Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have no problem empathizing and respecting other points of view and neither did Jesus...
The rules do not require the children to participate in the daily pledge, but by virtue of their non-participation, these kids were made a spectacle of, which made them feel ostracized in the public classroom.
Jesus didn't forsake nor compromise His belief because of empathy.
And the children stated they felt ostracized?
Let's say they feel that way. Who's fault is it? The teacher? The parents? The pledge itself?
you have to give it to get it
Well, there you go. Should be the thread killer.
Pretty much shows that certain groups of people do not want to teach their children about common respect.........
I'll type slowly so perhaps you can understand.
I don't answer hypotheticals especially ones that are so far from reality.
And yes I called you a coward.
I'll type even slower so perhaps you man up and stop being so scared on an anonymous message board.
If. The. Pledge. Endorsed. The. Non. Existence. Of. A. God. You. Would. Be. Throwing. A. Hissy. Fit.
But, like all blatant hypocrites, they want their way imposed on everyone but cry foul when the same thing is done to them.
I don't have to call you a coward, your fear of answering a hypothetical question on an anonmyous message board is you broadcasting to everyone that you're a coward.
When your opinion of me matters, then I'll worry. But don't hold your breath.
It's all bullshit. No One is forcing Anyone to say the Pledge, let alone Under God. Never mind that We were founded on Inalienable Right's, which most of us acknowledge are from God. It's about conformity to their will, no matter how few in number they are.
The point Del made which bears repeating, imagine a non-believer kid who doesn't believe in god being singled out because he's either sitting or standing and not saying the pledge.
Keeping that kid from being prejudiced against, i.e. minority rights, is more important than making sure we have children in a secular society recite a religious phrase.
Majority, minority, couldn't matter less in a republic which protects everyone's rights.
Our society is not secular.
Why should the majority cave in to the minority?
We should omit the word to respect their beliefs?
Why can't they accept the word and respect our beliefs?
Where is the tolerance?
I think the majority has tolerated the nonsense of the minority for far too long.
One, it is not a matter of majority.
Two, respect has to go both ways.
But respect doesn't go both ways. Now does it?
It's all bullshit. No One is forcing Anyone to say the Pledge, let alone Under God. Never mind that We were founded on Inalienable Right's, which most of us acknowledge are from God. It's about conformity to their will, no matter how few in number they are.
The point Del made which bears repeating, imagine a non-believer kid who doesn't believe in god being singled out because he's either sitting or standing and not saying the pledge.
Keeping that kid from being prejudiced against, i.e. minority rights, is more important than making sure we have children in a secular society recite a religious phrase.
Majority, minority, couldn't matter less in a republic which protects everyone's rights.
Except that the phrase is not religious. It requires nobody to believe anything. It does not define who or what "God" is and suggests no doctrine or dogma of any kind. If a child (or anybody else) says I don't believe in God, all any teacher has to say is that at least one or two of the Founders didn't either. But for want of a better expression, they all agreed that unalienable rights are God given; i.e. are not invented and imparted by humankind. This country was founded on the principle that we all are endowed with certain rights that no government and no people may take away from us or deny us. Thus "God" is a historical concept.
There is every bit as much right to use that historical context as there is to choose to not use it. And because it causes no harm and violates nobody's rights, we should not allow a tyranny of a few who choose to be offended by to deny the majority who like it being there from saying it.
Except that the phrase is not religious. It requires nobody to believe anything. It does not define who or what "God" is and suggests no doctrine or dogma of any kind. If a child (or anybody else) says I don't believe in God, all any teacher has to say is that at least one or two of the Founders didn't either. But for want of a better expression, they all agreed that unalienable rights are God given; i.e. are not invented and imparted by humankind. This country was founded on the principle that we all are endowed with certain rights that no government and no people may take away from us or deny us. Thus "God" is a historical concept.
There is every bit as much right to use that historical context as there is to choose to not use it. And because it causes no harm and violates nobody's rights, we should not allow a tyranny of a few who choose to be offended by to deny the majority who like it being there from saying it.
The pledge as it's written is assuming the existence of a god, whatever your definition of a god is.
That's a religious view, a view not everyone has.
If someone likes stating something in school that assumes there's a god, they have all the right in the world to do it on their own time without alienating those who don't assume the existence of a god.
Sigh. The pledge is written assuming that the country was founded on a principle of God given rights and it is those very god given rights acknowledged and protected by our government that is the entire basis of American exceptionalism. I have as much right to my historical perspective and to acknowledge it as you have the right to omit 'under God' when you say the Pledge if you interpret the phrase differently than it was intended.
