Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ozark on June 27, 2002, 07:09:01 PM
-
To me, Red Skelton was always a class act! I loved watching his show on CBS. The NBC years were limited and short lived.
I remember having this (45 RPM) record.
Ozark
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary on the Pledge of Allegiance
by Red Skelton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a schoolboy, one of Red Skelton's teachers explained the words and meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance to his class. Skelton later wrote down, and eventually recorded, his recollection of this lecture. It is followed by an observation of his own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I - - Me; an individual; a committee of one.
Pledge - - Dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self-pity.
Allegiance - - My love and my devotion.
To the Flag - - Our standard; Old Glory ; a symbol of Freedom; wherever she waves there is respect, because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts, Freedom is everybody's job.
United - - That means that we have all come together.
States - - Individual communities that have united into forty-eight great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose. All divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that is love for country.
And to the Republic - - Republic--a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people; and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.
For which it stands
One Nation - - One Nation--meaning, so blessed by God.
Indivisible - - Incapable of being divided.
With Liberty - - Which is Freedom; the right of power to live one's own life, without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.
And Justice - - The principle, or qualities, of dealing fairly with others.
For All - - For All--which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.
And now, boys and girls, let me hear you recite the Pledge of Allegiance:
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.
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?
Red Skelton
-
it's even more powerful when you hear Red recite it himself
-
Whoever thought we'd be reading about blow jobs in the oval office, or see the day America is attacked on her own land killing thousands of Americans, and then within a years time see the Pledge of Allegance declared unconstitutional....
I don't think I'd be anymore surprized than if aliens landed in Washington DC!
:eek:
-
Red was right about everything but the "under God" part, IMHO.
-
we are very much in the minority here, Sandman.
"One Nation - - One Nation--meaning, so blessed by God.
Indivisible - - Incapable of being divided. "
first, I see nothing in One Nation that implies "so blessed by God." I definitely do not believe in that.
second. The two words added to the Pledge in 1954 are dividing us. Obviously not in half, yet enough that the 9th Circuit Court had to make a ruling on whether or not the Pledge is a federal endorsement of religion.
However, majority rules in a republic/democracy. 99-0 (and you know damn well Mr. Helms would have made it 100-0) in the Senate. If it had to come down to it, both houses in Congress could have the Amendment that "the word God in federal use is NOT an endorsement of religion, and therefore does not infringe on the 1st Amendment" before the states to ratify in no time at all. The states would easily ratify it and we'd have a new Amendment to the Constitution in record time.
Eagler says it's sad to see religion being tossed aside in our time. I say it's sad to see religion being shoved down our throats for the past 48 years because of two words Congress added to the Pledge.
You have to experience it to understand. My heart goes out to the child of the parent who brought this up in the first place. I know firsthand what SHE has to deal with.
-
Originally posted by Nifty
we are very much in the minority here, Sandman.
Look at the bright side, Nifty. If there is a hell, we'll know why we're there. :D
-
Tell me, what religion does "under god" advocate?
Is "under god" Catholic? Baptist? Methodist? Lutheran? Anglican? Amish? Mennonite? Apostolic? Episcopal? Mormon? Jewish?
Sorry, "Christianity" isn't a religion, and indeed "god" isn't strictly Christian in the first place. It is a faith that several Churches are based on, but is itself not an organized religion. Hence, IMO, "under god" doesn't constitute a governmental support of any specific Church. Can you see a difference between "under god" and "under the Catholic Church"?
An expression of faith and an endorsement of a specific religion are NOT the same things. The Constitution requires "Separation of Church and State"....it does NOT require "separation of faith and state". There is an important difference between the two.
Personally I think people should be taught to say the Pledge using whatever god they believe in....an Arab should say "under Allah", and so on. Or just "on nation indivisible" for agnostics.
BTW, I myself don't go to church and take no part in any organized religion......I really don't care whether the words "under god" are in the Pledge or not.....that's just the issue as I see it.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Whoever thought we'd be reading about blow jobs in the oval office, or see the day America is attacked on her own land killing thousands of Americans, and then within a years time see the Pledge of Allegance declared unconstitutional....
:eek:
Man isn't that the truth :(
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Tell me, what religion does "under god" advocate?
Is "under god" Catholic? Baptist? Methodist? Lutheran? Anglican? Amish? Mennonite? Apostolic? Episcopal? Mormon? Jewish?
Even if you hippocritically pretend that you do not know which God it refers to, it's still more about who it excludes - atheism, any female goddess worship, polytheism, ancestor worship, paganism, devil worship, etc.
miko
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Tell me, what religion does "under god" advocate?
