledge, then don't say it.  If you're at a football game and the crowd is praying, just be respectful, sit silent and let them pray without making a scene. Nobody will give them a hard-time for not praying.  People just need to get over themselves and learn to tolerate and respect what other people believe.



People pray at football games? I thought that only happened at Mets' games. 



And you said it just fine. I figure if no one's bothering anyone else and it's not government running it, funding it or fostering it... who cares?


----------



## BrianH (Jun 12, 2008)

jillian said:


> People pray at football games? I thought that only happened at Mets' games.
> 
> 
> 
> And you said it just fine. I figure if no one's bothering anyone else and it's not government running it, funding it or fostering it... who cares?



We do here in Texas.  They're not led by the school, but individual students volunteer to lead them in the press box.  They usuall pray for the safety of the players and thank God for the community involvement.  So far no one in our town or the one I grew up in ever made a big deal about it.....


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Look, rather than non-believers being a bunch of pussy-footed whiners, why don't they just exclude the frickin words "under-God" when they say the pledge.  It's just as equivalent as not going to church on Sunday.  The majority of people do, you don't.  Nobody's holding a gun to their head and making them say it.  Hell, no body even makes them say the pledge.  My wife had a child in her class that refused to say the pledge, or participate in any parties or holiday events...does that mean we have to stop having parties and holiday parties because one kid doesn't believe in it.  Should we spoil all of the fun for other (the majority) of kids for one?  It pisses me off when people whine about bull shit like this.  Believers (most) don't sit there and bitch at a kid for not saying the pledge or praying at a football game, why can't non-believers do the same.  Say the pledge, and just omit "under-GOd" when you say it, simple as that.  Why does people have to be such tity-babies about this stuff.



how do you equate NOT going to church with NOT saying the words "under god"?  Seems to me, you might as well suggest we be forced to sit in the pew and just not pay attention, or just not stand during the sermon, or any other euphemism for forced observation of a particular dogma.  In fact, considering the first amendment, why cant the thumpers simply say it in THEIR OWN pledge just the same as you suggest non-believers do?  After all, I"VE got the constitution on my side.. what is on yours?

funny how other groups are just supposed to suck it up when dogma junkies are the majority... but let one single fucking thumper feel slightest against and all of a sudden it's like we are standing in the coliseum and someone just opened the lioncage..


If the irony of the ORIGINAL pledge is lost on you, as well as the entire first amendment-less reason for injecting the dogma, then so be it.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Well that's exactly what I mean.  You've put it in better words than me.  (I hate when you do that).  Some people just have such a chip-on their shoulder that shouldn't even exist.  So the country has a pledge that says "under God", just omit it when you say and all is well.  That doesn't mean you have to ruin everyone elses traditions and beliefs to get it done.  Texas actually added "Under God" to it's pledge this last year... It's kind of a crappy pledge (not the under God part), but it just doesn't flow right.  I still catch myself saying it without.  I just get tired of people going out of their way to make an issue out of something that isn't an issue.  LIke the 10 Commandments on a courthouse lawn.  Is it really that big of a frickin deal?  Does the 10 Commandment statue stick it's foot out and trip every agnostic or atheis that walks a by?  Does it condemn them to Hell?<---doesn't matter they don't believe anyway.  I'm just saying that nobody forces them to do anything they don't want to do.  If they don't want to acknowledge "under God" in the pledge, then don't say it.  If you're at a football game and the crowd is praying, just be respectful, sit silent and let them pray without making a scene. Nobody will give them a hard-time for not praying.  People just need to get over themselves and learn to tolerate and respect what other people believe.



oh yes.. fuck the constition as long as people can just NOT say "under god".. hell, why not decorate public courthouses in a year round nativity scene too?  people can just LOOK AWAY.  Hell, lets just go ahead and add, "Because jesus is our lord, protector, saviour and light of the world" to everything federal since, you know, everyone else can just deal with it and ignore the christian saturation of our COMMON government?




oh yes.. I can see THAT precedent at work.

And, to answer your question, Lets put the fucking KORAN on every small town courthouse and see what kind of a big deal it becomes all of a sudden.


----------



## hjmick (Jun 12, 2008)

I am a self proclaimed Agnostic. For me it's more than the "under God" portion of the pledge. That's the way it was said when I was in school and it had no adverse effect on my psyche, ultimately I believe the issue is much ado about nothing. That being said, if it is being recited in schools, I believe that God reference should be omitted. Either that or change it once again and have it read "under *a* god."

The bigger issue for me is the mindless, rote recitation of the Pledge. It smacks of indoctrination. If schools are going to have kids recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and I think there is nothing wrong with that, I believe that they should also be taught it's meaning, the history and origins of the Pledge. The simple repeating of the words with no understanding of what they mean, with no understanding of the Pledge, smacks of the Nazi Youth ceremonies of the late '30s and early '40s.


----------



## tigerbob (Jun 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> and still, not as AWESOME as the original..
> 
> Bellamy's original Pledge read, *"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. America"*



Having read this thread, I've got to question the inclusion of "indivisible" as well.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> how do you equate NOT going to church with NOT saying the words "under god"?  Seems to me, you might as well suggest we be forced to sit in the pew and just not pay attention, or just not stand during the sermon, or any other euphemism for forced observation of a particular dogma.  In fact, considering the first amendment, why cant the thumpers simply say it in THEIR OWN pledge just the same as you suggest non-believers do?  After all, I"VE got the constitution on my side.. what is on yours?
> 
> *Umm...the part that says "Congress shall make now law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."B]
> 
> ...


*

Well let's see.  The majority of Americans go to church on Sunday...and you choose not to.  Many businesses are closed on Sunday soley for this purpose.  An athiest can sit on his front porch and watch all of his neighbors pass his house and go to church.  Does that mean he has to go? Or that we have to remove the church from the neighborhood because one resident doesn't believe?  It's the same concept.  I understand the chip on your shoulder because you bitch about it enough.*


----------



## BrianH (Jun 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> oh yes.. fuck the constition as long as people can just NOT say "under god".. hell, why not decorate public courthouses in a year round nativity scene too?  people can just LOOK AWAY.  Hell, lets just go ahead and add, "Because jesus is our lord, protector, saviour and light of the world" to everything federal since, you know, everyone else can just deal with it and ignore the christian saturation of our COMMON government?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well I tell you what.  When Muslims make up 80%-90% of the frickin American population, then they can vote on it.  Until then, keep eating that chip on your shoulder.


----------



## jillian (Jun 12, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Well let's see.  The majority of Americans go to church on Sunday...and you choose not to.  Many businesses are closed on Sunday soley for this purpose.  An athiest can sit on his front porch and watch all of his neighbors pass his house and go to church.  Does that mean he has to go? Or that we have to remove the church from the neighborhood because one resident doesn't believe?  It's the same concept.  I understand the chip on your shoulder because you bitch about it enough.



I've never thought that there should be blue laws forcing businesses to be closed on Sundays. If a business owner doesn't want to work Sunday, that should be his or her call, IMO. It's not the job of government to make sure folk honor the sabbath day, is it? (which, btw, is Saturday for me, anyway).

Also, I have to tell ya... if I want to buy a bottle of wine to bring to a friend's house on Sunday afternoon, it really ticks me off that I can't. Grrrrrrr....


----------



## BrianH (Jun 12, 2008)

jillian said:


> I've never thought that there should be blue laws forcing businesses to be closed on Sundays. If a business owner doesn't want to work Sunday, that should be his or her call, IMO. It's not the job of government to make sure folk honor the sabbath day, is it? (which, btw, is Saturday for me, anyway).
> 
> Also, I have to tell ya... if I want to buy a bottle of wine to bring to a friend's house on Sunday afternoon, it really ticks me off that I can't. Grrrrrrr....



LOL.  I agree.  But it's true that many places being closed on Sunday's derive from the tradition of not working on Sunday.  

It seems that everyone else is willing to tolerate agnostics and atheists and in some places completely throw out their tradition and history to accomodate and disenfranchise the majority.  But they still aren't satisfied or willing to tolerate Christians or other religions.


----------



## Nate Peele (Jun 12, 2008)

Uhm, I think the real problem here is that they have a cermony for "graduating" fifth grade.  Fifth grade?  Give me a break.