There is no requirement of any kind to believe in any kind of God via the pledge, or say the words if you don't believe them and therefore it violates nobody's rights.
Shall we scrap the National Anthem because the fourth verse mentions God and recites the national motto: "In God we trust"?
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the wars desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heavn rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: In God is our trust.
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
Oer the land of the free and the home of the brave!
No I wasn't upset in the slightest. As a matter of fact when I made that comment I was almost in a state of hysterics laughing so hard at your moronic claim.
And as I said, I don't answer hypothetical questions especially ones that are so far out of the realm of reality.
So clearly you had a strong emotional reaction to a post, I've never had one such reaction to any post on here.
So you're admitting that your emotions are affected far stronger than mine when it comes to reading posts on your screen, so your panties being in a wad makes far more sense.
Oh and another thing, you're a liar. Obviously you weren't "almost in a state of hysterics."
A liar who's such a pantywaist he's scared to answer hypotheticals on an anonymous message board. I'm sure your wife makes all the grown up decisions in your house, with no respect for your input.
johnny reb jr is thin-skinned. Same thing w/ Lilrebnyc1775
I have no problem empathizing and respecting other points of view and neither did Jesus...
The rules do not require the children to participate in the daily pledge, but by virtue of their non-participation, these kids were made a spectacle of, which made them feel ostracized in the public classroom.
Jesus didn't forsake nor compromise His belief because of empathy.
And the children stated they felt ostracized?
Let's say they feel that way. Who's fault is it? The teacher? The parents? The pledge itself?
Exactly. All children should be expected to rise and stand during the Pledge as a matter of courtesy for custom just as children should not be allowed to interrupt the teacher or disrupt the class as a matter of courtesy. But any teacher that would allow a child to be ostracized or made a spectacle because he or she did not recite the Pledge or any part of it should be fired because that teacher would not be maintaining discipline in his/her clasds and would not be doing his/her job.
The pledge as it's written is assuming the existence of a god, whatever your definition of a god is.
That's a religious view, a view not everyone has.
If someone likes stating something in school that assumes there's a god, they have all the right in the world to do it on their own time without alienating those who don't assume the existence of a god.
Sigh. The pledge is written assuming that the country was founded on a principle of God given rights and it is those very god given rights acknowledged and protected by our government that is the entire basis of American exceptionalism. I have as much right to my historical perspective and to acknowledge it as you have the right to omit 'under God' when you say the Pledge if you interpret the phrase differently than it was intended.
There is no requirement of any kind to believe in any kind of God via the pledge, or say the words if you don't believe them and therefore it violates nobody's rights.
Shall we scrap the National Anthem because the fourth verse mentions God and recites the national motto: "In God we trust"?
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
the pledge was written without the words *under god* so to assert that it was written with some assumption "that the country was founded on a principle of God given rights" is nothing more or less than a lie.
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). . . .
. . . .His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]
Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
The Pledge of Allegiance - A Short History
Sigh. The pledge is written assuming that the country was founded on a principle of God given rights and it is those very god given rights acknowledged and protected by our government that is the entire basis of American exceptionalism. I have as much right to my historical perspective and to acknowledge it as you have the right to omit 'under God' when you say the Pledge if you interpret the phrase differently than it was intended.
There is no requirement of any kind to believe in any kind of God via the pledge, or say the words if you don't believe them and therefore it violates nobody's rights.
Shall we scrap the National Anthem because the fourth verse mentions God and recites the national motto: "In God we trust"?
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the wars desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heavn rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: In God is our trust.
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
Oer the land of the free and the home of the brave!
the pledge was written without the words *under god* so to assert that it was written with some assumption "that the country was founded on a principle of God given rights" is nothing more or less than a lie.
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). . . .
. . . .His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]
Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
The Pledge of Allegiance - A Short History
So, the people recited various versions of the pledge without the words 'under God' for 62 years.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge.
So we have been reciting the pledge with the words 'under God' for 58 years.
Has the nation become a theocracy? Has any religion been established? Has anybody been punished or disciplined or denied any privilege or opportunity because of the words in the Pledge? Has anybody been granted any special privileges or considerations because of the words in the Pledge?
If not, then the Pledge is constitutional and most American like it the way it is. When most Americans want the phrase 'under God' removed, it will be gone. It is as simple as that. It is the basis of our entire Constitution and the nation built on its back that the people themselves determine what sort of society they wish to have.
