Enough is Enough!!!

[Kirk]

Originally posted by Scott Bonner
White man has been very bad. You are making a case against religion by citing a lot of bad things done in the name of religion.

I don't deny history. In addition to all the terrible things "white
man" has done, and religion has done, the facts are the facts.
I'm not a religious man, but I consider myself to be a spiritual
man. There's been plenty of sins against humanity by all races.
But there seems to be a big trend to rewrite history. Canabalism
was pretty rampant among many (not all) Native American tribes,
a few hundred years ago. Try finding that in a history book in
public school. But I digress.

Originally posted by Scott Bonner
Religion is strongly in our history, but the founding fathers were wise enough to do everything they could to keep it out of our government -- to have all the benifits of religion without the pain, and to protect the minority from the majority.

The supreme court has always started their sessions with "God
watch over this court". All court testimonies have always said,
"so help me God". The ten commands have been hung up in
the supreme court for generations. Sorry Scott, but I don't see
it that way.

 

[Dronak]

I really don't like to get involved in discussions like this. I just wanted to ask if anyone had heard Red Skelton's commentary on the Pledge of Allegiance. Do a web search and you'll find sites with copies of it. I think he was relating something one of his past teachers had told his class and it's a nice reminder about the meaning of the pledge. The meaning is something people can forget when reciting the pledge becomes rote, hence the little reminder by the teacher. What I think is most relevant here is the ending, which I believe is Skelton's own observation: "Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: Under God. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools, too?"

 

[Scott Bonner]

Originally posted by Kirk
The supreme court has always started their sessions with "God
watch over this court". All court testimonies have always said,
"so help me God". The ten commands have been hung up in
the supreme court for generations. Sorry Scott, but I don't see
it that way. [/B]

Well, ya know, the founding fathers may have been that wise, but that doesn't mean the rest of us are! Seriously, most states have alternate testimonial oaths. Even in knee-jerk-conservative Indiana, they've change the oath. As for the supreme court opening with "God watch over this court" and money saying "In God We Trust", I can only say that those wrongs don't make the currently debated wrong a right!

I'll bet you that all those things were put into place during times when we were either under the red scare or there was a strong movement trying to (erroneously, IMO) connect religiosity with patriotism -- such as during the rise of the "fundamentalist" poitical/religious movement in the 20's and 30's -- spreading the lie that people who are unreligious must also somehow be unpatriotic, or that the religious are by necessity patriotic. I'm sure you'll agree that that is a spurious connection. And now we don't get rid of those things, even though they are at odds with how we interpret the constitution, because 1) no one is in a position to challenge them strongly enough and 2) it causes those who want the govt to help them prosteletyze to throw a fit.

Obviously, the court is not invested in forcing religion into government in more substantive areas. If they were, they wouldn't have protected the seperation of church and state as much as they have.

 

[Sandor]

Lawyers and their clients are F#$%#!% up this country.

We have people who have so much time and money on their hands that they initiate litigation for stupid things like this. It blows my mind that the courts would even let this get this far. This will go down in history as the culmination of Eisenhower, Nixon and Carter's biggest mistakes. This will most likely be overturned on appeal... Thank you to our system of checks and balances.

I'm gonna rant on this for a bit anyways so hold on to your hats...

Isn't it ok to leave some of these things alone and look at them from their historical perspective? This country was founded by people seeking religious freedom(and freedom from religion), the right to speak about anything, anywhere, anytime, with anyone and not to be persecuted for it.

Now we have a few percent of our populous effectively bullying around the vast majority through the 'pc' agenda and they are succeeding. What's next on the agenda and how far you think it will go? Where will the censors wand fall next? Shall we remove red, whit or blue from the flag because some don't like the inference there?

I just don't see how we are going to move along and get along in the future when this is the way things are being done. Maybe we should start an expatriation act where we offer to send off people to other places who cannot demonstrate an intellectual capacity to 'get over it' when not everything is to their liking all of the time. Make it a box on peoples income tax forms 'would ya like to contribute $1 to a fund to get rid of people who find it unbearable to live in a place the offers them so many freedoms that they can't deal with the fact that other people have the same freedoms and those may conflict with their views?'

It called a democracy for a reason; we setup rules where we can all agree or disagree and contest issues but in the end a majority of the populace, through a series of filters, elections and the like, has a say in how things are done.