----------



## jillian (Jun 12, 2008)

BrianH said:


> LOL.  I agree.  But it's true that many places being closed on Sunday's derive from the tradition of not working on Sunday.
> 
> It seems that everyone else is willing to tolerate agnostics and atheists and in some places completely throw out their tradition and history to accomodate and disenfranchise the majority.  But they still aren't satisfied or willing to tolerate Christians or other religions.



Tradition is fine. It shouldn't be legislated by Blue Laws because not all of us share the same religion. Everyone should be able to choose if it's something we'd close our business for or not. So, if you choose to close shop. Cool. More power to ya. But if I want *my* business closed on Saturday, but opened on Sunday, that should be ok, too. That way we all tolerate each other.


----------



## jillian (Jun 12, 2008)

Nate Peele said:


> Uhm, I think the real problem here is that they have a cermony for "graduating" fifth grade.  Fifth grade?  Give me a break.



Hey! Watch that! I'm looking forward to my son's 5th grade graduation!


----------



## manifold (Jun 12, 2008)

Nate Peele said:


> Uhm, I think the real problem here is that they have a cermony for "graduating" fifth grade.  Fifth grade?  Give me a break.



LOL!  good point

My wife's niece just had a graduation ceremony for an associates degree at a community college.  Way to go!  That and a valid I9 will get you a job flippin burgers.


----------



## Abelian Sea (Jun 12, 2008)

I had a graduation ceremony for fifth grade. It struck me as quite silly, but I figured, "it's for the parents," and went along with it.

We also said the pledge every morning. It did strike me as a little odd in a couple of places. First, pledging alliegence to a flag; they really want me to obey a piece of cloth? What is it going to tell me? Are they hearing voices? It creeped me out. The "under God" part just seemed out of place in an otherwise secular setting; it didn't bother me nearly as much as the first phrase. The "indivisible" part even started to seem a little sinister as I learned more about the Civil War. I did like the term "republic;" it sounded cool and dignified, and made me think of Star Wars, since the good-guy organization in those movies was a remnant of the "old republic."

I got the point of the pledge, though, and was basically okay with it. I thought it was reasonable for me to be expected to declare my loyatly to my country, and I knew my country was rockin' so I was down with doing so. I just started quietly editing it to my tastes: "I pledge alligence, to _*mumble* *mumble*_ the republic _*mumble*_ one nation, _*mumble* *mumble*_ with liberty and justice for all."


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Well let's see.  The majority of Americans go to church on Sunday...and you choose not to.  Many businesses are closed on Sunday soley for this purpose.  An athiest can sit on his front porch and watch all of his neighbors pass his house and go to church.  Does that mean he has to go? Or that we have to remove the church from the neighborhood because one resident doesn't believe?  It's the same concept.  I understand the chip on your shoulder because you bitch about it enough.



Yet, HOW does the first amendment validate FORCING a minority to observe the dogma of the majority?  It doesn't.  And telling people just to "deal with it" isn't a valid answer.  YOU may not give a damn but plenty of us do.  If you can't fathom how offensive it is to have patriotism paired with dogma then, AGAIN, let's put the fucking koran on court houses and see how long it takes for christians to freak the fuck out.


a business can make it's own decision.  FORCING a business to close on Sunday and telling customers that they can drive to the next secular county just doesn't float.  In fact, it pretty much illustrates the stupidity of your position.


an ahteist ON A FUCKING PORCH is hardly even REMOTELY close to a kid in a fucking classroom, eh?  Do kids get the option of walking inside when the thumping comes out?  Do kids get the chance to state THEIR OWN beliefs?  NO?  Then I guess your incessant wrangling of logic is failing you today, isnt' it?

But, truly, Im still having a good ole guffaw at the idea that taking out god from the pledge is keeping christians from worshipping the loward.  THAT has got to be one of the dumbest things I've read on this forum all week.  I mean, hell, ALL WE NEED TO DO IS GET THE MAJORITY TO VOTE TO REPLACE THE BILL OF RIGHTS WITH THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, apparently.. right, ya dumb bastard?  I mean, of COURSE since it was added before I was born then everyone else should just fucking deal, right?  THATS how we rationalized racism too, eh?  Why rock the fucking boat, yes?  A clear history of dogma junkies hellbent on injecting christianity into the pledge may sit well with you but, *AS PER THE FUCKING ARTICLE*, score one for the good guys.


beyotch.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Well I tell you what.  When Muslims make up 80%-90% of the frickin American population, then they can vote on it.  Until then, keep eating that chip on your shoulder.




oh yes.. since it ONLY takes a majority to disregard the bill of rights why don't we just VOTE for slavery to become a fact of our culture again, eh dummy?  I mean, the ONLY thing we regard is the will of the majority, right dummy?





I mean, fuck anyone who may NOT be a christian since, CLEARLY, this nation ONLY gives a fuck about the brothas and sistahs of jebus.


----------



## manifold (Jun 12, 2008)

Is it just me, or are Soggy's diatribes a thousand times more enjoyable when he's actually right?


----------



## Ravi (Jun 12, 2008)

Shog, and yet you are okay with voting on gay marriage.



I wish you'd make an effort to be consistent.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

BrianH said:


> LOL.  I agree.  But it's true that many places being closed on Sunday's derive from the tradition of not working on Sunday.
> 
> It seems that everyone else is willing to tolerate agnostics and atheists and in some places completely throw out their tradition and history to accomodate and disenfranchise the majority.  But they still aren't satisfied or willing to tolerate Christians or other religions.




yea, dude.. we see all kinds of tolorance for atheists ALL THE TIME!

HAHAHAHAHA!


I mean.. just LOOK at how many non-christian presidents we've had!  WE ARE SO FUCKING LUCKY, lemme tellya.  OH yes.  America is just FULL of historic examples of tolorant goodness towards non-believers by christians!  It's just like a fucking willy wonka chocolate factory of benevolence!




Your stupid fucking rationalization of what amounts to a STATE RELIGION is exactly why the first amendment says what it does about respecting such.  If ignoring that FACT sits well with you then so be it.  I mean, Id HATE to be pummeled about the fucking head and neck with ALL THOSE examples you can provide of tolorant good will at non-believers from christians!


----------



## jillian (Jun 12, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Shog, and yet you are okay with voting on gay marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> I wish you'd make an effort to be consistent.



he is. if he likes it, it's an inalienable right. if not, then the constitution doesn't apply.

real simple.. the world according to shogie. ;o)


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Shog, and yet you are okay with voting on gay marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> I wish you'd make an effort to be consistent.




can you find gay marriage in the constitution like I can find the specific statement regarding respecting an establishment of religion?


Maybe one needs to be a bit quicker to follow my masterful logic...


----------



## Ravi (Jun 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> can you find gay marriage in the constitution like I can find the specific statement regarding respecting an establishment of religion?
> 
> 
> Maybe one needs to be a bit quicker to follow my masterful logic...



The only thing, really, that keeps gays from being married IS religion, doofus.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

manifold said:


> Is it just me, or are Soggy's diatribes a thousand times more enjoyable when he's actually right?



hehehe..


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

jillian said:


> he is. if he likes it, it's an inalienable right. if not, then the constitution doesn't apply.
> 
> real simple.. the world according to shogie. ;o)



well, lawyer, you might wanna take another gander since an amendment covers THIS issue wheras you require a court decision to validate gay marriage..

Im assuming you are not beyond the bar long enough to figure out the difference.


----------



## manifold (Jun 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> can you find gay marriage in the constitution like I can find the specific statement regarding respecting an establishment of religion?
> 
> 
> Maybe one needs to be a bit quicker to follow my masterful logic...




I happen to agree with you on this thread Soggy, but...


For consistency sake, if you're going to invoke the 9th Amendment in discussions pertaining to smoking for example, why wouldn't you invoke it to defend gay marriage?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

Ravi said:


> The only thing, really, that keeps gays from being married IS religion, doofus.



well.. that... AND state legislation.

now.. did you want to remind me where gay marriage was as specified as the issue of a state religion?


----------



## Ravi (Jun 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> well.. that... AND state legislation.
> 
> now.. did you want to remind me where gay marriage was as specified as the issue of a state religion?



It is, Shog, and you know it. Same with biracial marriage in the past, it's based on someone's moral outrage. 

