one nation, under god

[Foxfyre]

ACTON (CBS) – The Pledge of Allegiance is becoming a sore subject in the Acton-Boxborough school district, all because of the words “under God.”

“Atheists and Humanists do not accept the notion of God,” says attorney David Niose.

An Acton family, who is atheist and chooses to remain anonymous, is suing the school district claiming they are discriminating against their children during the pledge. They want the words “under God” taken out

Acton Family Wants “Under God” Removed From Pledge Of Allegiance « CBS Boston

thoughts?

No one is forced to say "under God."

If one was (even as a Christian) I would be pissed...

The simple fact the line exists means nothing - not to mention "separation of church and state" is a fucking myth anyways.

I'm more perplexed by the notion 70% of retards actually believe the idea of "separation of church and state" is some form of legislation...

If people are too fucking dumb to know their rights, then they should have no rights..

be careful what you wish for, fermi

While I agree with where I think Mr. Nick was coming from, I agree with this too. The concept of unalienable rights are that they are "God given"; i.e. they exist whether they are recognized and protected or not. So, the Founders intended that unalienable rights of all Americans be secured whether or not they knew what their rights are.

The Pledge is an American custom, not a matter of law. It requires nobody to profess anything nor does it require participation of anybody. There are no rewards for saying it or consequences for not saying it. Re our rights whether those are unalienable, legal, civil, or constitutional, nobody's rights are violated by hearing the Pledge recited.

As to whether a child should be required to rise when the Pledge is recited, that is a matter of courtesy, not coercion. It is a matter of courtesy as much as saying "May I. . .", Please, Thankyou, not interrupting when somebody else is talking, not disrupting the class and any other normal expectations in a civil society.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Foxfyre, one word. Nonsense. We will let the courts decide.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Right because having god in our pledge means our society will be better for it. Thats just fucking stupid. You god people have no moral high ground when it comes to being civil in this world. So go blow that sorry argument someplace else.

They put god in for political reasons in 54. Now i am forces to deal with it regardless of my feelings on the subject. We are not a theology, nor should we be ever. The best government is the one who tolerates all( minus criminals and the like) and appeases to everyone. Having the word god does not appease everyone and singles out a select group.

So my cbild will be forced to stand for something he may not believe in? Because you need to be respected? What about his respect? That just gets tossed out the window because "it doesnt harm anyone".

Fuck you.

The reading dysfunction demonstrated by some of those on the Left never ceases to amaze me. I said, inferred, implied, or suggested nothing about society being the better for it if the Pledge is recited, nor did I include any notion of morality into the point made. I don't really expect somebody who responds to a perfectly civil post with a 'fuck you' to have the character or integrity to acknowledge that, however. (Maybe you will be the rare person to change my mind about that?)

What I did say is that it does not harm children in the least to show respect, courtesy and propriety of social custom and that applies to the Pledge as well as in numerous other situations.

As previously posted, the Pledge was recited without 'under God' in it for some 62 years prior to 1954. Nobody was harmed in the process. It has been recited with the phrase 'under God' in it now for about 58 years. Nobody has been harmed in the process. Nobody has changed their religion or religious beliefs because of it. No theocracy has developed. And according to a fairly recent poll, more than 90% of American like the Pledge the way it currently is.

Why should an angry, intolerant minority that is required to do nothing other than not interfere be able to deprive that 90+% of doing something they enjoy doing or find meaningful?

ok lets break down your words:
And ALL Americans will appreciate a higher quality of life and a more satisfying society if manners, common decency, respect, and courtesy are promoted in our shared culture.
From the start you dont declare if you re talking about the kids or the pledge. I assume you are tlking about the pledge because you know thats the topic at hand.

It does not harm children to be expected to rise when the flag passes by, to stand at attention during the National Anthem, or to stand respectfully when the Pledge is recited whether or not one believes in God or anything else.

This has nothing to do with the better of our nation either.

It did not harm us before 1954, it harmed nobody after 1954, and it harms nobody now

and more nothing..

So i can read your crap just fine. I know you didnt say anything about morals. I expanded on the issue and talked about it. not everything is about you skippy.

meh i really dont care about the rest of your drivel.