I wonder how many people really are offended by the pledge of allegiance compared to how many are not. I don't personally like folks jamming religion down my throat but at least I can say it doesn't bother me in the least that somethings are the way they are because that is where we as a nation came from as a cultural identity. Saying the pledge doesn't imply that everyone should run down to thier local place of worship and buy books, worship anything or say that Uncle Sam will buy you a bible. It merely pays a little homage to some of the contributing factors that make up our civilization from it's point of origin.

Anyways, I'll go back outside and scream about the skyfalling for a bit...land of the free indeed.

I.A.A.M.O.A.C.,
Sandor

 

[Scott Bonner]

My a$$. This is not about freedom of speech. You can scream about God from the rooftops. Kids can pray and preach in public schools if they like (as long as it doesn't interfere with school work). All of this is a-ok.

You are suggesting that the govt guarantees the govt's freedom of speech. Nope. Freedom of Speech applies to individuals and organizations. No govt can guarantee it's own freedoms. Such is the nature of guarantees.

This is about the Govt not pushing religion , no more, no less. Students can gather together in between classes and say the Pledge, with the two magic words, all they want. What can't happen is the govt (in the form of schools) pushing religious crap by getting the students together to say the Pledge with the two magic words. Seperation of church and state is pretty important stuff.

If these two little words are no big deal, then let it go! They still exist for anyone who wants to say them, but the govt can't push 'em.

This isn't an example of a few pushing around the many with a PC agenda. It's about stopping just that! "PC" is such a load of sh!t. Anytime anyone doesn't like someone else's position, they degrade it by labeling it "PC" or "not PC". What the hell ever.

This is about opposing the way some (religious folk) have used the govt to push their agenda for years. Wouldn't be a problem, except that we have a little thing called the Constitution, which has this stuff in it about freedom of religion, which is interpreted by our official interpreters (supreme court) as requiring seperation of church and state.

This is a conflict between "religious heritage" influencing govt (official school activity) and the constitution influencing govt. I stand with the constitution. We don't have a theocracy, thank God! (And to say that America's religious heritage is Christian is to ignore a lot of religious history! Non-christians live here, too, and always have.)

The weakest argument I've ever heard is the "love it or leave it" crap. Especially since you claim in the same post to support freedom of speech. I am just as good an American as you, even if I do appreciate the Constitution more than "religious heritage". We all have the right -- nay, the duty! -- to oppose govt actions we think are wrong. Like pushing religion! It's part of what makes America great. If you don't like us having that duty...fight it. Oh, I felt the urge to say, "if you don't like it, live somewhere else" but half a second of thought solves that simple-minded knee-jerk reaction.

"Love it or leave it" is a rallying cry of the weak-minded.

Anyone who tells you to accept things just because they have always been done, to stop asking questions, to stop challenging things, wants you to be a sheep instead of a citizen.

 

[Ragnar]

Originally posted by Kirk

But the fact of the matter is, the U.S. was founded on religion. Are we not taught that the first settlers here left their homes to avoid religious persecution

Actually, I don't believe that this is historically accurate. In fact, proponents with vested religious interests have over time rewritten, emphasized and de-emphasized the historical record in various ways to highlight the story of the Mayflower and the Pilgrims.

My understanding is that the Pilgrims landed in Plymouth in 1620 fleeing religious persecution (only incidentally to practice their own form of religious persecution against those that deviated from their edicts). However, what is not really taught or at least emphasized anymore is that the Pilgrims were not actually the true founders of America in any relevant sense.

In 1607, a full 13 years before the Pilgrims came to America, Jamestown was founded by Captain John Smith. Jamestown was a business venture financed by the Virginia Company. Fittingly, and as against the historical revisitionists, America was actually founded not on religion, or even on religious freedom, but on capitalism! Of course, this rattles both the Right (since Jamestown is "materialistic" and not religious) and the Left (since Jamestown is capitalistic in motive and nature) in this country, which is a major reason why it is not correctly attributed as the event that marks the actual founding of our country.

Ragnar

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I was offended by it 15 years ago. I never understood the point of a mandatory loyalty oath sworn by someone elses diety when I supposedly lived in a free society. Despite the numerous in-school suspensions I stuck to my beliefs. I sat it out, and read while the sheep did their thing. Sheep? Yes, sheep. They did it because they were told to. Never understanding nor questioning why. If you don't understand, why do you do it? Do the same kata for 20 years and you have a fancy dance. Understand that kata and you have an art. Its similar.

Why should we pledge alegence to a piece of fabric? Why should we swear by something we dont believe in?

What does that fabric represent? What does it mean? Why is it important? Oh wait, these are questions. Those are bad today, and then. Just do what we say.