Show me in the constitution what makes it so that two people are not allowed to enter into a contractual agreement.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

manifold said:


> I happen to agree with you on this thread Soggy, but...
> 
> 
> For consistency sake, if you're going to invoke the 9th Amendment in discussions pertaining to smoking for example, why wouldn't you invoke it to defend gay marriage?



goddammit, Mani.  Ok, I'll concede that the ninth could probably be used to validate civil unions (since marriages are, by and large, religious cerimonies) on par with marriage in the eyes of the state.  I would argue that it's property rights, and not smokers rights, that should maintain the rights of bar owners to cater to smokers.

HOWEVER, back to the dogma junkies and their enablers...  


Amendment I
*
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. *


to argue that removing the word "god" from the pledge is prohibiting the free excercise of religion is BEYOND fucking retarded.  Sinc the Pledge IS an establishment WITH protocol at the FEDERAL LEVEL it is a violation of the first amendment to keep "under god" in our national pledge.  Hell, LOOK AT THE FUCKING HISTORY OF THE ADDITION.


or, just fucking deal with it like we expect non-believers to do.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 12, 2008)

Mani, you finally convinced him.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

Ravi said:


> It is, Shog, and you know it. Same with biracial marriage in the past, it's based on someone's moral outrage.
> 
> Show me in the constitution what makes it so that two people are not allowed to enter into a contractual agreement.



bi-racial marriage is not the product of the constitution.  THAT, Ravi, was a court decision.  


I can show you where authority is passed to the states to do what they will according to the legislation of the people.. You know.. kinda like how no less than 1/3rd of the states passed bans after Mass 04 decided to stir this same pot?  I hate to get all Scalia on ya but the first amendment directly addresses the seperation of church and state whereas you are digging for gold and have nothing to show for it.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

now now, Ravi..  property rights are mentioned in the constituion already too.


marriage, in any form, isn't.  In fact, it's specifially left to the will of the states.  have you read the document ever?


----------



## Ravi (Jun 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> bi-racial marriage is not the product of the constitution.  THAT, Ravi, was a court decision.
> 
> 
> I can show you where authority is passed to the states to do what they will according to the legislation of the people.. You know.. kinda like how no less than 1/3rd of the states passed bans after Mass 04 decided to stir this same pot?  I hate to get all Scalia on ya but the first amendment directly addresses the seperation of church and state whereas you are digging for gold and have nothing to show for it.



Um, biracial marriage isn't addressed in the constitution either. Churches probably should be allowed to refuse to marry biracial couples and gay couples and anyone they please.

BUT, there is no constitutional basis for denying any two consenting adults from having a civil union, no matter how you wish it so.

But, I don't want to derail your thread.


----------



## jillian (Jun 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> bi-racial marriage is not the product of the constitution.  THAT, Ravi, was a court decision.



Too bad you have no understanding of constutional law. Pity that... the constitution isn't a bible to be read literally by a bunch of nimrods. Caselaw is an integral part of the Constitution since it ... INTERPRETS the Constitution and says WHAT IT APPLIES TO.

Or should the founders have made the constitution thousands of pages long so it included every possible fact pattern that occurred over the entire course of our history?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

jillian said:


> Too bad you have no understanding of constutional law. Pity that... the constitution isn't a bible to be read literally by a bunch of nimrods. Caselaw is an integral part of the Constitution since it ... INTERPRETS the Constitution and says WHAT IT APPLIES TO.
> 
> Or should the founders have made the constitution thousands of pages long so it included every possible fact pattern that occurred over the entire course of our history?



thankfully, YOU are not the last opinion when it comes to HOW the constitution is read, eh jill?  I mean, it's not like half the fucking supreme court AGREES with my position or anything.


----------



## jillian (Jun 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> thankfully, YOU are not the last opinion when it comes to HOW the constitution is read, eh jill?  I mean, it's not like half the fucking supreme court AGREES with my position or anything.



half the court agrees with you when it SUITS THEIR POLITICAL PURPOSE and only because other idiots appointed them...


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Um, biracial marriage isn't addressed in the constitution either. Churches probably should be allowed to refuse to marry biracial couples and gay couples and anyone they please.
> 
> BUT, there is no constitutional basis for denying any two consenting adults from having a civil union, no matter how you wish it so.
> 
> But, I don't want to derail your thread.



sure there is.  Marriage is not a right anymore than communion is.  The Constitution passes this type of issue to the states to decide how THEY want to handle such.  This is why we have dry counties despite the assumption that drinking beer is a constitutional right.  States have voted and do not agree with you.  

You do understand that I am FOR gay marriage, right?  I'm just not interested in shitting on the constitution to achieve such.  This isn't a matter of what I want.  This is a matter of what the STATES want.  And, according to the founding fathers, legislation was meant to reflect more than a majority of judges trying to go with the flow.  The PEOPLE have spoken regarding civil unions and gay marriage.  Like I said, I hate to get all Scalia on ya.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

jillian said:


> half the court agrees with you when it SUITS THEIR POLITICAL PURPOSE and only because other idiots appointed them...



oh well THATS a solid fucking arguement.





indeed, thankfully YOU have a monopoly on the OPINION of someone's stupidity or political purpose.  Hell, pot meet kettle.


----------



## jillian (Jun 12, 2008)

Except that... marriage IS a right.

You don't get to choose the laws you agree with......


----------



## BrianH (Jun 12, 2008)

jillian said:


> Tradition is fine. It shouldn't be legislated by Blue Laws because not all of us share the same religion. Everyone should be able to choose if it's something we'd close our business for or not. So, if you choose to close shop. Cool. More power to ya. But if I want *my* business closed on Saturday, but opened on Sunday, that should be ok, too. That way we all tolerate each other.



Well that's the way it is now.  Business owners can and do stay open on Sundays if they wish.  I used to work for NAPA and my boss had his store open on Sundays.  He eventually had to close because most people around here didn't do jack on Sundays and it cost more for him to stay open and pay us than to just close up shop.  But I do agree with you.  It's all about toleration.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

jillian said:


> Except that... marriage IS a right.
> 
> You don't get to choose the laws you agree with......



indeed, to the LEGAL degree for which we observe marriage, jill.  Go use that bullshit on the court after the guy who likes to fuck bicycles and hamsters doesn't get a license.  The legislation extends marriage to ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.  Don't blame me for that..  It's democracy in action.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Well that's the way it is now.  Business owners can and do stay open on Sundays if they wish.  I used to work for NAPA and my boss had his store open on Sundays.  He eventually had to close because most people around here didn't do jack on Sundays and it cost more for him to stay open and pay us than to just close up shop.  But I do agree with you.  It's all about toleration.



Which is totally different than the STATE coming in and closing his store and telling him to fucking deal with it, eh?


----------



## Ravi (Jun 12, 2008)

Shog, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a right. You are once again being inconsistent...on one hand citing them for agreeing with you (if that's even true) and on the other discounting their judgment on the constitutional validity of a law.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 12, 2008)

Bicycles and hamsters can't consent.

Bicycles?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Shog, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a right. You are once again being inconsistent...on one hand citing them for agreeing with you (if that's even true) and on the other discounting their judgment on the constitutional validity of a law.



the supreme court didn't rule that marriage is a right extended to anyone, ravi.  We don't let polygamist make that same arguement.  similarly, assuming that marriage observations extends to gays is aqbout as silly as using the interstate commerce clause as a cure all.


and, im not being inconsistant.  Hell, if anything IM the only one in this thread whose had his eye on the fucking ball despite my own personal opinions of gay marriage.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Bicycles and hamsters can't consent.
> 
> Bicycles?



how do you know?  Can you speak Hamsterese?  do you KNOW that an inanimate object CAN'T love?


----------



## BrianH (Jun 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Yet, HOW does the first amendment validate FORCING a minority to observe the dogma of the majority?  It doesn't.  And telling people just to "deal with it" isn't a valid answer.  YOU may not give a damn but plenty of us do.  If you can't fathom how offensive it is to have patriotism paired with dogma then, AGAIN, let's put the fucking koran on court houses and see how long it takes for christians to freak the fuck out.
> 
> *WHO'S FORCING YOU TO SAY "Under God"? And like I said, when Chrisitians become the minority, then they'll have to frickin deal with whatever the majority votes for. That's how a democracy works.  ANd if they freak out then they're just as intolerant and ignorant as you are.*
> 
> ...