Is "under god" Catholic? Baptist? Methodist? Lutheran? Anglican? Amish? Mennonite? Apostolic? Episcopal? Mormon? Jewish?
J_A_B
Err...Jab..everything you names is based on Christianity/Judaism. So you answered your own question, "Under god" was meant to reflect Christianity/Judiasm and not any other religion except that.
-
People are turning this into a religious issue. They are just words on paper or spoken. It takes people to distort said words into some other agenda.
God is a word. That is all it is. If you chose to unite that word to something other than an omnipotent being (the defination), then it is your choice and you have your right to your opinion.
I think it is a sad commentary on how we choose to twist things around to meet some agenda that would cause angst among people.
Tell me,...does saying the phrase, "Under God" dictate you believe in any God? To me, saying this is just an acceptance of being a citizen of the United States. My pledge of allegiance to my country is in my heart, and the words of the pledge are just an acknowledgement to others I am proud to be a citizen of the United States.
Whether you believe in any religion or not is irrelevant, in my opinion. For me, it is about believing in my country. Make it what you will, as it is certainly your choice to do so.
-
That's what I'm getting at--it doesn't MATTER which god it referrs to. The point I'm trying to make is FAITH is not the same thing as RELIGION. If you'd stop for a minute and realize that I'm not some fundamentalist moron trying to shove religion down your throat, maybe you'd realize that.
You don't have to like it. To be honest, *I* don't particularly like it.
For those people who feel excluded....why can't they just say it the way they like it? What is so hard about saying "one nation, under Allah"? (A girl I went to school with did exactly that.)
I still want to know which Church you think that phrase supports. School vouchers are FAR more constitutionally "iffy" than this phrase IMO.
J_A_B
-
I think Jab's got something. If 50 years ago they had added "under Allah" instead of the Judeo-Christian name, (even if, by all accounts, they represent the same entity), how long would it have taken for the Supreme Court to overrule that addition? Not 50 years, I'm sure.
The basis for founding the colonies was to be able to live a new life away from the religious persecution and social handcuffing of the old countries. To force everyone to pay homage to the Judeo-Christian ethos by tying loyalty to your faith was a stupid decision in the first place. It's one thing to have the word "God" on all the money, but forcing lip service in a sacred pledge is a slap in the face.
Besides, if you force someone to say "under God" who's an athiest (or even agnostic), by your own standards you are forcing that person to sin by taking the name of God in vain. I thought the idea was to reduce sinfulness in the secular world. (And this is probably the most inflamatory part of this post - be warned :)) What I'm hearing is the same old half-assed, ill-thought-out, knee-jerk "logic" I've come to expect from the run-of-the-mill religious advocate.
Those who force their religious beliefs on others in America ARE NOT Americans in spirit. They've forgotton our roots and our revolution and why we came here to begin with.
-Sudz
PS I think that this is the first time ever a religious question has caused controversey and arguments. Go figure :)
-
Skuzzy,
Then take the words out and it can go back to being a pledge to this country.
JAB,
That phrase was added to mean "god" as in the Xian god. It doesn't support Joe Blow's organized Falwell money collecting church, it supports the belief in the Xian god by it's use.
Both of you seem to believe that it's just a word. Like I said in one of these threads that still wasn't addressed by any of the Xians here is that if that word was Goddess or (insert name), no Xian would stand to have that included. They wouldn't say it and would be boycotting everyone from Disney to Proctor & Gamble to get it thrown out of use. So why should anyone that is not a Xian or doesn't believe in that just glance over that word. They shouldn't.
That word means something to them, it means something that they don't stand for and if you can easily just ignore a phrase in the pledge then the pledge itself is meaningless and no more than words. Take the religious reference out of the Pledge and no more problem.
-
why has it been ok since '54 and all of a sudden ppl are threatened by it?
politics - pure and simple
-
Pledging ones allegiance to the country described by Red Skelton and to the U.S. are two totally different things. Religious issues aside, I don't think children should be required to swear an oath of loyalty every day. When I think about how many times I have said the pledge of allegiance in school, that picture of draftees being sworn into the Army during Vietnam comes to mind. Why not create a pledge of allegiance to uphold the constitution or a pledge to uphold a just and righteous goverment? Or do away with the pledge entirely, which would be the best choice.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
why has it been ok since '54 and all of a sudden ppl are threatened by it?
politics - pure and simple
Yep. Membership drive via silly court room decisions...by the way, that judge stayed his own decision.
-
Why Wingnut?