Why is it if I show up at an even wearing a cross I'm ok, but if I show up wearing a penticle I'm suddenly shunned?

This country was founded on the ideal of freedom. Its too bad that every year we throw away more and more of that to 'protect it'. Wonder how long it will be before its made manditory, complete with the salute?

Its an even bigger shame that so many have died to protect that which we now take for granted and freely surrender. They didn't die for 'under god'. They died for us to argue this point, and many more. To believe or not believe.

Congress may pass a law making the statement permanent, and manditory pledging every day...but I will never say it. In theory, as an American I have the right not to say it. Be a shame if I lose that freedom too.

Respect of the other, the different. That is something else we seem to lose. Some of my best friends are BAC. I'm not. If I eat at their home and they say grace, I'll shut up, and bow my head too. Its respect. I don't believe as they do, but I'll respect their custom/belief. When they visit me, they know its just fill your plate and eat. If they bow their heads before the food starts flying, I'm considerate enough to turn the music down, or TV off for them. So you ask, whats the point? Point is this: If you wish to say 'under god' or 'under goddess' or 'under the rainbow' or just say nothing at all, thats your choice, and I will respect it and fight for it and even die for it.

Just don't make me say your lines for you. Thats unAmerican.:asian:

 

[Sandor]

Scott Bonner, I am not going to get into labeling you or anyone else involved in the discussion for that matter as 'weak minded' or 'simple minded' as you have. It is disrespectful and makes some uninformed presumptions about me that I have not made of you. It should be reasonable that we could argue this as adults without resorting to namecalling. So, if I address you with respect, I would expect the same courtesy of you.

My point is that the guy who pushed this has an agenda. A little background on him may help;

First of all, he tried this same suit in here in Florida two years ago. Broward county threw it out as frivelous. He moved to California specifically to get this on the docket of the superior court over there knowing they would hear his case. The premise of his complaint is that his daughter is supoosedly being oppressed for having to say 'under God' in the pledge. In California (as in many states) there is no requirement for a child to even say the pledge btw. His stated ultimate goal is to strike God from public places and Gov. documents like money and oaths etc. The thing is, on Fox last night, he totally floundered and admitted a) the suit was on his behalf not his daughters and b)his daughter like the pledge the way it is and actually says it in school every morning c)he has other plans that are similar in nature.

He initially used his daughter as an excuse for his own agenda and was really smug about it. That is sick, use the child as the excuse for pushing a socio-political agenda on the rest of the country when the child says she does the pledge and likes it.

You can choose to say the pledge, not to say the pledge or say it however you want. Be mindful of being respectful to others beliefs and govern yourself accordingly. I don't think that it merits changing the pledge because a very small group of people don't like 'under God' in the pledge or 'in God we trust' on the monies of our country. If we start applying that logic to everything where will it end?

Here's a hypotheical;
What if tomorrow a christian sues/wins/superior court of California agrees/etc. because 'I pledge allegiance to the flag' promotes idolatry and the bible says that is bad, the christian says they are offended at both the pledge and the flag, and the case law from this supports them? Do we strike that form the pledge and remove the flag?

As for the love it or leave remark; many people have relocated because they did not like what was going on around them. Chances are that your progenitors (unless you are 100% native American) came here for that same line of thought. I know mine did.

Peace,
Sandor

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Sandor:
Here's a hypotheical;
What if tomorrow a christian sues/wins/superior court of California agrees/etc. because 'I pledge allegiance to the flag' promotes idolatry and the bible says that is bad, the christian says they are offended at both the pledge and the flag, and the case law from this supports them? Do we strike that form the pledge and remove the flag?

Good question.

My answer:
No.

If someone is offended by -ANY- part of it, they should be allowed to omit/edit it slightly to confirm with their own beliefs.

If the 'under god' part offends because you do not believe in god, worship a different god(goddess), worship differently, you should be allowed to either substitute the right term for your 'devine' or omit the phrase entirely.

If the 'to the flag of' phrase offends, omit it.

Reworked pledge may go as follows:

"I pledge allegence to (the flag of) the United States of America and to that for which it stands. One nation, (under diety), indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All."

We have now striped the religions issues (most of em) out of it, and reduced it to a patriotic loyalty oath. The () parts are optional and personal. Rather than being a canned bit, you add some personal meaning to it. IMHO.