*LOL is that all you got.  "Beyotch?"  LOL.  I'm going to piss myself now.  It's called toleration dumbass. You should learn it sometime.  No one is forcing you to do anything.  This country has bigger problems than a couple of words in a pledge.  If you don't like it, don't say "under God" it's as simple as that.  No one is forcing you to, and no one is sitting in little Jimmy's class and forcing him to say a prayer or say the pledge.  Let's whine about a pointless 60 year old play on words.   Beyotch...lol*


----------



## Annie (Jun 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> how do you know?  Can you speak Hamsterese?  do you KNOW that an inanimate object CAN'T love?



http://www.textfiles.com/sex/sex-cars.faq


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

BrianH said:


> *LOL is that all you got.  "Beyotch?"  LOL.  I'm going to piss myself now.  It's called toleration dumbass. You should learn it sometime.  No one is forcing you to do anything.  This country has bigger problems than a couple of words in a pledge.  If you don't like it, don't say "under God" it's as simple as that.  No one is forcing you to, and no one is sitting in little Jimmy's class and forcing him to say a prayer or say the pledge.  Let's whine about a pointless 60 year old play on words.   Beyotch...lol*



NOT with a BILL OF RIGHTS that specifically addresses this VERY issue, cockgobbler (like that one better?)  A majority cant disregard the first fucking amendment JUST BECAUSE the majoirty of Americans identify with Christianity.  I don't know what kind of fucked up civics courses you took but you might wanna go get your money back.  

and, YES, kids ARE forced to observe christianity EVERY TIME they are FORCED to pair their alliegence with christianity.  Indeed, "bigger problems" than racism too, right?  BIGGER PROBLEMS than womens suffrage?  It's not "as simple as that" any more than black people can just ignore employers CALLING THEM SHIFTY *******.  I mean, NO ONE is forcing blacks to work for racists, right buddy?  And, if the MAJORITY wants to let hiring managers use words like darky and coon then African AMERICANS can just "get over it", eh?


you logic looks like it's taken a few rounds of birdshot, dude.  Would you like to ignore the posted fucking federal amendment again perhaps?  Im still not done laughing at the assumption that telling christians that they CANT use the federal gov for prothetising amounts to restricting THEIR religion.  THATS a fucking belly laugh and a half, dude.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

ps.

whooptyfuckingdo.. YOUR WIFE sure is the standard by which everyone behaves, right?  What is the FIRST thing that statistics and the scientific method would say about what you are basing your goofy fucking opinion on?  I've got history on my side, buddy.  Maybe thats not as impressive as some personal non sequiter but hey..


----------



## BrianH (Jun 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> NOT with a BILL OF RIGHTS that specifically addresses this VERY issue, cockgobbler (like that one better?)  A majority cant disregard the first fucking amendment JUST BECAUSE the majoirty of Americans identify with Christianity.  I don't know what kind of fucked up civics courses you took but you might wanna go get your money back.
> 
> and, YES, kids ARE forced to observe christianity EVERY TIME they are FORCED to pair their alliegence with christianity.  Indeed, "bigger problems" than racism too, right?  BIGGER PROBLEMS than womens suffrage?  It's not "as simple as that" any more than black people can just ignore employers CALLING THEM SHIFTY *******.  I mean, NO ONE is forcing blacks to work for racists, right buddy?  And, if the MAJORITY wants to let hiring managers use words like darky and coon then African AMERICANS can just "get over it", eh?
> 
> ...



Yes I do like that one better. No one is FORCING them to observe jack shit.  Does the teacher stand over the kid and say " Say under God or you faill, you better say it? Say it!".  NO.  No one is forcing anything.  The rest is just ranting.  I've gotten used to your style.  I'm shooting buckshot today holmes.  Or maybe I'll throw some BBB your way.  

No one is disregarding the Bill of Rights. Until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, it's perfectly Constitutional.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> ps.
> 
> whooptyfuckingdo.. YOUR WIFE sure is the standard by which everyone behaves, right?  What is the FIRST thing that statistics and the scientific method would say about what you are basing your goofy fucking opinion on?  I've got history on my side, buddy.  Maybe thats not as impressive as some personal non sequiter but hey..



Like I said, until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, I'm right and your wrong. No ones rights are being infringed upon.


----------



## manifold (Jun 12, 2008)

If I started the best flames poll right now, Soggy would win in a landslide!

Shifty *******!  

In the NBA they're known as crafty veterans.  




Who am I kidding, he's gonna win in a landslide no matter what.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Like I said, until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, I'm right and your wrong. No ones rights are being infringed upon.



Actually, court opinons don't make anyone "right" about anything.  Again, you might wanna go kick your civics teacher in the balls for failing you this bad.  


Rights, and constitutional amendment ARE being infringed.  If you don't think they are significant then so be it.  Plenty didn't think slavery was a big deal either.  Like I said, go read the fucking amendment instead of your wifes work drama.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

manifold said:


> If I started the best flames poll right now, Soggy would win in a landslide!
> 
> Shifty *******!
> 
> ...



Hey, you know, BRIAN says that blacks should just "gET OVER IT".  THEY are not being discriminated against since, you know, the MAJORITY enjoys the vocab.  We've got bigger issues to tackle, RIGHT BRI BRI?  Hey, at least that seperate water fount and shitter in the basement is AVAILABLE!




MAJORITY RULES, right buddy?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Yes I do like that one better. No one is FORCING them to observe jack shit.  Does the teacher stand over the kid and say " Say under God or you faill, you better say it? Say it!".  NO.  No one is forcing anything.  The rest is just ranting.  I've gotten used to your style.  I'm shooting buckshot today holmes.  Or maybe I'll throw some BBB your way.
> 
> No one is disregarding the Bill of Rights. Until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, it's perfectly Constitutional.



yes, they ARE forced to observe when HAVING TO PAIR PATRIOTISM WITH CHRISTIANITY.  I know I konw.. they can just block out the memory and there is no harm, no foul




You haven't shot your first load in this thread, dude.  Again, the bill of rights is PLAINLY WRITTEN.  If you want to think that it is "hindering" christians to not use a federal oath then so be it.  Imean, we can't ALL have your wife's work examples to pull insight from.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 12, 2008)

Amendment I

*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. 


After the service concluded, Docherty had opportunity to converse with Eisenhower about the substance of the sermon. The President expressed his enthusiastic concurrence with Docherty&#8217;s view, and the very next day, Eisenhower had the wheels turning in Congress to incorporate Docherty&#8217;s suggestion into law. On February 8, 1954, Rep. Charles Oakman (R-Mich.), introduced a bill to that effect. On Lincoln&#8217;s birthday, four days later, Oakman made the following speech on the floor of the House:

Last Sunday, the President of the United States and his family occupied the pew where Abraham Lincoln worshipped. The pastor, the Reverend George M. Docherty, suggested the change in our Pledge of Allegiance that I have offered [as a bill]. Dr. Docherty delivered a wise sermon. He said that as a native of Scotland come to these shores he could appreciate the pledge as something more than a hollow verse taught to children for memory. I would like to quote from his words. He said, 'there was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life.' Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Docherty hit the nail square on the head.

Pledge of Allegiance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


you are as wrong as the day is long, dude.  I hate to scare you away with historic facts when, you know, your wife's work gossip is just like channeling Thomas Jefferson's ghost.


----------



## MsWikia (Jun 12, 2008)

Is it that hard to believe that not everybody in America LOVES IT? ADORES IT? WANTS TO MAKE A PLEDGE TO IT? And you might say, well leave! Where are people going to go? This is the land of the free, so why force people to salute or say a pledge to a flag? 



I sometimes sit down during the national anthem if I don't feel like participating, i.e. at a baseball game.


On a side note, the "N" word bothers me. I want to say more but I am refraining!