Anyone who would object to something as relatively benign as having students recite the Pledge of Allegiance should be ignored as one would ignore a belligerent child.

 

[Ravi]

Right because having god in our pledge means our society will be better for it. Thats just fucking stupid. You god people have no moral high ground when it comes to being civil in this world. So go blow that sorry argument someplace else.

They put god in for political reasons in 54. Now i am forces to deal with it regardless of my feelings on the subject. We are not a theology, nor should we be ever. The best government is the one who tolerates all( minus criminals and the like) and appeases to everyone. Having the word god does not appease everyone and singles out a select group.

So my cbild will be forced to stand for something he may not believe in? Because you need to be respected? What about his respect? That just gets tossed out the window because "it doesnt harm anyone".

Fuck you.

The reading dysfunction demonstrated by some of those on the Left never ceases to amaze me. I said, inferred, implied, or suggested nothing about society being the better for it if the Pledge is recited, nor did I include any notion of morality into the point made. I don't really expect somebody who responds to a perfectly civil post with a 'fuck you' to have the character or integrity to acknowledge that, however. (Maybe you will be the rare person to change my mind about that?)

What I did say is that it does not harm children in the least to show respect, courtesy and propriety of social custom and that applies to the Pledge as well as in numerous other situations.

As previously posted, the Pledge was recited without 'under God' in it for some 62 years prior to 1954. Nobody was harmed in the process. It has been recited with the phrase 'under God' in it now for about 58 years. Nobody has been harmed in the process. Nobody has changed their religion or religious beliefs because of it. No theocracy has developed. And according to a fairly recent poll, more than 90% of American like the Pledge the way it currently is.

Why should an angry, intolerant minority that is required to do nothing other than not interfere be able to deprive that 90+% of doing something they enjoy doing or find meaningful?

When you write "What I did say is that it does not harm children in the least to show respect, courtesy and propriety of social custom and that applies to the Pledge as well as in numerous other situations", I respectfully disagree.

To force a child to do something with which s/he is uncomfortable, with which her family is uncomfortable, and with which the decision is not through 50% plus one majority making, then, yes, that is wrong.

Yeah, that's how the priests got away with it....teaching kids to respect authority.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Progressives make tyranny an art form..

 

[Mr.Nick]

I love how progressives act like their disagreement even matters...

Like the constitution bends for opinions..

 

[editec]

Okay if you insist.

One nation UNDER ZEUS, bla bla bla.

There.

All better now?

 

[Two Thumbs]

ACTON (CBS) – The Pledge of Allegiance is becoming a sore subject in the Acton-Boxborough school district, all because of the words “under God.”

“Atheists and Humanists do not accept the notion of God,” says attorney David Niose.

An Acton family, who is atheist and chooses to remain anonymous, is suing the school district claiming they are discriminating against their children during the pledge. They want the words “under God” taken out

Acton Family Wants “Under God” Removed From Pledge Of Allegiance « CBS Boston

thoughts?

There is no law requiring anyone to say the Pledge.


Only people looking to be offended are offended.

 

[Douger]

I pledge allegiance to a flag. " Nurses, put this person in a straight jacket and take it to the psych ward for observation"

 

[Dr.Drock]

The reading dysfunction demonstrated by some of those on the Left never ceases to amaze me. I said, inferred, implied, or suggested nothing about society being the better for it if the Pledge is recited, nor did I include any notion of morality into the point made. I don't really expect somebody who responds to a perfectly civil post with a 'fuck you' to have the character or integrity to acknowledge that, however. (Maybe you will be the rare person to change my mind about that?)

What I did say is that it does not harm children in the least to show respect, courtesy and propriety of social custom and that applies to the Pledge as well as in numerous other situations.

As previously posted, the Pledge was recited without 'under God' in it for some 62 years prior to 1954. Nobody was harmed in the process. It has been recited with the phrase 'under God' in it now for about 58 years. Nobody has been harmed in the process. Nobody has changed their religion or religious beliefs because of it. No theocracy has developed. And according to a fairly recent poll, more than 90% of American like the Pledge the way it currently is.