That nation is founded on the principle that no tyranny of a majority can deny anybody his/her unalienable rights.
That nation is also founded on the principle that there be no tyranny of a minority as exists when there is authoritarian government assigning us the rights that we can have.
The phrase 'under God' harms, coerces, or disrespects nobody. And the minority who despise religion should not be able to impose their will upon the rest of us and deny us our unalienable right to have the Pledge we want.
the pledge was written without the words *under god* so to assert that it was written with some assumption "that the country was founded on a principle of God given rights" is nothing more or less than a lie.
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). . . .
. . . .His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]
Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
The Pledge of Allegiance - A Short History
So, the people recited various versions of the pledge without the words 'under God' for 62 years.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge.
So we have been reciting the pledge with the words 'under God' for 58 years.
Has the nation become a theocracy? Has any religion been established? Has anybody been punished or disciplined or denied any privilege or opportunity because of the words in the Pledge? Has anybody been granted any special privileges or considerations because of the words in the Pledge?
If not, then the Pledge is constitutional and most American like it the way it is. When most Americans want the phrase 'under God' removed, it will be gone. It is as simple as that. It is the basis of our entire Constitution and the nation built on its back that the people themselves determine what sort of society they wish to have.
That nation is founded on the principle that no tyranny of a majority can deny anybody his/her unalienable rights.
That nation is also founded on the principle that there be no tyranny of a minority as exists when there is authoritarian government assigning us the rights that we can have.
The phrase 'under God' harms, coerces, or disrespects nobody. And the minority who despise religion should not be able to impose their will upon the rest of us and deny us our unalienable right to have the Pledge we want.
One doesn't have to despise religion to not believe in a god.
I agree children should have the unalienable right to say a pledge in a public school, but gov't shouldn't be subjecting kids to ridicule or prejudice for not believing or acknowledging that a god exists. If they want to say a pledge, they should do it during their free time at school. That way, no way is having their views restricted or endorsed in any marginal way.
So, the people recited various versions of the pledge without the words 'under God' for 62 years.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge.
So we have been reciting the pledge with the words 'under God' for 58 years.
Has the nation become a theocracy? Has any religion been established? Has anybody been punished or disciplined or denied any privilege or opportunity because of the words in the Pledge? Has anybody been granted any special privileges or considerations because of the words in the Pledge?
If not, then the Pledge is constitutional and most American like it the way it is. When most Americans want the phrase 'under God' removed, it will be gone. It is as simple as that. It is the basis of our entire Constitution and the nation built on its back that the people themselves determine what sort of society they wish to have.
That nation is founded on the principle that no tyranny of a majority can deny anybody his/her unalienable rights.
That nation is also founded on the principle that there be no tyranny of a minority as exists when there is authoritarian government assigning us the rights that we can have.
The phrase 'under God' harms, coerces, or disrespects nobody. And the minority who despise religion should not be able to impose their will upon the rest of us and deny us our unalienable right to have the Pledge we want.
One doesn't have to despise religion to not believe in a god.
I agree children should have the unalienable right to say a pledge in a public school, but gov't shouldn't be subjecting kids to ridicule or prejudice for not believing or acknowledging that a god exists. If they want to say a pledge, they should do it during their free time at school. That way, no way is having their views restricted or endorsed in any marginal way.
So you would do away with the Pledge as a daily or weekly exercise for school children altogether? So noted.
just because it's constitutional doesn't make it right, imo.
flag burning is also constitutional, as is being a nazi.
just because it's constitutional doesn't make it right, imo.
flag burning is also constitutional, as is being a nazi.
I've never said it was right or wrong........
Other than I believe one should show the proper respect.
Flag Burning is a whole other matter..........We don't really want to get into that on this thread........
just because it's constitutional doesn't make it right, imo.
flag burning is also constitutional, as is being a nazi.
I've never said it was right or wrong........
Other than I believe one should show the proper respect.
Flag Burning is a whole other matter..........We don't really want to get into that on this thread........
why? it's not illegal or unconstitutional and requires no mention of god.
I've never said it was right or wrong........
Other than I believe one should show the proper respect.
Flag Burning is a whole other matter..........We don't really want to get into that on this thread........
why? it's not illegal or unconstitutional and requires no mention of god.
Because I support a constitutional amendment changing that........... And that would deserve a whole different thread which it probably has had in the past.........
