- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 13,988
- Reaction score
- 6,593
- Location
- Charlottesville, VA
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
My niece says she's never been given the choice to say it or not. They are told, by people in authority, to stand and recite the pledge. There is no implication of any choice in the matter.And that's absolutely wrong and unconstitutional, and is something that currently schools and teachers get in extreme hot water for doing as evidenced most recently by the teacher punished for doing just that. Wrong doing in the past does not mean that it is standard practice in the present nor that it was the correct practice in the past.
Indeed, which still goes on today. My only issue with the pledge at all is its usage in our public schools. Otherwise, I don't care any more about it than I do any other silly stream of words people choose to say at any given time.The fault was not in the pledge being unconsitituional but with your school being such. Take out your frustration on them rather than this transferance.
If children are being forced to say it, whether that's an implied requirement or a direct one, then it most certainly is relevant.Completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion about whether "Under god" is constitutionally allowed to be part of the pledge.
No bunch of money required. They obviously felt the need to change it previously because some fools had their panties in a bunch. We should just fix what they broke.Why change our money and our pledge because of a few people have their panties in a bunch?
Then they are wrong.Most real Christians do not consider the Muslim God and the Christian God to be the same.
Why not just remove it and you can add under god, gods, goddesses, whatever?Why not just leave it as it is and you can can say under Gods,Goddesses or leave it out?
Whether or not I was there is irrelevant to the discussion or the point I was making.Where you around that day? And even if you were do you have any actual memory of having to suddenly say one Nation under God in the pledge of allegiance?
Indeed, when they changed it to "under god", it wasn't for the good.Change is not always good,sometimes it is. It merely depends on what that change is.
Vishnu is the Supreme god of a polytheisitic religion. Just like the Judeo-Christian god is a Supreme god in a polytheistic religion (Angels are technically sub-deities, and the trinity in Christianity is clearly polytheistic. Not to mention saints etc.)
My stance is that if the people who want to keep it are OK with it being changed (not removed, just changed), then it might as well stay as there is no real difference between them and it's not actually worth the effort to change it.
But if they aren't OK with it being changed, then clearly it is worth the effort to change it or have it removed for the simple fact that they pretend it's not a big deal and non-Judeo Christians should "suck it up, it does not harm" when they themselves disagree with that statement (as the alterations I've described would not, in any way shape or form, harm anyone either)
Look at the statement there, Zyph. If it is far more likely to be controversial, even though it harms no one, to make the alterations I've described, then there is a legitimate case for removal.
If the controversy of the proposed change would be greater than the current controversy, the it should be removed altogether. This is because:
If there is no valid reason for the controversy now, then there is no valid reason for the controversy if changed.
My niece says she's never been given the choice to say it or not. They are told, by people in authority, to stand and recite the pledge. There is no implication of any choice in the matter.
Nevermind. I found it. It was West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette in 1943...long before I was born.
One for the good guys!!!!!!! >>
"The Pledge is constitutional," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded." >>
Under God should be changed to ... Under the subjective fantasy most people cling to...
ricksfolly
Moderator's Warning: |
In the eyes of children, it most certainly is the same thing. When the teacher tells them to do something, they are not supposed to question it. They are supposed to DO it.Then I'd suggest to your niece's parents if it bothers them they should contact the school OR to first simply tell their niece not to say it if she doesn't want and then contact the school if she's told she has to.
Not implicating specifically that there is a choice != FORCED to say it.
They shouldn't be saying it AT ALL in school, whether it has 'under god' or not. But they most definitely shouldn't be saying it while it contains references to mythical deities. It shouldn't be forced, it shouldn't be implied to be forced, it shouldn't be encouraged. As far as I'm concerned, it shouldn't even be ****ing mentioned.As CC already pointed out:
It is unconstitutional to FORCE a child to say the pledge.
Again, "under god" shouldn't be removed because schools are doing something unconstitutional. If its a case of the schools doing something wrong then the schools need to be cahnged.
In the eyes of children, it most certainly is the same thing. When the teacher tells them to do something, they are not supposed to question it. They are supposed to DO it.
They shouldn't be saying it AT ALL in school, whether it has 'under god' or not. But they most definitely shouldn't be saying it while it contains references to mythical deities. It shouldn't be forced, it shouldn't be implied to be forced, it shouldn't be encouraged. As far as I'm concerned, it shouldn't even be ****ing mentioned.
You're taking a large stretch to claim that Judeo-Christian beliefs are a polythesistic religion. A LARGE stretch, one held by a minority of theologins from my understanding or academics not to mention the actual practioners. You're manipulating information for your own well being to make an argument because your argument doesn't work with the generally held version of the religion.
The only portion of Judeo-Christian beliefs I've ever heard of theologists argue as potentially being polythesistic is Catholics, and even that is a higly contested notion due to the fact that the Trinity is viewed as three seperate being and yet all the same being at the same time.
Additionally, Vishnu is still a god of a very specific, definite religion. "God", generic "god", is 100% impossible to say "It belongs to [x] religion and [x] religion alone".
But in order to prevent confusion, staying with hinduism, perhaps a better example for me to have used would have been "Under Ishvara" which would exclude absolutely no religion at all, including the Judeo-Christian ones.