:asian:

 

[Scott Bonner]

Originally posted by Sandor

Scott Bonner, I am not going to get into labeling you or anyone else involved in the discussion for that matter as 'weak minded' or 'simple minded' as you have. It is disrespectful and makes some uninformed presumptions about me that I have not made of you. It should be reasonable that we could argue this as adults without resorting to namecalling. So, if I address you with respect, I would expect the same courtesy of you.

I said "Love it or leave it" is a rallying cry of the weak-minded. Isn't it? It is an emotional, knee-jerk response, not at all a resoned response. A moment of thought brings multiple counters to mind.

I don't believe you are weak-minded, but that phrase sure is. "Simple-minded" referred to my own urges to spout out "Love it or leave it". Saying those things is a behavior. I am not assuming anything about you when I talk about behavior. I've met you in real life and you seemed like a great guy.

Actually, the only line in there that I think was personal was "Especially since you claim in the same post to support freedom of speech..." since it referred back to your post directly. At that point I was making an assumption about you -- that you were being a hypocrite for talking saying 'love it or leave it' and praising free speech in the same breath. For that I apologize. I can see how you would not have connected them.

My point is that the guy who pushed this has an agenda. A little background on him may help;...

His agenda is only peripherally relevant, I think. He's openly admitted that he sought out some means to challenge what he thought was an example of state-sponsored religious activity. I do't think this is a surprise to anyone, or that it affects the court's decision. The court ruled on the merits of the case, not the motivation of the complaintant.

Did the complaintant specifically lie at some point? I can't tell from what I've heard so far. I wish I could have seen that interview.

He initially used his daughter as an excuse for his own agenda and was really smug about it. That is sick, use the child as the excuse for pushing a socio-political agenda on the rest of the country when the child says she does the pledge and likes it.

You act like he abused her. Probably she just went to school with not a word said while he did everything else without her getting involved. Besides that, how on earth can you legally address constitutional violations in school without a student's name on the complaint? I'm not saying I'd do it like he did it. I'm just saying I can't think of any other way to address the issue.

If we start applying that logic to everything where will it end?

Hopefully, with religion remaining in the private sphere and the govt remaining neutral on the subject.

Here's a hypotheical;
What if tomorrow a christian sues/wins/superior court of California agrees/etc. because 'I pledge allegiance to the flag' promotes idolatry and the bible says that is bad, the christian says they are offended at both the pledge and the flag, and the case law from this supports them? Do we strike that form the pledge and remove the flag?

At most this person would have an argument for why they should not be compelled to say the Pledge. You see, the constitution (and Supreme Court) says nothing about idolotry. It does say something about the establishment of religion. No one is protected from hearing that which they find offensive. No one should be. What this decision does is keep the govt (schools) from pushing God. It says nothing about whether or not offensive things can be said by govt or otherwise.

It's not a freedom of speech issue. Get a loudspeaker and cry the Pledge through the streets. It's all good. Tell your kid to say the pledge between classes. It's all good there, too. Just don't tell your school to tell your kid to say the Pledge, because that is not the govt's role.

As for the love it or leave remark; many people have relocated because they did not like what was going on around them. Chances are that your progenitors (unless you are 100% native American) came here for that same line of thought. I know mine did.

I missed your point, here. Probably, you are correct, for those ancestors of mine that weren't native american. Are you just again trying to tell me I should leave instead of trying to fix things here?

Listen: You ranted, which is a-ok and downright encouraged. I got angry at the "love it or leave it" message and it's none-too-subtle insinuation that I am not a good American if I take the opposing viewpoint, or that it's better if I leave than if I support change. I ranted. You got angry -- again just fine -- at my insinuation that your pov reflects weak-mindedness (I didn't mean it personally, but clearly a viable interpretation). Then I...

You get the idea. None of this needs to be personal, but it's darn hard to not take it that way. I don't want to be on your bad side. I don't want to be on anyone's bad side. Can we agree to keep this non-personal?

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by Scott Bonner

What this decision does is keep the govt (schools) from pushing God.

In the name of all that's holy ... SAYING THOSE TWO WORDS IS
NOT "PUSHING" SQUAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you don't wanna
say them, then for the love of GOD just
don't say it! No one is saying "Umm .. Suzie, if you won't say
"under God" when the entire class is saying the pledge, then
I'm going to have to put you in detention. And no kid is in the
school yard threatening to beat her up unless she says it! Get
Real!!!!!!!! Just .... Don't ... Say It!

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Kirk

And no kid is in the
school yard threatening to beat her up unless she says it! Get
Real!!!!!!!!

