Red Skelton - Pledge of Allegiance

[jdm3]

That vote the Senate made to condem the judge's ruling was 99-0.  WHile its nice to see that 99 of the best paid and well educated idiots can agree on something, there should be 100 to 0, so I would like to know, who was playing hookie?  Can we start docking their pay for days when they don't appear in session?

[Skuzzy]

Originally posted by Furious
Skuzzy,
 
you wrote:  "No one has logically explained why words would bother anyone. "

Explained it or not, you know they do.  Otherwise noone would be bothered by the spewings on channel 1.  Noone would mind being called an amazinhunk.

If you are ambivilent, say so...but don't pretend the word "god" has no meaning attached to and can just be ignored.



Plenty of places for religious discussion and prayer; forcing it on elementry students is wrong.

I love my country and I do not believe in god.  Why do I have to participate in someone else' make-believe?  I don't and that is the point.
F.

I can do so Furious as the words in question have no meaning for me, other than to proclaim myself a citizen of this country.

Uhmmm....I cannot put the pledge of allegiance into the context of "someone else' make-believe".  I view it as the common thread which verbally ties all citizens of the United States into one unit.

I see no religious discussions taking place when announcing the pledge of allegiance.  Nor, do I see it as a prayer.  You want to place it in that context, then you can.  I do not.

Oh,..CH1 has never bothered me.

[Nifty]

Jesse Helms was not in attendance.  I do not know why.  Perhaps the article I read said why he wasn't there, and I just don't recall it.

Skuzzy, read my post in the other thread.  I do not believe it to be harmful, as I do not have to say the words.  I do believe if I recite the Pledge right now as written that I'm going against my beliefs.  The words DO matter in a pledge.  The reason I support the decision is not because I think it'll make a difference one way or another, but I believe the ruling was the correct one based on why the words were added in the first place and the 1st Amendment.  It's a federal endorsement of religion.

My comment of shoved down our throats is hyperbole, much like Eagler's comments of rampant moral depravity in our country.

[Greese]

Ok, want to get offended by the phrase "under god" in the pledge of allegiance?  That's ok.  

Nobody complained on Sept 12th when the US government stood on the steps of the capitol building and sang together "God Bless America".  

It seems that god, however you take that term to mean, is quite a comforting thing in times of trouble, and not too many people complain in those instances.  I think most people who are complaining are turning towards the pledge of allegiance because it's an easy target.  It's a double standard, and I don't care for it, but this is America, right?  I expect nothing less.  People are always going to fight for something different than the standard (or what is already in place).

In the end, it's just a dissapointment that this arguement is happening, but a phrase that is either included, or excluded from the pledge of allegiance is not going to change my faith at all.

[Skuzzy]

By all means if you believe it is going agianst your beliefs, then do not say them.  I concur.

It is all a matter of perspective.  How we view the written word is always that way.  One man looks at the desert and sees wasteland, the other sees oppertunity.  That is the way we are, thankfully.

I just happen to think this is a trivial/trite issue brought up by a person who is looking for some way to gain attention.  He succeeded.

[Wingnut_0]

Oh I fired off a letter to my Representive.  Unfortunately she's elected in the Bible belt and won't say a word that could get her bellybutton canned.

[Nath[BDP]]

Just saying to kids, "just don't say it if you don't believe" isn't going to work. There will definatly be a consequence of them acting differently of their peers, and they will probably be picked on because of it. Their reluctance might even end up in the teacher's subjective mind when it comes to grading or treating them a certain way.

[midnight Target]

You guys don't get it!
Many trivial / trite things stop being trivial and trite when the weight of the government is behind them. Of course you have the freedom to feel any way you choose about the pledge. What we don't have is the right to support a particular faith (or group of faiths) by OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZING a reference to those faiths.

[Skuzzy]

Hmmm,....I was not aware we were to turn to the government for offical religious sanction.  I always thought that was up to the individual.  My bad.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Hmmm,....I was not aware we were to turn to the government for offical religious sanction.  I always thought that was up to the individual.  My bad.

Exactly, and the government should stay out of it!

[Skuzzy]

Well, I have never counseled the government when it came to my religious beliefs, so what difference does it make if they have an opinion about it?  It does not effect my opinion about religion.  I do not see the problem.

[Apache]

Originally posted by midnight Target


Exactly, and the government should stay out of it!

To include the judicial branch.

[Skuzzy]

Maybe I missed something.  Is the government telling us what we can and cannot believe in, as it pertains to religion?

[midnight Target]

Yes they are!

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

[Skuzzy]

Hmmm,..I guess I am dense.  I do not see any laws requiring me to believe one way or another,  They can make statements all they want to, as it is just thier opinion as fas as I am concerned.

No one has arrested me for how I choose to celebrate my religion, and I have not been harassed by the government on my beliefs, so I still do not get it.