Absolutely. As I said in my other post, if I could snap my fingers and make it change immedietely with no fuss or muss, and Ishvara (supreme controller) was a common vernacular for a majority of americans that's synonymous with "diety" or "god", I would have abosutely zero reservations with that change.
As it would stand I would rather keep it the same than change it, even if I could just snap my fingers and make the change happen, for the same reason I'd rather it be "under god" then "debajo god". I don't think there's a point in using something completely and utterly foriegn to the vernacular of 80 to 90% of the American population.
Au contraire :2razz:
In this case, the concept being described by Ishvara is more inclusive than the concept described by the word "God" with a big "g".
Our legal system often adopts foreign terms for official purposes, even though the terms are utterly foreign to 80-90% of the American population, especially when the concept described is more adequately represented by the foreign term.
For example: Habeus Corpus.
As a quid quo pro, the loss of the exclusive term gains the benefit of have a more accurate, inclusive term.
Oh, I don't disagree at all that hte concept of Ishvara is more inclusive. I absolutely admit that. However it is completely and utterly a foreign concept and term within the American vernacular so I don't think it would be more beneficial to be in place of "under god". If it was "under Ishvara" I wouldn't particularly care, but if I was given the choice of the two and only the two I'd go with "under god" simply because that's a much more commonly identified vernacular for diety or god of any kind oin this country than Ishvara is so would be more appropriate for a pledge that is meant for the common citizenry, not the court of law.
First, comparing our legal system which, sadly, is generally not something that cares much about the easy understanding of the common population of its words and principles to something that is meant to be held and used by the general population doesn't really refute my argument.
Second, Habeus Corpus and Quid quo pro came from a time where the care for what the common people would speak or understand was likely even less due to the larger divergence between the "average" person and the intellegencia, and are now part of the common vernacular simply because they are ingrained within the country.
Showing that its been done before doesn't counter in any way my reasoning that I would prefer one to the other if given the choice between the two because having a word that is common vernacular and commonly identifiable that is not unconstitutional would be more important to me than having a word that is more inclusive that is not unconsitutional.
You're right, it doesn't negate or counter your reasoning at all. I just wanted to go with the dry humor of tossing in a bunch of foreign terms we use everyday (starting with the french term) and presenting what was essentially a weak argument. :2razz:
However, I would support the alteration because I don't think that the resources involved in making the alteration are all that great, and if it happened, the word would become common usage in short order. Not to mention that the change would be just plain good Karma :2razz:
Well I already pointed out my disagreement with you about it being a weak argument
I meant to imply my argument (about habeus corpus) was a weak one, not your argument. :lol:
1) we didn't have to say under god if we didn't want
2) we didn't have to say the pledge if we didn't want
By doing what you propose what you'd accomplish is bringing both side into agreement ABOUT their disagreements, thus creating even MORE disagreement.
Its like people in a city arguing if they should change the name of the Chicago Bears to the Chicago Polticians or keep the name the same and so you go with the third option...move them to Oklahoma City. The third option isn't going to create less arguments within your base (in our case the citizenry), it's going to create an argument even larger than either of the two by joining them together with their common disdain.
Uh, that's more than just a bit disingenuous. People who refuse to speak the pledge are labeled as unpatriotic or communist or whatever pejorative or insinuation they need to use to make themselves feel better about the situation....or having a completely voluntary pledge...
Not all-encomapssing, but a generic refernce.
Genereic reference is permissible.
I'm pretty sure its at the very least against school policy in just about the entire country and may very well be against the law to FORCE children to reciet the pledge. I was in school more than a decade ago in a rural southern town and even we were specifically told each and every year that:
1) we didn't have to say under god if we didn't want
2) we didn't have to say the pledge if we didn't want
And never got in any trouble for it. I know the only major news story about someone being "Forced" to say the pledge in recent years had a teacher getting severely punished for performing such a thing.
For it to FORCE acknowledgement it would have to be mandatory that all citizens say it. It absolutely, positively, is not.
I would agree 100% with making it voluntary if it wasn't...but it IS. If a school is FORCING children to say it that's wrong, but that is a problem with the schools leadership or the guidelines they have, no with the pledge itself.
the ConstitutionSays who?
There is a difference between something being added now and something that was added practically six decades ago with "under God" and over a century ago with "in God we trust". Those things are now a national motto and a matter of national tradition. Unless you are some old fucker who went to school before the mid 50s(and even if you did then most likely you have barely any or no recollection/memory of reciting the pledge of allegiance without the Under God part in it) you,me and practically every American member of DP has uttered "under God" in a our pledge of allegiance and our money and has always had "In God We Trust" on it(unless you were born before 1864 or you are a Naturalized citizen).
If a founding forefathers and majority of citizens were muslim and those in the 1800s were muslim and those in the mid 50s were muslim then our money would probably have Under Allah in our pledge of allegiance and In Allah we Trust on our money and the same thing for any other religion.
I was born in the mid to late 1970s,so Under God was always in my pledge of allegiance and IN God we Trust was on our money.So it did not happen just yesterday.
S
I am not okay with changing tradition.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?