----------



## BrianH (Jun 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Hey, you know, BRIAN says that blacks should just "gET OVER IT".  THEY are not being discriminated against since, you know, the MAJORITY enjoys the vocab.  We've got bigger issues to tackle, RIGHT BRI BRI?  Hey, at least that seperate water fount and shitter in the basement is AVAILABLE!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How many blacks do you know today that are dealing with Jim Crow laws or being discriminated against?  Not many.  Unless of course you want to adopt Larkinn's "Some racism isn't bad" routine.  And if they are, it's against he law already.  You're referring to something that hasn't happened in 45 years.  We haven't had separate facilities in a long time...you're history teacher should join my civics teacher.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> yes, they ARE forced to observe when HAVING TO PAIR PATRIOTISM WITH CHRISTIANITY.  I know I konw.. they can just block out the memory and there is no harm, no foul
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Does anyone sit down and say, ok, in order to be a patriot you have to say god?  NOPE.  IT doesn't matter if those two little words are in there or not, the majority of Americans will continue to say "under God" even if it's taken out.  Someone is going to say a different version.  So either one will have to get over it.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Amendment I
> 
> *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.
> 
> ...




Last I checked, the pledge of allegance isn't a LAW...  Would you like some aloe vera for that burn....?


----------



## dread (Jun 12, 2008)

MsWikia said:


> Is it that hard to believe that not everybody in America LOVES IT? ADORES IT? WANTS TO MAKE A PLEDGE TO IT? And you might say, well leave! Where are people going to go? This is the land of the free, so why force people to salute or say a pledge to a flag?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Because if people dont say it they wont have anything to bind them to it...This country is FREE because of people willing to DEFEND it by pledging their ALLEGIANCE to it. 


If you dont love this country then go to another country that you do love...Why take up others breathing space with all your negativity? 


It is a pretty simple concept this Pledge of Allegiance..It called common courtesy towards this great nation...


----------



## Dr Grump (Jun 12, 2008)

dread said:


> Because if people dont say it they wont have anything to bind them to it...This country is FREE because of people willing to DEFEND it by pledging their ALLEGIANCE to it.
> 
> 
> If you dont love this country then go to another country that you do love...Why take up others breathing space with all your negativity?
> ...



It's called nationalistic claptrap. I don't need to make a pledge to a country to like living there....Just jingoistic one-upmanship to try and make you guys feel good about yourselves...pfffftttt


----------



## dread (Jun 12, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> It's called nationalistic claptrap. I don't need to make a pledge to a country to like living there....Just jingoistic one-upmanship to try and make you guys feel good about yourselves...pfffftttt





Maybe this is why you suck at relationships. If you care enough about something or someone you make a pledge whether outloud or privately to protect it/them...Obviously you are not a caring enough soul to do such a thing


----------



## Larkinn (Jun 12, 2008)

dread said:


> Because if people dont say it they wont have anything to bind them to it...This country is FREE because of people willing to DEFEND it by pledging their ALLEGIANCE to it.



What?   We are free because we are bound?   What are you smoking?  



> If you dont love this country then go to another country that you do love...Why take up others breathing space with all your negativity?



Some of you don't seem to get the vast gulf of emotions between love and "negativity" or hate.   



> Maybe this is why you suck at relationships. If you care enough about something or someone you make a pledge whether outloud or privately to protect it/them...Obviously you are not a caring enough soul to do such a thing



I try not to have intimate relationships with inanimate objects.   But whatever turns you on I guess...


----------



## dread (Jun 12, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> What?   We are free because we are bound?   What are you smoking?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I didnt know freedom was inanimate...Nor did I know it was an object.


----------



## manifold (Jun 13, 2008)

Freedom isn't free...it costs a buck-o-five.


----------



## jillian (Jun 13, 2008)

dread said:


> Maybe this is why you suck at relationships. If you care enough about something or someone you make a pledge whether outloud or privately to protect it/them...Obviously you are not a caring enough soul to do such a thing



What an absurd thing to say about someone you know nothing about. He has a wife, kids, family, friends, co-workers, etc. All of these relationships seem to be pretty successful.  I'm guessing I'm a better judge of that than you given he's been one of *my* closest friends for the past five years and you wouldn't know him from Adam.

But whatever gets you through the night and makes you feel better about yourself.


----------



## dread (Jun 13, 2008)

jillian said:


> What an absurd thing to say about someone you know nothing about. He has a wife, kids, family, friends, co-workers, etc. All of these relationships seem to be pretty successful.  I'm guessing I'm a better judge of that than you given he's been one of *my* closest friends for the past five years and you wouldn't know him from Adam.
> 
> But whatever gets you through the night and makes you feel better about yourself.




If he IS sooo good at relationships like you say then he has pledged his loyalty unto them... You know to love and protect?  Why is this such a hard concept to understand?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 13, 2008)

BrianH said:


> How many blacks do you know today that are dealing with Jim Crow laws or being discriminated against?  Not many.  Unless of course you want to adopt Larkinn's "Some racism isn't bad" routine.  And if they are, it's against he law already.  You're referring to something that hasn't happened in 45 years.  We haven't had separate facilities in a long time...you're history teacher should join my civics teacher.



oh i know, dude.  racism is like the infamous Snipe!  It probably takes a dark wooden area and two stick to bang together to find some O' that this side of the 90s..

The FACT remains that we don't just let the majority shit on Constitutional amendments just because YOU think others can "look away" or "not recite under god" anymore than we allow racists to call black people ******* during a job interview.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 13, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Does anyone sit down and say, ok, in order to be a patriot you have to say god?  NOPE.  IT doesn't matter if those two little words are in there or not, the majority of Americans will continue to say "under God" even if it's taken out.  Someone is going to say a different version.  So either one will have to get over it.




OFFICIALLY, yes.  It doesn't matter to YOU but it does to the rest of us.  Your apathy is noted and is trly on the top of my list of things that are important.


and, along your same logic, LET THE christians mumble "under god"..  At least, then, the fucking pledge will be in line with that pesky fucking constitution that seems to bug the shit out of thumpers when they don't get their way.


I mean, who needs a constitution when Bri Bri says to get over it??


----------



## Shogun (Jun 13, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Last I checked, the pledge of allegance isn't a LAW...  Would you like some aloe vera for that burn....?



Id suggest you take a gander at the world from an angle other than deep inside your rectal cavity, buddy.


*Lawmakers blast Pledge ruling*
SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- "Political correctness run amok" is how one senator is describing a court's ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. 

Outraged lawmakers on both sides of the aisle blasted the ruling as "outrageous," "nuts," and "stupid." The U.S. Senate was so outraged by the decision that it passed a resolution 99-0 "expressing support for the Pledge of Allegiance" and asking Senate counsel to "seek to intervene in the case." (Full story)

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, was one of many lawmakers who immediately reacted in anger and shock to the ruling.
*
"Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok," Bond said. "What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God' from the pledge taken by new presidents?" *
CNN.com - Lawmakers blast Pledge ruling - June 27, 2002


(*Cause, you know, our founding fathers created the fucking pledge and all..* )



* Florida Student Sues Over Pledge Of Allegiance Law*

Florida Student Sues Over Pledge Of Allegiance Law


*Federal judge declares Pledge unconstitutional*

In June 2004, five of the Supreme Court's nine justices found that Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow did not have custody of his school-age daughter and thus could not challenge school district policy that allowed teachers to lead students in a voluntary recitation of the Pledge.

The decision enabled the high court to dodge a battle over whether the phrase "under God" carries a religious meaning that is unacceptable under the Constitution's First Amendment, which forbids government endorsement of religion. The court also avoided deciding whether reciting the Pledge in schools is a coerced religious practice.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-14-pledge-allegiance_x.htm



Gosh, Bri Bri.. seems like im the only one of us daring to post evidence here.. WHY is that?  Are you mumbling something under your breath?  Again, thanks for your opinion that the minority should just fucking deal with it but I think we're gonna go ahead and clarify this blatantly unconstitutional situation.  Feel free to mutter "under god" under your breath since, you know, the Constitution actually DOES matter to some of us.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 13, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Id suggest you take a gander at the world from an angle other than deep inside your rectal cavity, buddy.
> 
> 
> *Lawmakers blast Pledge ruling*
> ...



That's all great Shog, but you quoted the first Amendment..."Congress shall pass no law...."  Since when is the pledge of allegiance considered a law.  If you're going to call it unconstitutional,  you can't address it as a law that Congress has made that is respecting a religion.  Someone's going to have to do with or without "Under God."  And right now, it just happens to be you.....


----------



## Shogun (Jun 13, 2008)

BrianH said:


> That's all great Shog, but you quoted the first Amendment..."Congress shall pass no law...."  Since when is the pledge of allegiance considered a law.  If you're going to call it unconstitutional,  you can't address it as a law that Congress has made that is respecting a religion.  Someone's going to have to do with or without "Under God."  And right now, it just happens to be you.....