Why should an angry, intolerant minority that is required to do nothing other than not interfere be able to deprive that 90+% of doing something they enjoy doing or find meaningful?

ok lets break down your words:
And ALL Americans will appreciate a higher quality of life and a more satisfying society if manners, common decency, respect, and courtesy are promoted in our shared culture.
From the start you dont declare if you re talking about the kids or the pledge. I assume you are tlking about the pledge because you know thats the topic at hand.

It does not harm children to be expected to rise when the flag passes by, to stand at attention during the National Anthem, or to stand respectfully when the Pledge is recited whether or not one believes in God or anything else.

This has nothing to do with the better of our nation either.

It did not harm us before 1954, it harmed nobody after 1954, and it harms nobody now

and more nothing..

So i can read your crap just fine. I know you didnt say anything about morals. I expanded on the issue and talked about it. not everything is about you skippy.

meh i really dont care about the rest of your drivel.

Anyone who would object to something as relatively benign as having students recite the Pledge of Allegiance should be ignored as one would ignore a belligerent child.

A kid shouldn't have to pledge allegiance to this country or give support to the existence of a god.

Just like a kid shouldn't be forced to pledge a lack of allegiance to this country or give support to the non-existence of a god.

See how that works? No hypocrisy whatsoever. Try it on for size.

 

[Liability]

I pledge allegiance to a flag. " Nurses, put this person in a straight jacket and take it to the psych ward for observation"

Booger says something touching on (but not quite making it to) rationality.

As a pure QUIBBLE, I have long deemed it kind of silly to pledge allegiance to the flag or to ANY other "symbol."

The Pledge goes ON to say, however, ". . . and to the Republic for which it STANDS."

That's the part I agree with. It is phrased poetically but a bit awkwardly.

But the general notion of pledging allegiance to our Republic is perfectly ok in my book.

 

[Foxfyre]

ok lets break down your words:
And ALL Americans will appreciate a higher quality of life and a more satisfying society if manners, common decency, respect, and courtesy are promoted in our shared culture.
From the start you dont declare if you re talking about the kids or the pledge. I assume you are tlking about the pledge because you know thats the topic at hand.

It does not harm children to be expected to rise when the flag passes by, to stand at attention during the National Anthem, or to stand respectfully when the Pledge is recited whether or not one believes in God or anything else.

This has nothing to do with the better of our nation either.

It did not harm us before 1954, it harmed nobody after 1954, and it harms nobody now

and more nothing..

So i can read your crap just fine. I know you didnt say anything about morals. I expanded on the issue and talked about it. not everything is about you skippy.

meh i really dont care about the rest of your drivel.

Anyone who would object to something as relatively benign as having students recite the Pledge of Allegiance should be ignored as one would ignore a belligerent child.

A kid shouldn't have to pledge allegiance to this country or give support to the existence of a god.

Just like a kid shouldn't be forced to pledge a lack of allegiance to this country or give support to the non-existence of a god.

See how that works? No hypocrisy whatsoever. Try it on for size.

You're absolutely right and that is why it is the policy EVERYWHERE that nobody, including kids, have to pledge allegiance to anything or give support to anything. That is what freedom looks like--the right to be an idiot, jerk, anti-patriot, or anything else one wishes to be.

But if we are truly free then those of us--the more than 90% of us--have just as much right to pledge allegance to whatever we wish, acknowledge whatever we wish, and speak whatever we wish.

If we do not have the right to compell you do do it no matter how rewarding or satisfying it is to us, then neither do you have a right to deny us the privilege of doing it just because you don't like it.

And school children are no more harmed by a requirement to be courteous re the flag, the Pledge, the National Anthem or whatever than they are harmed by a requirement to be respectful in every other area of their school experience. There is no requirement to share in the experience. But a requirement for civil conduct is not a bad thing for kids to learn very early on.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Anyone who would object to something as relatively benign as having students recite the Pledge of Allegiance should be ignored as one would ignore a belligerent child.

A kid shouldn't have to pledge allegiance to this country or give support to the existence of a god.