I am not a religious person, depending on how you define that term, but they are just words. No one has logically explained why words would bother anyone. To my knowledge, words are only inflammatory if the person listening chooses to make then so.
I have neither seen nor heard any logical arguments which should force a change of anything. The pledge has been this way for over 40 years and all of a sudden it is an issue. Seems to go to exatcly what I am saying.
Someone finally chose to make it mean something which is inflammatory.
Quite silly if you ask me.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
why has it been ok since '54 and all of a sudden ppl are threatened by it?
politics - pure and simple
I wasn't around then. Ppl have been protesting that use for years, and many other things, but politicians won't listen to ppl they refer to as not a threat to their residency in some gov. institution.
That and the fact that voices are much easier heard now than in the 50's when ppl were paranoid about communist, and if you didn't attend you small town church you were seen as an outcast. In many respects it's still that way today in small town america.
-
"That phrase was added to mean "god" as in the Xian god. It doesn't support Joe Blow's organized Falwell money collecting church, it supports the belief in the Xian god by it's use. "
Exactly!
Now read the first amendment:
"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. "
Notice that the government is prohibited from supporting established religions.....it is NOT prohibited from using symbols of faith. I take that to mean the government can proclaim its belief in God all it wants to as long as it doesn't begin supporting any particular Church.
What it amounts to is IMO those who dislike that phrase in the Pledge are probably going to be stuck with it because, as offensive as that phrase might be to some people, it doesn't represent any single specific Church. The best thing to do, IMO, is abstain from using that phrase if you disagree with it.
Wingnut: You also make a very interesting point about how trying to force people to say "under god" if they don't really mean it is against Christian values in the first place. IMO the lawmakers in congress should think about that. Even if it IS legal to have that phrase in the Pledge, doesn't mean it's necessarily fair to the entire population.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
No one has logically explained why words would bother anyone.
Quite silly if you ask me.
Your question is open ended. Why do any words have meaning. When you tell your Mom or Wife or kids you love them, what makes them have meaning? What makes those 2 words in the pledge have less meaning than the rest?
Words ARE action, it's how we define ourselves, communicate, catagorize, show anger, love, empathy, and numerous other traits. It's how we try our best to label things that we have a hard time describing. Words are concrete and made so by belief behind the sounds. Prayers are action, the Pledge is action. Sticks and Stones aside, words can hurt or cause things because of their use. A co-worker says things to tarnish your reputation, or harm your job in your employers eyes, that several ppl believe, would that bother you? Maybe so, maybe not.
-
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.
-
Eagler
I am not sure if it is just politics anymore, for the record. I am not a religious person. This has been building for years that I have seen, I remember in high school (for me late eighties) being the only one in my home room who stood for the pledge. I didn't do it for the words themselves I did it for the people who died for me to have the life I had. No one has respect for anyone anymore, holding doors open for people, saying thank you, saying bless you when someone sneezes, tipping well etc. I was never in the military per se (went to Maritime College for a spell), I dont go to church. I believe in evolution not creationism etc. I do believe in treating your fellow man with compassion and respect, I don't treat people differently due to race, religion, or beliefs. I try to do the right thing and have a good moral compass.
I don't want a child because I don't like what this country and the world is becoming. I believe the human race will destroy itself within the next 3 generations personally. But today I still stand for the pledge and what it represents, I let those around me ignore it, and indulge in their own devices, I know what it means to me.
-
If they are all "just words", why would you bother saying them at all??
We use words to communicate ideas. Words have meaning. Otherwise we wouldn't use them.
Why not say, One Nation under Thrawn? I mean, heck if they're just words why not.
Another thing, if it were just words, I strongly doubt that there would be this much debate over the issue.
-
Jab,
While I see your point, Establishment doesn't mean a church. It can mean a house, or business (well ok church's might as well be a business).
But here's another use of that word: a group of people who hold power in a society or social group and dominate its institutions
To me that's always read, that the gov. shall not favor one group of ppl's (ie. establishment) of religion over another. Christianity is a religion. Properly defined, the different church's are just sects.
{edited with earlier definitions:}
In 1766, Samuel Johnson suggested five meanings of "establishment."
1. To settle firmly, to fix unalterably.
2. To settle in any privilege or possession; to confirm.
3. Settle regulation; form; model.
4. Foundation; fundamental principle.
5. Allowance; income; salary.
Johnson's first four definitions corresponded to the usage in the King James version: setting up something permanently or firmly. Johnson's fifth meaning was, however, new. An establishment was linked to money, although not in the context of taxation and without any particular suggestion that money was linked to a church or a religion. John Ash agreed that the word could mean "an allowance, a salary." Thomas Sheridan in 1780 and Noah Webster in 1806 concurred.