Eh...this has not been my experience. You might be surprised.

Even if one is allowed to not say the pledge, I consider the "under God" coercive and inappropriate.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Kids today are under incredible amounts of presure to 'conform'. That is just part of it. You may not have heard about it, but I've seen at least a dozen reports in the last decade of various levels of abuse on this issue.

Keep in mind, I've also seen an equal amount of intollerance thrown ar christians trying to follow their faith.

Some of my best friends are christians...we have some 'interesting' discussions.

 

[Kirk]

interesting ... where I grew up, being rebelious and not saying
the pledge, would make one "cool"

 

[ace]

the pledge if U live in the
states & love it's FREEDOM
Then the Pledge
is a small price to pay
:soapbox:
Primo

 

[Nightingale]

For the record,

THE PILGRIMS DID NOT COME TO THE NEW WORLD BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION!!! THEY CAME BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT THEIR CHILDREN TO BE DUTCH!

The pilgrims fled ENGLAND because of religious persecution. They went to HOLLAND, where they were welcomed and nobody cared what they believed. They were not persecuted there.

They left Holland because they wanted their children to grow up in the English culture rather than the Dutch. They felt their children were losing their roots, so they came to the new world to set up town the way they felt it ought to be done.

 

[ace]

My Father's parents came from Puerto Rico
My Mothers Father came from Germany
And Her mother was Native American & Irish

I was raised love this country
And i do so i staned behined the pledge
1 Nation under GOD:
argue:
Primo

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by nightingale8472

For the record,

THE PILGRIMS DID NOT COME TO THE NEW WORLD BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION!!! THEY CAME BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT THEIR CHILDREN TO BE DUTCH!

The pilgrims fled ENGLAND because of religious persecution. They went to HOLLAND, where they were welcomed and nobody cared what they believed. They were not persecuted there.

They left Holland because they wanted their children to grow up in the English culture rather than the Dutch. They felt their children were losing their roots, so they came to the new world to set up town the way they felt it ought to be done.

LOL, I totally believe, and not because of who you are and what
you do, hobby or otherwise. It's humorous to me about how
much detail of the puritans we're told as we grow up. The most
shocking and funny was how they originally left to avoid
persecution, and then when they got here, started persecuting!

 

[Rich Parsons]

:soapbox:

To all with the sound of my voice listen, Hear Ye Hear Ye!

I am an Agnostic Zen Christian, My Path is for me and I do not expect anyone else to follow or care about my path.

I am a FIRM Believer in the U.S. Constitution. If the public or our elected officials deem it to be necessary to change this document we have the right and privilege to due so.

Article VI.
Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States
and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public
Trust under the United States.
(* Taken from website: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html *)

This statement could easily be interpreted that the Pledge of Allegiance is a religious test for trust as a student of a public school.

The following being what everyone calls the First Amendment:
Article [I.] (See Note 13)

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.

Note 13: Only the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th articles of amendment had numbers assigned to them at the time of ratification.

(* Taken from Website: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html *)

This directly prohibits the U.S. Congress and lessor elected officials from passing any law that requires any affiliation to or for a religion, and or prohibits the practice of another religion.

Now for some further discussion:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

This website states that Christianity ( 33% or 2.015 Billion of the population ) is dropping and the Islam (20% or 1.215 Billion) is growing. So, let us assume that a majority of the population gets a referendum out to all the states to get another amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to all for Christianity as the State Religion. The first problem is that the Catholics will not like a generic Christianity, and will lobby for Catholicism on the Bill also. I am sure that the rest of the factions within Christianity will not let that one lie alone. So, let us assume that this process gets this far, and then along comes an addition to add in Islam. Now, with the split of the Christians, the largest single unity in the world and using direct proportions, for the USA also, would then fall to the faith of Islam.

Becareful what you ask for, you might actually get a state approved religion that might not be the one you want.


I am Not trying to change anyone's idea on their religion. That is their choice, but please allow the laws to be the laws and to follow the due process to amend or change those laws.

Best Wishes

Rich

PS: All of the Money in the U.S.A. "In God We Trust" is also unconstitutional.

:asian:

 

[Bod]

Why all this bother? You can leave 'under God' in, just change the 'One nation' bit.

Constitutional or not, the pledge is simply inaccurate. Let's say that 75% of Americans believe in the same God? That's a guess by the way, for the sake of this particular argument.

Then, 'One nation under God' becomes 'Three quarters of a nation under God', the pledge becomes accurate, and everybody's happy (well I am).