Just like a kid shouldn't be forced to pledge a lack of allegiance to this country or give support to the non-existence of a god.

See how that works? No hypocrisy whatsoever. Try it on for size.

You're absolutely right and that is why it is the policy EVERYWHERE that nobody, including kids, have to pledge allegiance to anything or give support to anything. That is what freedom looks like--the right to be an idiot, jerk, anti-patriot, or anything else one wishes to be.

But if we are truly free then those of us--the more than 90% of us--have just as much right to pledge allegance to whatever we wish, acknowledge whatever we wish, and speak whatever we wish.

If we do not have the right to compell you do do it no matter how rewarding or satisfying it is to us, then neither do you have a right to deny us the privilege of doing it just because you don't like it.

And school children are no more harmed by a requirement to be courteous re the flag, the Pledge, the National Anthem or whatever than they are harmed by a requirement to be respectful in every other area of their school experience. There is no requirement to share in the experience. But a requirement for civil conduct is not a bad thing for kids to learn very early on.

I still dunno why you keep bringing up percentages, I couldn't care less who the majority or minority is. Majorities and minorities have their rights protected.

Exactly why we shouldn't have gov't mandates for schools to say the pledge. If a student group wants to pledge allegiance to the country, to god, to allah or to satan they can do so on their own free time without having the pressure of a school system or teacher singling them out for not doing so.

You don't view it as harmful to be courteous to the flag, pledge or anthem, maybe a student would. Both rights should be equally respected by law.

 

[amrchaos]

I can't wait until God comes down from heaven and kick the Athiest ass!

 

[Foxfyre]

A kid shouldn't have to pledge allegiance to this country or give support to the existence of a god.

Just like a kid shouldn't be forced to pledge a lack of allegiance to this country or give support to the non-existence of a god.

See how that works? No hypocrisy whatsoever. Try it on for size.

You're absolutely right and that is why it is the policy EVERYWHERE that nobody, including kids, have to pledge allegiance to anything or give support to anything. That is what freedom looks like--the right to be an idiot, jerk, anti-patriot, or anything else one wishes to be.

But if we are truly free then those of us--the more than 90% of us--have just as much right to pledge allegance to whatever we wish, acknowledge whatever we wish, and speak whatever we wish.

If we do not have the right to compell you do do it no matter how rewarding or satisfying it is to us, then neither do you have a right to deny us the privilege of doing it just because you don't like it.

And school children are no more harmed by a requirement to be courteous re the flag, the Pledge, the National Anthem or whatever than they are harmed by a requirement to be respectful in every other area of their school experience. There is no requirement to share in the experience. But a requirement for civil conduct is not a bad thing for kids to learn very early on.

I still dunno why you keep bringing up percentages, I couldn't care less who the majority or minority is. Majorities and minorities have their rights protected.

Exactly why we shouldn't have gov't mandates for schools to say the pledge. If a student group wants to pledge allegiance to the country, to god, to allah or to satan they can do so on their own free time without having the pressure of a school system or teacher singling them out for not doing so.

You don't view it as harmful to be courteous to the flag, pledge or anthem, maybe a student would. Both rights should be equally respected by law.

I bring up percentage because there are no rights involved specifically regarding the Pledge, the National Anthem, or the flag, therefore the majority preference should determine whether such customs are followed or not. There is no federal mandate that the Pledge be recited or the flag displayed or the National Anthem played in the public schools. It is a preference for each school board or local community whether such traditions are followed or not.

I don't care how a student views courtesy. If a student does not wish to be courteous to others, then that student should be educated someplace that does not require courtesy. A tyranny of an angry, intolerant minority should not be able to deprive the majority of a custom that violates nobody's rights but is meaningful and important to that majority.

THAT is why I continue to bring up percentages. When a majority of the people do not want to recite the Pledge, salute the flag, or sing the National Anthem, those customs and traditions will be gone. It is as simple as that. Until then, those of you who don't appreciate the custom suck it up or go somewhere else to be educated.

Maybe the anti-patriots, Atheists, and similar types could start their own charter school and be as non traditional as they wish?