-
"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war." - Dwight D. Eisenhower.
That is what he said as he authorized the addition of the words "under God" (notice the capital G) to the Pledge in 1954. The above quote is 100% without a shadow of a doubt a federal endorsement of religion, regardless of whether it is a specific faith or not. The rest will be my intepretation. Now, the word "God" is a proper noun, almost ALWAYS referring to the god of the Jewish or Christian faith (deity in the Holy Bible.) From this, "under God" as intended by the President of the United States when the change was adopted is an endorsement for the deity that's represented in the Holy Bible. Therefore, the 9th Circuit Court made the correct, albeit 99.999999% unpopular, ruling.
Personally, no matter what happens in this issue, it won't change the way I say the Pledge. I've left out the words "under God" about the past 15 years. I don't know if people noticed or not. They were too busy giving me interesting looks when I didn't participate in the led prayers over the PA system before high school football games. (thankfully, THAT has been ruled against and upheld.)
-
Missing the point, maybe my poor excuse on representing what I am trying to say.
You tell your family you love them. It is up to them how they take that,..it is not up to you.
Interpretation is what I am trying to express. Words can be interpreted anyway you want. If they are written, they usually can be subjected to a wider interpretation, as we do not have the author to say it exactly how it was supposed to be said in an emotional context.
Saying the words does not constrain anyone to believing them. How I choose to look at words will be different than you may choose to view them. Nothing wrong with that and is pretty much the basis of our freedom.
If you choose to place an emotional/religious context to the words you speak, it is your choice and only your choice to do so. If you choose to be objective about it, then it is your choice as well.
Words work well that way. I place nothing significant on the phrase in question. I see no issue with my children being exposed to different thoughts. If I do not like those thoughts, or if they go against what I choose to believe, then I explain that to my children and let them choose. Again,..that is how I choose to handle it.
Great thing about our country, we have choices. None of those choices should be forced on anyone. Expression of thought is a basic freedom. Someone wrote those words down in 1954, for whatever reason. Those words are an expression of a thought, but the original thought is being lost in the rhetoric of todays environment.
Objectively looking at it and saying it,..what harm has come from the last 40 plus years of this phrase being in our pledge of allegiance? What harm will come in the future? How do your children feel about reciting it?
I look at myself, who had to say the pledge everyday at school for 10 years and I do not see a religious zealot, I do not see myself as being conditioned in any way, shape, or form from the pronunciation of the pledge.
But then, I never attached the pledge of allegiance to something as personal as my religious beliefs. No one told me it was about religion and no one told me I would beleive in this God.
I can see no religous oppression here. I just cannot fathom the problem. I guess I am too ignorant to understand it.
Also note, I am not arguing with anyone. I am stating my opinion. You have yours, and that is fine by me. Allow me mine.
-
Hijack!!
Skuzzy is posting, they MUST be close to 1.10!
Now back to more mundane and trivial matters :)
Cobra
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
People are turning this into a religious issue. They are just words on paper or spoken. It takes people to distort said words into some other agenda.
God is a word. That is all it is. If you chose to unite that word to something other than an omnipotent being (the defination), then it is your choice and you have your right to your opinion.
I think it is a sad commentary on how we choose to twist things around to meet some agenda that would cause angst among people.
Tell me,...does saying the phrase, "Under God" dictate you believe in any God? To me, saying this is just an acceptance of being a citizen of the United States. My pledge of allegiance to my country is in my heart, and the words of the pledge are just an acknowledgement to others I am proud to be a citizen of the United States.
Whether you believe in any religion or not is irrelevant, in my opinion. For me, it is about believing in my country. Make it what you will, as it is certainly your choice to do so.
ROCK ON SKUZZY!!
-
Originally posted by Furious
I love my country and I do not believe in god. Why do I have to participate in someone else' make-believe?
F.
You don't. Please direct me to who is forcing anyone to say the pledge of allegience. Even back in 71-72 when I was a 1st grader there were kids who didn't participate. And I don't remember a single adverse incident on them for it. Make your choice and let the people who WANT TO say "under god" do so.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Exactly, and the government should stay out of it!
To include the judicial branch.
-
Maybe I missed something. Is the government telling us what we can and cannot believe in, as it pertains to religion?
-
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.
-
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.