You are just not interested in reading today, are you? 


*
The Pennsylvania Mandatory School Pledge of Allegiance Law:
Why A Federal Appeals Court Was Right to Strike It Down*

FindLaw's Writ - Hamilton: The Pennsylvania Mandatory School Pledge of Allegiance Law


-CITE-
    4 USC Sec. 4                                                01/03/2007

-EXPCITE-
    TITLE 4 - FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES
    CHAPTER 1 - THE FLAG

-HEAD-
    Sec. 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

*-STATUTE-
      The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: "I pledge allegiance to the
    Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which
    it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
    justice for all.", should be rendered by standing at attention
    facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in
    uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their
    right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over
    the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag,
    and render the military salute.*

-SOURCE-
    (Added Pub. L. 105-225, Sec. 2(a), Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1494;
    amended Pub. L. 107-293, Sec. 2(a), Nov. 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 2060.)

-MISC1-
*http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/04C1.txt*



*Texas pledge-of-allegiance law undermines democracy, critical thinking*

Texas pledge


Yup... I CONTINUE to use resources outside of my own opinion to bludgeon you about the head and neck.  GOOD JOB, dude.  Telling me just to DEAL WITH IT sure is profound after reading a FEDERAL STATUE that directly conflicts with the first fucknig amendment!


----------



## BrianH (Jun 13, 2008)

Shogun said:


> You are just not interested in reading today, are you?
> 
> 
> *
> ...



To be honest Shog, I agree with you.  I'm just seeing how riled up I can get you.  I know you are a little "sore" when it comes to religion...  I really like to watch you whip a dead horse 

Texas pledge

I just don't see the point of getting viscious about it....As long as you know what you believe, that's all that matters.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 13, 2008)

Do you really take me for the type of person to ignore facts and a constant stream of evidence?  God Be with you  (j/k)


----------



## manifold (Jun 13, 2008)

_tff_


----------



## Ravi (Jun 13, 2008)




----------



## BrianH (Jun 13, 2008)

manifold said:


> _tff_



Unfornunately, I've learned a little bit of your perferred tactics.


----------



## manifold (Jun 13, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Unfornunately, I've learned a little bit of your perferred tactics.




But apparently not my preference for correct spelling.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 13, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Unfornunately, I've learned a little bit of your perferred tactics.





Didn't you start out here shining Shog on?


----------



## BrianH (Jun 13, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Didn't you start out here shining Shog on?



Yeah, but that was before I actually got interested in debating on the boards.  cuckoo.   I agree with Shog, I just laugh at his "passion" sometimes.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 13, 2008)

manifold said:


> But apparently not my preference for correct spelling.



sorry, prefer


----------



## Ravi (Jun 13, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Yeah, but that was before I actually got interested in debating on the boards.  cuckoo.   I agree with Shog, I just laugh at his "passion" sometimes.



The Passion of Anti-Christ


----------



## BrianH (Jun 13, 2008)

Sorry, SHog, these board have been lacking a little humor lately.  I've been googling the pledge of allegiance and state statutes for a couple of days now...I just wanted to see what all you'd bring up and if you found similar things to what I have.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 13, 2008)

Ravi said:


> The Passion of Anti-Christ



You got that right.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 13, 2008)

of course you agree with me.  I am Shogun.


[youtube]qMwPrdILEJ4[/youtube]


----------



## Taomon (Jun 13, 2008)

dread said:


> PORTLAND, Ore. - The exclusion of the Pledge of Allegiance from a southwest Portland elementary school's ceremony has proved upsetting for a local mom.
> 
> Departing fifth-graders at Capitol Hill Elementary usually open their promotion ceremony with the Pledge of Allegiance but not this year.
> 
> ...



Pledging allegiance to a flag is basically idolatry. The school is right for dropping the pledge. There is no need to indoctrinate the children until they have been taught enough about our country and their civil liberties to determine for themselves.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 13, 2008)

More Like

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Rtm8w3o63AA&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Rtm8w3o63AA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Just Kidding


----------



## manifold (Jun 13, 2008)

Funny flick.  Better than it gets credit for.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 13, 2008)

It is not idolatry. Nobody pledges allegience to the flag and thinks the flag itself is a god. Though of course by leaving in the "under God" you can make that perfectly clear....


----------



## Taomon (Jun 13, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> It is not idolatry. Nobody pledges allegience to the flag and thinks the flag itself is a god. Though of course by leaving in the "under God" you can make that perfectly clear....



That all depends on your interpretation of the 10 Commandments. And there are those of us who believe that it is blasphemous. You are a reborn-Christian and have espoused very radical (and rather foolish) ideas and interpretations. I find it surprising that you would question me on this.

Or are you arguing simply because it is me who said it?

But getting back on track, having children say the pledge without defining the true meaning behind it is indoctrination, pure and simple.

And that is why people from the military become incensed whenever someone makes a statement, political or otherwise, that denounces the Pledge or questions it.

If we are truly a free nation, then there is no need for pledging allegiance to the flag, government or Constitution. So it begs us to wonder why it is so important to have school aged children reciting a pledge that is basically meaningless to them.

Look at where the pledge came from...Congress passed a law requiring schools to say it because of the Red Scare. So in the eyes of 1950's Congress...we are as free as we want so long as we agree with Congress. No room for socialist ideas, no room for anything but capitalism.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 13, 2008)

Honestly, I didn't have a clue who wrote the post. I don't pay that much attention, unless something jumps out at me.

I know there are Jehovah's witnesses who won't say the pledge, and others. So what? I never said that children should be forced to say the pledge. But if you're going to put kids in a federally funded school, I think one of the things they should be exposed to is the pledge of allegience.


----------



## Taomon (Jun 13, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Honestly, I didn't have a clue who wrote the post. I don't pay that much attention, unless something jumps out at me.
> 
> I know there are Jehovah's witnesses who won't say the pledge, and others. So what? I never said that children should be forced to say the pledge. But if you're going to put kids in a federally funded school, I think one of the things they should be exposed to is the pledge of allegience.



Wrong! Because it is a public school, that is exactly the reason why they should not be indoctrinated at all, and that is what the Pledge of Allegiance is...indoctrination.

No, the children in Federally funded schools should be taught civics, not indoctrination.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 13, 2008)

You're an anti-American idiot pig.

You can argue all day that anything kids are taught about anything is "indoctrination" but the fact of the matter is, if they're living in the US and attending FEDERALLY FUNDED SCHOOLS they should be EXPOSED to a few things which might actually make them proud, and which establish a standard for pride and behavior.


----------



## Taomon (Jun 13, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> You're an anti-American idiot pig.
> 
> You can argue all day that anything kids are taught about anything is "indoctrination" but the fact of the matter is, if they're living in the US and attending FEDERALLY FUNDED SCHOOLS they should be EXPOSED to a few things which might actually make them proud, and which establish a standard for pride and behavior.



I agree that children should be taught a few things to be proud of...that would be covered in civics classes, which are being phased out for standardized testing curricula. 

Why do you insist that I am anti-American? Just because I don't think people should blindly lockstep with our government? Have you seen what our government actually does?

I am proud to be American and ashamed of what we as a nation have done to innocent people. Like the Native American Indians. What will we teach our children about the genocide of these noble people in the name of empire expansion and capitalist gains? The same tired stories about how we helped them and how we were all friends on Thanksgiving? Nothing about the slaughter, the rape, the pillage, the forced concentration camps...I mean reservations.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 13, 2008)

You are anti-American because you're ashamed of the GOOD things we've done, and refuse to see the good.
You are anti-American because you think Americans are terrorists and don't mind when they are targeted and killed by their enemies.

And please don't even get me started on the whole "Noble People" thing. What a moron. There is no such thing. The British are "noble people". The Germans are "noble people". The Millers in Podunk, Idaho are "noble people". Nobody is noble because of their GENETICS, you anti-american, racist idiot.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 13, 2008)

Taomon said:


> I agree that children should be taught a few things to be proud of...that would be covered in civics classes, which are being phased out for standardized testing curricula.
> 
> Why do you insist that I am anti-American? Just because I don't think people should blindly lockstep with our government? Have you seen what our government actually does?
> 
> I am proud to be American and ashamed of what we as a nation have done to innocent people. Like the Native American Indians. What will we teach our children about the genocide of these noble people in the name of empire expansion and capitalist gains? The same tired stories about how we helped them and how we were all friends on Thanksgiving? Nothing about the slaughter, the rape, the pillage, the forced concentration camps...I mean reservations.