 

[Dr.Drock]

You're absolutely right and that is why it is the policy EVERYWHERE that nobody, including kids, have to pledge allegiance to anything or give support to anything. That is what freedom looks like--the right to be an idiot, jerk, anti-patriot, or anything else one wishes to be.

But if we are truly free then those of us--the more than 90% of us--have just as much right to pledge allegance to whatever we wish, acknowledge whatever we wish, and speak whatever we wish.

If we do not have the right to compell you do do it no matter how rewarding or satisfying it is to us, then neither do you have a right to deny us the privilege of doing it just because you don't like it.

And school children are no more harmed by a requirement to be courteous re the flag, the Pledge, the National Anthem or whatever than they are harmed by a requirement to be respectful in every other area of their school experience. There is no requirement to share in the experience. But a requirement for civil conduct is not a bad thing for kids to learn very early on.

I still dunno why you keep bringing up percentages, I couldn't care less who the majority or minority is. Majorities and minorities have their rights protected.

Exactly why we shouldn't have gov't mandates for schools to say the pledge. If a student group wants to pledge allegiance to the country, to god, to allah or to satan they can do so on their own free time without having the pressure of a school system or teacher singling them out for not doing so.

You don't view it as harmful to be courteous to the flag, pledge or anthem, maybe a student would. Both rights should be equally respected by law.

I bring up percentage because there are no rights involved specifically regarding the Pledge, the National Anthem, or the flag, therefore the majority preference should determine whether such customs are followed or not. There is no federal mandate that the Pledge be recited or the flag displayed or the National Anthem played in the public schools. It is a preference for each school board or local community whether such traditions are followed or not.

I don't care how a student views courtesy. If a student does not wish to be courteous to others, then that student should be educated someplace that does not require courtesy. A tyranny of an angry, intolerant minority should not be able to deprive the majority of a custom that violates nobody's rights but is meaningful and important to that majority.

THAT is why I continue to bring up percentages. When a majority of the people do not want to recite the Pledge, salute the flag, or sing the National Anthem, those customs and traditions will be gone. It is as simple as that. Until then, those of you who don't appreciate the custom suck it up or go somewhere else to be educated.

Maybe the anti-patriots, Atheists, and similar types could start their own charter school and be as non traditional as they wish?

You were doing so well until the bigoted stuff came out. We had a nice discussion where we disagreed. Sad it had to end that way.

Belief or lack of belief in a god has nothing to do with how patriotic someone is.

Have a good day.

 

[Foxfyre]

I still dunno why you keep bringing up percentages, I couldn't care less who the majority or minority is. Majorities and minorities have their rights protected.

Exactly why we shouldn't have gov't mandates for schools to say the pledge. If a student group wants to pledge allegiance to the country, to god, to allah or to satan they can do so on their own free time without having the pressure of a school system or teacher singling them out for not doing so.

You don't view it as harmful to be courteous to the flag, pledge or anthem, maybe a student would. Both rights should be equally respected by law.

I bring up percentage because there are no rights involved specifically regarding the Pledge, the National Anthem, or the flag, therefore the majority preference should determine whether such customs are followed or not. There is no federal mandate that the Pledge be recited or the flag displayed or the National Anthem played in the public schools. It is a preference for each school board or local community whether such traditions are followed or not.

I don't care how a student views courtesy. If a student does not wish to be courteous to others, then that student should be educated someplace that does not require courtesy. A tyranny of an angry, intolerant minority should not be able to deprive the majority of a custom that violates nobody's rights but is meaningful and important to that majority.

THAT is why I continue to bring up percentages. When a majority of the people do not want to recite the Pledge, salute the flag, or sing the National Anthem, those customs and traditions will be gone. It is as simple as that. Until then, those of you who don't appreciate the custom suck it up or go somewhere else to be educated.

Maybe the anti-patriots, Atheists, and similar types could start their own charter school and be as non traditional as they wish?

You were doing so well until the bigoted stuff came out. We had a nice discussion where we disagreed. Sad it had to end that way.

Belief or lack of belief in a god has nothing to do with how patriotic someone is.

Have a good day.