-
I believe it was Jefferson who so strongly fought for the seperation of church and state. IIRC it was because where he lived, you had to pay a tax or tithe to your local church that I believe was sort of licensed or permitted by the state. People who didn't belong to that branch of church were required to pay none the less. I'm not sure if they were required to attend, but people were being thrown in the clink for not paying or not being able to pay the local Jerry Falwell. It was this state sponsored, state inforced religion that bothered Jefferson so. I can't find my Jefferson papers to confirm this, but thats the way I remember it. To me this issue is and has been about running away from the original intent of the framers. Its about removing state inforcement of religion and religious taxation rather than the complete and utter expungment of all references to religion in any form from any thing in any way associated with or funded by the Federal goverment. Conversely, I also do not think that the religious zealots of athiesm have any business in removing anything. I would think any true fair minded athiest would be able to watch others say there pledge of allegiance, join in and skip a certain reference to the God, titering away at the silliness of human nature or whatever they chalk this belief in a higher power to.
The above is a perfect example of someone who firmly does not believe in the use of paragraphs. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by 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.
So. It's thier choice. And be realistic.. picked on?
Their reluctance might even end up in the teacher's subjective mind when it comes to grading or treating them a certain way.
Hogwash. Now you've got an issue that has to do with ethics..NOT the pledge of allegiance.
I'll say it the 100th time (learned this tactic from Bill Clinton). When I was in school nobody was forced and those kids who refused were treated no differently than anyone else. "I" was picked on (for awhile) because I was poor, never had the "in" clothes, was the only kid in class with short hair (were talkin hippy 70's here) and my dad was a minister (no I'm no longer affiliated with any religion) and in short.. people hated me not only because I believed in god and held seperate standards than most (yes, this is the bad part of religion.. I know) but mostly... because my dad was a minister. How scarred am I over that? I'm not.... I learned how to kick ass, but I'm not scarred lol.
-
Ahh whats the point.
Anything that has anything to do with any "God" in any way is going to get attacked by the liberal left. Thats a given and it's not worth the breath it takes to argue with'em over it.
-
Here's the US Flag Code
If anyone wants to look or refer.
http://www.usflag.org/us.code36.html#172
also an origins article that was interesting.
http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/may99/lynn.html
DmdKanth
-
must be a reason it bugs you so ...
other than your a Seminole :)
-
The judge in this case basically reversed himself, so there won't be any immediate changes. I liked what the President had to say about this today.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
why has it been ok since '54 and all of a sudden ppl are threatened by it?
politics - pure and simple
Very true: no properly motivated "godless communist" would be able to recite the pledge with those words in there. It was a means to detect subversives that were not traditional god-fearing Americans :p
"under God" was a knee-jerk response to commi paranoia.
There are inherent problems with our government system: we claim to support the concept that everyone has equal rights, we have a government that claims to be based on majority rule, we pass laws that show preferences to minorities, and we have a government that is founded on the separation of church and state which says Christian prayers at nearly every government and military ceremony.
How can you have equal rights if the majority determines what your rights are? Why would the majority pass laws that favor minorities? Why can't a students and teachers say Christian prayers in school when congressmen say it every day in goverment facilities on government time?
This case could be used to go one of two ways:
1) purge every last trace of religion from official government resources
2) prove once and for all that religous freedom is guaranteed even if you serve in an official goverment capacity that can influence mottos and pledges. I.e. supreme court judges can approve the use of the word "God" and prayers even in goverment buidlings, documents, mottos, and money :p
While it may seem extreme compared to American traditions, the constitution is very clear on separation of church and state, I don't understand why it has never been enforced properly.
For a parallel situation, consider slavery. Clearly slavery was unconstitutional, but at the time, people compromised for economic reasons. The southern economy and pride was more important than morals and justice. Of course the righteous Yankees were slave owners and traders too :p and were the last to own slaves since the southern slaves were freed during the Civil War by the Emancipation Proclamation while US (northern slaves) were freed after the war.
With religion, the situation was even worse: it was practically a crime to not be a protestant. Despite the Constitution, protestant faith was incorporated into most of our government institutions. Even now the vast majority shudder at the thought that our money and our pledge might be wrong to incorporate religious overtones. Just because a major change like this is against your traditions and faith doesn't mean the change is wrong. How many so-called "Christians" owned slaves? I am far from being a pinko commie liberal, but I believe our Constitution is clear and correct to insist on separation of church and state and that the Pledge, motto on money, and group prayers on government time are unconstitutional despite the fact that the vocal majority like things the way they are.
-
To the Flag - - Our standard; Old Glory ; a symbol of Freedom; wherever she waves there is respect, because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts, Freedom is everybody's job.
Not mine.
Freedom is inside you.
Any "symbol" of freedom is actually only another set of limits for your mind and thought.
Learn to live by yourself.