Yeah, that's the way to build an apreciation for your country.  There is a system to running a civilization, and when you raise kids telling them that their ancestors were horrible people and that the blood running in their veins stems from a genocidal era, I'm sure it will only bring out the worst in society.  Nobody learns these things as children..., it's the same as not letting your kid watch a XXX film.  History is rated X Taomon, and as long as you teach your children (when they're old enough) how history goes, then you don't have a problem.  But changing elementary and junior high curricula is a little far-fetched and too politically correct.  Every civilization, just like the human race itself, has a system set on self-preservation.  If you raise the children of the nation to hate the things it's done, they'll all defect to another nation, or destroy the one they live in.  I think the system is fine.  Basic history is taught in the lower levels, and deep history is taught at the higher levels.  The problem is that teachers are required to teach curricula that does not allow them to get into debth.  Try teaching 200,000 + years in 187 days and then expect them to pass a standardized tests.  Curricula is fine, but it needs to be spread out.  And the really bad problem, is that most schools now days are pushing math and science and leaving Social Studies on the back-burner...


----------



## jillian (Jun 14, 2008)

Some people just have to fight authority at every turn, regardless of whether something's a big deal or not.  Unfortunately, they *indoctrinate* their children to do the same so they spend their lives tilting windmills instead of choosing their battles.


----------



## Taomon (Jun 14, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> You are anti-American because you're ashamed of the GOOD things we've done, and refuse to see the good.
> You are anti-American because you think Americans are terrorists and don't mind when they are targeted and killed by their enemies.
> 
> And please don't even get me started on the whole "Noble People" thing. What a moron. There is no such thing. The British are "noble people". The Germans are "noble people". The Millers in Podunk, Idaho are "noble people". Nobody is noble because of their GENETICS, you anti-american, racist idiot.


Wow, that is not a very Christian attitude to have.


----------



## Taomon (Jun 14, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Yeah, that's the way to build an apreciation for your country.  There is a system to running a civilization, and when you raise kids telling them that their ancestors were horrible people and that the blood running in their veins stems from a genocidal era, I'm sure it will only bring out the worst in society.  Nobody learns these things as children..., it's the same as not letting your kid watch a XXX film.  History is rated X Taomon, and as long as you teach your children (when they're old enough) how history goes, then you don't have a problem.  But changing elementary and junior high curricula is a little far-fetched and too politically correct.  Every civilization, just like the human race itself, has a system set on self-preservation.  If you raise the children of the nation to hate the things it's done, they'll all defect to another nation, or destroy the one they live in.  I think the system is fine.  Basic history is taught in the lower levels, and deep history is taught at the higher levels.  The problem is that teachers are required to teach curricula that does not allow them to get into debth.  Try teaching 200,000 + years in 187 days and then expect them to pass a standardized tests.  Curricula is fine, but it needs to be spread out.  And the really bad problem, is that most schools now days are pushing math and science and leaving Social Studies on the back-burner...



So continue to lie to the children? Japan and China doesn't seem to have a problem but we do? It's because we are lazy. Corporate America and the government do not want us to be too smart, just smart enough to work in production.

But your point about standardized tests, why do we need them again? Accountability? Everyone learns differently and we nee to cater to those differences, not punish the children and the schools because there is a disconnect.


----------



## Taomon (Jun 14, 2008)

jillian said:


> Some people just have to fight authority at every turn, regardless of whether something's a big deal or not.  Unfortunately, they *indoctrinate* their children to do the same so they spend their lives tilting windmills instead of choosing their battles.



Oh I see. So I am fighting imaginary monsters Jillian? You don't see a problem with enforcing a Pledge of Allegiance without giving the true history of it to the children so they understand what they are saying? There is an implied threat as well, ask any 5th grader (I have), if they do not say it they believe they will get into trouble. So the children do not have a choice. 

Are those the principals that our founding fathers wanted instilled in our children? Are those the principals that we must all blindly be proud of?

And I take offense to your insinuation that I am teaching my children to hate authority for the sake of hating authority. You don't know me nor my family so I will kindly ask that you refrain from commenting on us personally.


----------



## indago (Jun 14, 2008)

Considering the term allegiance, and the hierarchical relationship between the people, the State, and the federal government, as recorded in Article Ten of the Bill of Rights, the pledge of allegiance to the flag, and to the United States, should be abolished.  All who work for government should be required, every morning, to pledge their allegiance to the people whom they serve; and to reaffirm their oath to uphold the Constitution.  This would be a daily reminder of their status, and their servile position.  It is predictable that their attitude would change.


----------



## editec (Jun 14, 2008)

Let's deconstruct the pledge including the changes that have been made it, just to ask ourselves what it really means shall we?

We are demanding that our kids bind themselves (intellectually or emotionally) to THIS country.

They are KIDS, let's remember, but we are forcing them to swear an OATH loooooooog before they understand the what they are really doing. 

We are* demanding *that they recite a pledge that few of them really understand (at least in the first four or five years of school) _every day._


And *that,* it could be argued, is a psychological conditioning (AKA brain washing).

Constantly repeating something -- even something you don't really understand -- still does have an effect on you... _no matter how old you are._  Even more so if you're repeating the same thing _as a child._

Constantly repeating "facts"  like: 

_the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, *under God indivisible*, with *Liberty and Justice *for all."_

is propagandizing and psychological conditioning, too


Understanding the above, then one is probably likely to ask:  _*Is this a psychological condition that we WANT to put our children in?*_

I pose the above  *as a question *because it IS debatable.

There _are _good arguments for why we should do this, and equally good arguments for why we should _NOT_ do this to CHILDREN, I think.

So let's look at how the pledge has changed over the years, because that really shows us that we decided to change the content of that conditioning.


1892 to 1923  


> I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.



This is an oath of allegiance and its purpose is really what?

Note the words "REPUBLIC" and  "INDIVISIBLE"?

Why do you all suppose that those word are there?  (_Hint...to remind people that the South didn't have the RIGHT to leave the union perhaps?)_

So this is MORE than a just an OATH allegiance to the Republic, it is ALSO hammering into the young minds that the STATES do not have the RIGHT to succeed from that union that formed the REPUBLIC.


Now note the text of the pledge as it changed again...



> 1923 to 1954
> "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."



Why did they add words "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" and in effect diminish the value of the word REPUBLIC?  

I really don't know why. Perhaps it is meaningless...but I doubt that.  This is  _sotto voce_  jingoism.

I'm actually not sure that was such a good idea. Maybe I'm just partial to telling kids that we live in a Republic because I think THAT is more important than the name of the Republic.  It's a debatable point. 

Finally the last change..




> 1954 to Present
> "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, under God indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."



"one nation" 

Not 50 states, *one nation*)

"Under GOD" 

It _is? _ Okay if you say so, and if I have to say so every _day,_ that MUST be true, right?  It is if you've been saying it hundreds of times a year since you were five, it is.  Brain washing.

indivisible" 

No states can leave the UNITED states of AMERICA, folks.  There it is AGAIN

"with liberty and justice for all" 

Come on now. We all know that really isn't the case. But hey, maybe that's just our way of telling kids that's what we'd like?  that is the least offensive thing I can say about making kids repeat what is essentially a big fat LIE every day.  


The pledge of allegiance is a *mantra,* a *psychological tool to brainwash or indoctrinate *our children.

We do this to them long  before they can KNOW anything about what it is they are being asked to accept as FACTS.

1. They owe alliance to:

*the United States*

*A republic*

_* indivisible*_

*UNDER GOD *

Which entitles them to liberty and justice. (kinda)

FWIW, I LIKE the pledge.

I also love my country.

Perhaps the fact that I had to repeat that mantra every day I was in school might explain WHY I love this nation _warts and all_, as much as I do.

Certainly it must be PART of the reason I feel such an affection for this nation which I know perfectly well doesn't offer LIBERTY and JUSTICE for all.