I didn't see it as bigoted, nor did I intend to be uncivil. But I honestly don't think anybody objects to demonstrating courtesy re the Pledge, the flag, the National Anthem unless they are intolerant re these things. Do you? My post was in rebuttal to your erroneous assumption that school children are somehow coerced into observing these things. They aren't. They are simply required to be courteous and respectful to those who do observe these things.

And I didn't even suggest that belief in God has anything to do with how patriotic someone is. My point was that, when nobody's unalienable rights are involved, an intolerant minority should not be able to deny customs and traditions that the majority wants to observe.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

ok lets break down your words:
And ALL Americans will appreciate a higher quality of life and a more satisfying society if manners, common decency, respect, and courtesy are promoted in our shared culture.
From the start you dont declare if you re talking about the kids or the pledge. I assume you are tlking about the pledge because you know thats the topic at hand.

It does not harm children to be expected to rise when the flag passes by, to stand at attention during the National Anthem, or to stand respectfully when the Pledge is recited whether or not one believes in God or anything else.

This has nothing to do with the better of our nation either.

It did not harm us before 1954, it harmed nobody after 1954, and it harms nobody now

and more nothing..

So i can read your crap just fine. I know you didnt say anything about morals. I expanded on the issue and talked about it. not everything is about you skippy.

meh i really dont care about the rest of your drivel.

Anyone who would object to something as relatively benign as having students recite the Pledge of Allegiance should be ignored as one would ignore a belligerent child.

A kid shouldn't have to pledge allegiance to this country or give support to the existence of a god.

Just like a kid shouldn't be forced to pledge a lack of allegiance to this country or give support to the non-existence of a god.

See how that works? No hypocrisy whatsoever. Try it on for size.

fine then you stand there and keep your mouth shut respectfully while other do. See how that works?

 

[Dot Com]

ok lets break down your words:
And ALL Americans will appreciate a higher quality of life and a more satisfying society if manners, common decency, respect, and courtesy are promoted in our shared culture.
From the start you dont declare if you re talking about the kids or the pledge. I assume you are tlking about the pledge because you know thats the topic at hand.

It does not harm children to be expected to rise when the flag passes by, to stand at attention during the National Anthem, or to stand respectfully when the Pledge is recited whether or not one believes in God or anything else.

This has nothing to do with the better of our nation either.

It did not harm us before 1954, it harmed nobody after 1954, and it harms nobody now

and more nothing..

So i can read your crap just fine. I know you didnt say anything about morals. I expanded on the issue and talked about it. not everything is about you skippy.

meh i really dont care about the rest of your drivel.

Anyone who would object to something as relatively benign as having students recite the Pledge of Allegiance should be ignored as one would ignore a belligerent child.

A kid shouldn't have to pledge allegiance to this country or give support to the existence of a god.

Just like a kid shouldn't be forced to pledge a lack of allegiance to this country or give support to the non-existence of a god.

See how that works? No hypocrisy whatsoever. Try it on for size.

You hit the nail on the head my friend. The country did pretty darn well up until the mid-1950's, during the Red Scare, when it was decided that Orwellian psyops would help during the Cold War. Well, the cold War is over & we can think for ourselves again.

 

[Foxfyre]

Anyone who would object to something as relatively benign as having students recite the Pledge of Allegiance should be ignored as one would ignore a belligerent child.

A kid shouldn't have to pledge allegiance to this country or give support to the existence of a god.

Just like a kid shouldn't be forced to pledge a lack of allegiance to this country or give support to the non-existence of a god.

See how that works? No hypocrisy whatsoever. Try it on for size.

You hit the nail on the head my friend. The country did pretty darn well up until the mid-1950's, during the Red Scare, when it was decided that Orwellian psyops would help during the Cold War. Well, the cold War is over & we can think for ourselves again.

So are you suggesting that all of those 90+% of Americans who like the Pledge the way it is are not capable of thinking for themselves? Can you accept that they think the Pledge is just fine the way it is now and they LIKE reciting it? They LIKE showing respect to the flag. They LIKE hearing or singing the National Anthem.

How do any of these things take away any of your ability to think for yourself?