----------



## indago (Jun 14, 2008)

*editec has edicted:*


> Perhaps the fact that I had to repeat that mantra every day I was in school might explain WHY I love this nation _warts and all_, as much as I do.
> 
> Certainly it must be PART of the reason I feel such an affection for this nation which I know perfectly well doesn't offer LIBERTY and JUSTICE for all.



You are saying, then, that *ROTE* has created "an affection for this nation", adding to this the fact that this nation "doesn't offer LIBERTY and JUSTICE for all"?


----------



## editec (Jun 14, 2008)

> You are saying, then, that ROTE has created "an affection for this nation", adding to this the fact that this nation "doesn't offer LIBERTY and JUSTICE for all"?



Yes, that is essantially what I am saying.

Psychological conditioning by rote repeating of a statements does condition the mind to accept the truth of whatever has been repeated.

This is not some conspiriacy theory, this is a well known fact of human psychology.

That is exactly why corporations spend billions on advertising, too.

Same basic principle. 

Psychological conditioning by rote exposure is a highly effective tool for marketing toothpaste, _or patriotism. _


----------



## Taomon (Jun 14, 2008)

editec said:


> Let's deconstruct the pledge including the changes that have been made it, just to ask ourselves what it really means shall we?
> 
> We are demanding that our kids bind themselves (intellectually or emotionally) to THIS country.
> 
> ...


----------



## Abelian Sea (Jun 14, 2008)

I would have a problem with the pledge ritual if it were either harmful or intense.

It is certainly conditioning. But that is not inherently a bad thing. Kids _need_ some conditioning to grow into even half-decent adults. Every human society indoctrinates to some exent; it's natural and it's necessary for the long term stability of social institutions.

Intense, highly coersive conditioning rankles. It's debasing. The pledge ritual, though, is extremely mild; it is neither strenuous nor humiliating. And it is not draconically enforced, at least not that I've heard of or experienced. Sure you get in trouble if you're an ass about it, but you always get in trouble for being disruptive in school; quietly not participating will get you privately talked to but not punished. It is also trivially easy to avoid saying the pledge without drawing attention to yourself; just move your lips and mumble.

And what ideas is the pledge conditioning kids to accept? Loyalty to their country, the unity of that country, monotheistic piety, and the notion that their country is just and free.

Loyalty: Blind loyalty is unpalatable, but most young kids are in no position to make a well-considered decision about which country they'd most like to support, or whether to support either anarchy or some kind of one-world-goverment-ism. They're also not inclined to put much thought into the matter; they're kids, they're way more interested in their personal lives than such abstract considerations. In other words, they are blind to begin with, and it will take them years to accumulate the knowledge and experience necessary to think critically and well about it (and those that are sophisticated enough to start doing so in elemenetary school are also sophisticated enough to see through the pledge ritual like a plane of glass, and either dance around it or really mean it). So these kids are going to be blindly loyal, blindly indifferent, or blindly rebellious. What's the harm in having them start out as loyal?

Unity: It's a big country; most states are the natural size of nations, and there are noticeable differences between them. The idea that they're truly all one nation bears some repeating.

Piety: This one is odd among the secularism of public schools, and, ostensibly, government in general; I do find this part slightly objectionable as it makes my "wall of seperation" senses tingle. But culturally this is an extremely religious nation, and it's good for even athiest kids to learn (1) there is, as a practical matter, a hell of a lot of God in their government, and (2) how to live with tendrils of religious faith in their public ceremonies. For the kids of religious families it's all gravy. I wouldn't mind seeing this part go but I don't think its terribly harmful.

Liberty and Justice: "For all" is a stretch of course (no system's perfect), but these are exactly the things this country was mainly meant to facilitate, and, I think, excellent ideals to turn young minds towards. (when I was a kid, this is that part of the pledge where I felt a swell of pride - insofar as my country upholds these ideals - and commitment - inasmuch as I wanted it to better at upholding them and realizing that my just-sworn allegiance means that it's partially my job to see that it does)


----------



## editec (Jun 14, 2008)

> It is certainly conditioning. But that is not inherently a bad thing. Kids need some conditioning to grow into even half-decent adults. Every human society indoctrinates to some exent; it's natural and it's necessary for the long term stability of social institutions.



Yup.  Much of what we do to our children (consciously or unconsiously) is conditioning them.  

so the question obviously isn't should we instill them with values and beliefs, but what values and beliefs should we impose on their young minds.



> The pledge ritual, though, is extremely mild; it is neither strenuous nor humiliating. And it is not draconically enforced, at least not that I've heard of or experienced



Agreed.



> Loyalty: Blind loyalty is unpalatable,



You betcha!



> but most young kids are in no position to make a well-considered decision about which country they'd most like to support, or whether to support either anarchy or some kind of one-world-goverment-ism. They're also not inclined to put much thought into the matter; they're kids, they're way more interested in their personal lives than such abstract considerations. In other words, they are blind to begin with, and it will take them years to accumulate the knowledge and experience necessary to think critically and well about it (and those that are sophisticated enough to start doing so in elemenetary school are also sophisticated enough to see through the pledge ritual like a plane of glass, and either dance around it or really mean it). So these kids are going to be blindly loyal, blindly indifferent, or blindly rebellious.



Insightful.  



> What's the harm in having them start out as loyal?



Again, agreed. It probably is far preferable to make young kids think their world is not a place filled with conflicting opinions.. at least to start out.  

And since the pledge is fairly mild stuff, and not too dogmatic, the argument might be made that is is actually_ beneficial _to them to understand that they are citizens of SOMETHING called a republic, even if they aren't ready to appreciate what that really means.

Great retort, Abelian.

You clearly understood where I was going with my musings.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 15, 2008)

Taomon said:


> So continue to lie to the children? Japan and China doesn't seem to have a problem but we do? It's because we are lazy. Corporate America and the government do not want us to be too smart, just smart enough to work in production.But your point about standardized tests, why do we need them again? Accountability? Everyone learns differently and we nee to cater to those differences, not punish the children and the schools because there is a disconnect.


Dude you have a comprehension problem.** I don't agree with standardized testing to the level that it's being abused in today's school system.* But, you do have to be accountable for what you learn, whether you have different way of learning or not...correct.* Do you think that teachers should just blurt out information and expect that the students understand and never test them on it?* The curriculum is not broken, but it's relationship to time given is, this is what needs fixing. They expect you to teach 4 million years of World History in 187 days....good luck getting deep into the specifics of that....And let us do show the X rated version of history to 5th graders.* I'm sure they'd love to see an Arabs head blown off....Maybe you are for showing atrocities, but it's not appropriate until the students are old enough to understand them...* Soldiers (who have been trained extensively) have problem with seeing such things, and you want to teach and show this to kids??? * The actual information the kids learn is fine, but the time allowed for teaching such matter is what needs a change.  If more time is allowed to get deeper into events, then one could discuss events in more detail.  But since time is so constrained, would you rather say...."the U.S. expanded to the Pacific"....or "The U.S. murdered all of the Indians and killed women and children and took their land, this is why we are hear children.  ALl of your ancestors are murders and you're related to them.  Let's move on now..."  Can you imagine the kind of kids you're going to impress?? The curricula is fine, but more time is needed to get more into detail about historical events.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 15, 2008)

dread said:


> PORTLAND, Ore. - The exclusion of the Pledge of Allegiance from a southwest Portland elementary school's ceremony has proved upsetting for a local mom.
> 
> Departing fifth-graders at Capitol Hill Elementary usually open their promotion ceremony with the Pledge of Allegiance but not this year.
> 
> ...



It wasn't till Eisenhower messed with it.


----------



## eots (Jun 15, 2008)

how about we have students read the bill of rights and the Constitution every morning.........oh  wait a minute ...that might cause dissent ...never mind


----------



## Anguille (Jun 24, 2008)

eots said:


> how about we have students read the bill of rights and the Constitution every morning.........oh  wait a minute ...that might cause dissent ...never mind



It would. More students would realize that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional and being good citizens, they would refuse to say it.


----------



## editec (Jun 24, 2008)

eots said:


> how about we have students read the bill of rights and the Constitution every morning.........oh wait a minute ...that might cause dissent ...never mind


 

Maybe not the whole damned thing in one fell swoop but parts of it.

I _like _this idea, to be honest.


----------

